parsons wrote:
i still dont know why you are not thinking about the nikon 14-24? every mm is equivalnt to a zeiss prime,
I think you'll find yourself in the minority on that one.
in fact, Im going to go ahead and file that one under wishful thinking. you see, you didn't qualify that, so I can mention lenses like the ZM 15/2.8 which the 14-24 is clearly outlcassed by.
Few friends of mine use Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for night/aurora shots and timelapses. I understand it's reasonably sharp wide open. Probably no match for the new Zeiss 15/2.8 ...but it's only $350!
Not too long ago someone here around posted a star field shot that he was very proud of showing off a wide Samyang. Yes, it was great, in a way. But there were more and larger gullwings in that image than in most images from real gull colonies. Itīs with lenses as with telescopes: "astronomers tend to see nothing but aberrations in their colleagues telescopes".
Now looking at the Samyang 24mm again has me thinking twice. There is precious little on the net and aside from an early test by lenstip there has been a good response for the lens. Has anyone here got experience of the 24 1.4?
Alex Nail wrote:
Now looking at the Samyang 24mm again has me thinking twice. There is precious little on the net and aside from an early test by lenstip there has been a good response for the lens. Has anyone here got experience of the 24 1.4?
Going around in circles here.....
In all honesty, as much as I like Zeiss lenses (and I REALLY like them), if I were starting over again I might go with the Nikon 14-24 with Canon adapter. The IQ is pretty close to Zeiss. From all of my trials, I have found that 14 - 24 are my most use FLs for Auarora photography (actually 14, 16, & 21). So as posted earlier, the Nikon takes the place of 3 primes, saving allot of hassle.
The only downside is the whole adapter thing - No EXIF information, no automatic aperture control (though if you shoot wide open it's not such a big deal). And no autofocus.
The last point about autofocus isn't such a big deal if you are buying a truly manual focus lense (like Zeiss). But on a an autofocus lens, the manual focus ring always seems like an afterthought and is sloppy and not very precise. The Nikon is typical of that as well.
Guess this didn't help you make up your mind any, did it!
matanuska wrote:
In all honesty, as much as I like Zeiss lenses (and I REALLY like them), if I were starting over again I might go with the Nikon 14-24 with Canon adapter. The IQ is pretty close to Zeiss. From all of my trials, I have found that 14 - 24 are my most use FLs for Aurora photography (actually 14, 16, & 21). So as posted earlier, the Nikon takes the place of 3 primes, saving allot of hassle.
I don't have immediate plans to shoot Aurora I must admit, and I don't really feel that the 14-24 would be lacking in IQ for my purposes, plenty of reviews show that what you are saying is true, even if the zeiss has a slight edge wide open. The problem with the 14-24 for me is that its impractical to hike with in terms of weight and its front element, which terrifies me. The inability to use a polariser for daytime shots is a problem too. I've had lots of people suggest the 14-24 though, you are not alone :P
Z250SA wrote:
Not too long ago someone here around posted a star field shot that he was very proud of showing off a wide Samyang. Yes, it was great, in a way. But there were more and larger gullwings in that image than in most images from real gull colonies. Itīs with lenses as with telescopes: "astronomers tend to see nothing but aberrations in their colleagues telescopes".
I've not seen what you're referring to in the Samyang 14/2.8 images. But I've only seen websized images. Like these: http://www.islenskljosmyndun.is/index.php?topic=890.msg5245#msg5245 (its in Icelandic but you can scroll down to see the images) Do you remember what lens it was?
