Run that through it's lens profile in Lightroom and you'll see how well it cleans up. I have the lens and for landscapes I have no issues at all. Extremely sharp and you cannot beat it's price. For a fringe lens range, the Samsung is a bargain.
What will be the differences in the new model Samyang 14mm announced today? Just curious how much of this they might improve or how much their price might increase?
Not being super-knowledgeable on ultra-wides, I'm also curious how much the Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye could be used for rectilinear shots at 14mm or 15mm (on a full-frame)?
I'd expect there's a fair amount of post-processing involved, but have seen a number of sample shots from the 8-15mm fisheye that looked almost as "normal" as ones from the 14mm.
alfarmer wrote:
What will be the differences in the new model Samyang 14mm announced today? Just curious how much of this they might improve or how much their price might increase?
Nothing I'd say; same optics, it's all about the super smooth focusing. Around double the price it seems.
alfarmer wrote:
Not being super-knowledgeable on ultra-wides, I'm also curious how much the Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye could be used for rectilinear shots at 14mm or 15mm (on a full-frame)?
I'd expect there's a fair amount of post-processing involved, but have seen a number of sample shots from the 8-15mm fisheye that looked almost as "normal" as ones from the 14mm.
The problem is that the amount of post processing required to defish an image will result in significant loss of resolution, since good chunks of the image are "stretched", interpolated.
When I compare a lens like the 14mm L II with lenses like the 16-35L and the 17-40L Im talking about the zooms at their WIDEST setting. Obviously the zooms offer much more flexibility! I know ive used my 17-40L pegged at the 17mm setting quite a few times.
wrote:
Run that through it's lens profile in Lightroom and you'll see how well it cleans up. I have the lens and for landscapes I have no issues at all. Extremely sharp and you cannot beat it's price. For a fringe lens range, the Samsung is a bargain.
For architecture, urban, or interiors such distortion is a problem and cleaning it up after the fact lessens quality even if it is only slightly and adds an extra step on every image. Same for shots with buildings or interiors or urban backgrounds.
alfarmer wrote:
I'm curious about the 14L as a choice over the 16-35L. Is 2mm really that significant for enough people?
I realize it's quite an achievement in a non-fisheye, but am wondering if there's a significant enough market for such a lens or if there's an element of showmanship involved on the part of Canon? (Some Swiss watch makers create specialty movements for similar purposes.)
If you are using 1.3 crop body 14mm will be great option for landscapes but still very expensive. I am fine with 16-35L on FF.
I would rent the 14mm for a day and see with your own eyes. I did, and now it is helping me create as a series of wonderful landscape works as I could hope for. I always believe that if there is any ambivalence to a camera equipment decision, then rental should be the first course of action. Rent both lenses in question, and in a matter of hours you will know.
