cogitech wrote:
I have to say (as it might not be apparent so far) that I realize there is no right or wrong here. Just preference. I simply have a very strong preference.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I haven't shot either of these lenses...but from observing photos on this forum I think the FD is great for portraits including doing very well at short distances and wide open. The Zeiss does well espeically stopped down and at medium distances to infinity. ... The FD has an aspherical element which likely help with wide open sharpness and it has a floating element with likely helps with performance close in. The Zeiss has no special glass and no floating elements, but does great where these don't matter.
For someone that hasn't used either lens, you have a keen eye for their qualities, as I agree with your valid assessment from my experiences. The FD can make a 85mm work for head and shoulder portraits, but I was not satisfied with the C/Y 1.4 and found the C/Y 100/2 much more suitable. Maybe it was the extra foot or so in the focus distance or the extra depth of field bringing more of the subject into focus. As far as the C/Y 85/1.4 doing what it does best, stopped down and at medium distances to infinity, I think I would rather have the C/Y 85 Sonnar. I voted for the FD85L.
carstenw wrote:
Fair point, but it has to be said that having textured blur and less blur are not the same thing, so stopping down might not solve the problem satisfactorily.
In fact, stopping down from WO will usually make the bokeh more smooth, removing the double lines/bright rings and such. The radius of the blur does decrease of course.
Both the jigsaw or onion bokeh are not on every picture visible. But I got booth on pictures where it was very bad. Especially the jigsaw beokeh destroyed some pictures. Full open there where to much lens abberations, and at f/4 or 5.6 the DOF was too large.
I recall that the boke was similar and the Rokinon had less CA. I am not certain that the Rokinon would be better in all cases though. I used to own the 80/1.4 Lux-R, and loved it. I have also tried the Samyang 85/1.4, and wasn't overly impressed with it, just meh. Competent but not interesting. This was for walk-about, not portrait or close-up use.
cogitech wrote:
Actually, the Leica samples in tdong's test showed "ringed" bokeh highlights where the Rokinon's was extremely smooth.
Oh, I don't disagree that his test showed the Rokinon as being better in every way, or at least equal. However, in my personal experience, I loved my 80 Lux and felt no emotional connection to the Samyang I tried. YMMV.
Of course there could be or could have been sample to sample variation. So, we only really know for individual sample lens results which are being extrapolated to a generalization.
cogitech wrote:
Actually, the Leica samples in tdong's test showed "ringed" bokeh highlights where the Rokinon's was extremely smooth.
Sharpness-wise, at 100%, the Rokinon easily matched the Leica as well. Colours were basically the same.
His test was a major influence on my purchase of the Rokinon. I was an owner of the FD SSC Asph, EF 85/1.8, and Rokkor 85/1.7 at the time. I sold them all after testing the Rokinon.
Perhaps not a walk-around, but for portraits (which is basically all I use it for, except for some performance stuff as well) I couldn't find anything better, especially when price was considered.
If I hadn't needed the money so badly at the time, I would have kept the FD SSC Asph (and the CV 125/2.5, and the CZ21, and....). Now that I am financially better off, I do not feel the desire to re-purchase the FD. The CV125 and CZ21? Yes....Show more →
from all the comparisons i've seen the rokinon is sharper with better (smoother) bokeh at moderate to wide apertures. the leica could perform better at small apertures near infinite (i don't remember). i have my doubts that the rokinon and leica have colors that are basically the same. color is probably my favorite thing about leica lenses and the ones i have seem quite different from my rokinon, which has accurate but somewhat muted colors.
cogitech wrote:
You could be right about the colours. In tdong's samples, they looked virtually identical to me. Either way, I like the Rokinon's complete lack of cast. It is one of the "truest" lenses I have ever used with respect to colour. Muted? Perhaps. I like it - Reminds me of the wonderful look of the CV125.
yeah, the rokinon is probably more accurate than my leicas but i like the leica color better. the CV has the huge advantage of no CA over the rokinon.
cogitech wrote:
Or, perhaps because, well... it's a Leica!
No, it was because of the results. I am not married to Leica or anything. I really never got along with the 35 Cron-R, although I can see that others can do great work with it, for example. The first shot I took of my girlfriend at the time was the best shot which had ever been made of her, she claimed, and it just went from there. It definitely had some CA, as this other guy's test showed. I brought it with me to Egypt, and after a few days of using my 17-40L and 50 Cron-R (on a 5D), I ended up using the 80 Lux-R for most of the rest of the trip. There was just something about its results which hooked me. The focusing was quite difficult, it took me about 4 months to get good at it, and the action was too stiff as well, but it didn't matter. I also didn't pay all that much for it, this was back in 2006 when Leica R lenses were not that pricy.
The Samyang I just had no connection to. The mechanics and hood were awful, given, but although it was a bit sharper than my Leica, had less CA and similar boke, it was missing something. I looked and looked at the results, and just couldn't find anything to excite me about it. I am not sure what it was. Colours, DoF falloff, something!
Tests are good for some things, and completely bloody useless for other things. You can use a test to see if one lens is sharper than another, but you can't use a test to see if you will love one lens more than another; for this you have to just use it for some time.
Interesting comments about accurate vs. pleasing colours, that could have been one reason. There was also something in the boke and sharpness which was different.
