p.2 #2 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
John Caldwell wrote:
Wait 'til your our age
Seriously doubt I will manage living that long, would be nice tho..
But I understand that of course. Non-AF lens are not going to make everyone happy, rather limited market (should be bigger than before, thanks to mirrorless, but still small-ish).
p.2 #3 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
This lens over the Canon I take the Canon 135mm L. This lens on a A7 II with IBIS I would definitely buy it at $350-$400 mark. I think it's a bit too long for my X-T1 and with no IS yikes. My next body will probably be a A7 II when prices drop.
p.2 #4 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
How can you compare different subjects in the frame when they are not the same distance from the camera, ie. not in same plane?
Also this comparison is at far distance. How about at portrait distances?
p.2 #6 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
The Samyang comparison is interesting. Of course, they results might be just a bit biased. Perhaps the Canon lens was a poor copy? out of alighment? Many different factors to consider. For so long, the 135L was supposedly one of the best Canon lenses available. Is it really that bad or is the Samyang that much better Companies have been known to distort tests. Personally, I'll await more independent reviews/testing. It will be fun to see how others review this lens.
p.2 #7 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
wayne seltzer wrote:
How can you compare different subjects in the frame when they are not the same distance from the camera, ie. not in same plane?
Also this comparison is at far distance. How about at portrait distances?
Yeah it's not a "scientific" test but how about the first test (one with the "lens test" writing)? The Rokinon is clearly way better than the Canon, not only resolution wise. Although I am not sure if they used a good copy of the Canon.
p.2 #8 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
hijazist wrote:
Yeah it's not a "scientific" test but how about the first test (one with the "lens test" writing)? The Rokinon is clearly way better than the Canon, not only resolution wise. Although I am not sure if they used a good copy of the Canon.
gordorad wrote:
Many different factors to consider.
And that is presuming honesty in testing in light of intense interest and people ready to click 'Buy'.
p.2 #12 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
wayne seltzer wrote:
How can you compare different subjects in the frame when they are not the same distance from the camera, ie. not in same plane?
Also this comparison is at far distance. How about at portrait distances?
wayne seltzer wrote:
How can you compare different subjects in the frame when they are not the same distance from the camera, ie. not in same plane?
Also this comparison is at far distance. How about at portrait distances?
The studio setup detail image has two rows, the upper is the Canon, the lower the Samyang.
The far distance shot has two rows again, here the upper one is the Samyang, the lower the Canon.
Visit this site for more: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Samyang-135mm-f2-vs-Canon-EF-135mm-2-L
On that site are more images made with the Samyang lens. And the blogger has compared other non Samyang lenses too. So it is at least no pure Samyang website comparison. But likely he/she got the lens extra for this test.
p.2 #13 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
Could be a killer astro lens!
Can't wait to have full confirmation of the Samyang's optical performance wide open, and do applaud the increased choice and hopefully low price this lens offers.
I don't see that. The 135 f/2 L clearly shows the purple haze wide open here, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II does not. Outside the center the difference is very pronounced in favour of the zoom. You could also try copy 2 of the zoom, that is even better in the center than copy 1.
In the comparison between the Samyang and the Canon 135, the Canon looks like my copy except for the nearest near center crop of the building that seems to be out of focus.
Anyway, the Samyang fixes the main problem I have with the Caon 135 L wide open,some LoCA and bokeh color fringing.
Now, the interesting comparison will be with the Zeiss APO Sonnar. They are both manual focus and APO corrected. Does the Zeiss offer any visible difference, and which will have the most desirable bokeh (based on individual judgment and preference)?
p.2 #15 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
alundeb wrote:
I don't see that. The 135 f/2 L clearly shows the purple haze wide open here, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II does not. Outside the center the difference is very pronounced in favour of the zoom. You could also try copy 2 of the zoom, that is even better in the center than copy 1.
In the comparison between the Samyang and the Canon 135, the Canon looks like my copy except for the nearest near center crop of the building that seems to be out of focus.
Anyway, the Samyang fixes the main problem I have with the Caon 135 L wide open,some LoCA and bokeh color fringing.
Now, the interesting comparison will be with the Zeiss APO Sonnar. They are both manual focus and APO corrected. Does the Zeiss offer any visible difference, and which will have the most desirable bokeh (based on individual judgment and preference)? ...Show more →
You are right. I mixed them up when dragging the mouse. The zoom looks better wide-open (center, mid and corner)
p.2 #16 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
brett maxwell wrote:
I loved the 135L in my Canon days, so I was surprised to see how much this Samyang was superior in all the side-by-side tests.
gordorad wrote:
For so long, the 135L was supposedly one of the best Canon lenses available. Is it really that bad or is the Samyang that much better
Well Canon's 135L design is old enough to drink (pretty much anywhere but the US at least) so I'm not too surprised that lens designs have moved on with the increased amount of simulation that's possible these days.
I have always been pleased with the results from the 135L, but I believe that's because that focal length/aperture combination is one of those sweet spots, long enough for a simple telephoto design, short enough that an f/2 aperture is economical. The 135L is good in the centre, could be much better in the corners (just look at Zeiss 135 APO comparisons!)
I might just pick up an E-mount version of this for my A7ʀ, currently using my 135L with the Metabones adapter but it doesn't look like I'll be going back to Canon, I could sell both get the Samyang and pocket the difference.
p.2 #17 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
Well, the MTF looks pretty good.
At that price I might just spring for the F-mount version and give it a comparison between the 135/2 Nikkor & 135/2 APO Zeiss.
The Zeiss is excellent at all distances while the Nikkor is much better at far distances. I wonder how the Samyang will be near/far (maybe we already have that question) and how the CA & flare/ghosting will be. Sounds like a good late winter/early spring project.
p.2 #19 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
visionguru wrote:
Are you aware of Nikon 135 f/2D DC? It's older but very sharp and has better bokeh than Canon 135L, just costs a bit more than 135L.
Yes I'm aware of the Nikon 135. I guess I should have explained my rationalization (it made perfectly good sense in my head!)
Canon 135L is sold in the B&S forum pretty darn regularly, for about $725-ish.
Compare this to less frequent 135 Nikon listings for about $900-ish or so.
So, Nikon users will still have to pay about 69% more than the price of the Samyang for their 135/2, if they can find it for sale, whereas Canon users can get one for about 32% more and it's pretty darn easy to find a listing.
p.2 #20 · Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/2 ED UMC officially announced!
hijazist wrote:
Yeah it's not a "scientific" test but how about the first test (one with the "lens test" writing)? The Rokinon is clearly way better than the Canon, not only resolution wise. Although I am not sure if they used a good copy of the Canon.
Yes, the close tests look good for the Samy and I will wait for more reviews to confirm this. I am interested how it compares to the best 135's right now, the ZA 135/1.8 and Zeiss ZE/ZF 135/2. They are better than the 135L too but of course cost a lot more. Looks like a lot of bang for the buck. Need to see more bokeh examples. My ZA135/1.8 has an excellent combination of smooth, softly drawn bokeh and sharpness.Also, I like it is 1.8 which can give even more separation and background blur potential.
Since this is Canon forum, most don't care about the ZA 135/1.8.
Also, a comparison using a 36MP sensor camera like A7r would be interesting.
Companies have been known to distort tests. Personally, I'll await more independent reviews/testing. It will be fun to see how others review this lens.