ecarlino
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.6 #1 · Reduced: Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8 APO ($1,899) | |
SAMYANG: "this is what it costs if you ONLY pay for image quality alone."
Let me start by saying (again) I don't have any skin in this game (i.e. I don't own any of these lenses yet - so I'm not biased trying to defend a decision I made previously)
I'll also note that I am impressed with the IQ I've seen from the Samyang 135 - clearly a great optic.
And finally, let's be clear that ALL manufacturers could do better at QC, each seems to have one or more bad eggs (we don't need to list them all, we know who they are)
So, my point (finally) is that one of the biggest expenses in manufacturing technical items (cameras, electronics, chips, etc) is having to throw away 'defects'. I had heard that one of the reasons Sony was selling sensors to Nikon was that there were certain 'standards' (e.g. #bad pixels per sensor) that Sony would keep for themselves and sell Nikon chips with more bad pixels but even then, some chips would have to be thrown away.
Roger had a great explanation regarding lens manufacturing during the discussion on the Sony FE 35/1.4 QC issues - detailing how expensive it is to repair/replace and that's why manufacturers just try to 'sell' everything they make, regardless if it's really perfect or not, even hoping many won't notice.
I realize cost of labor in Korea is probably a fraction of what it is in Japan, so that can explain some of the cost savings for the Samyang. But an even bigger factor seems to be quality. Not only "quality control" (i.e. letting defects leave the factory) but more so in the design of the parts, etc and their 'expected life'.
I have never handled a Samyang and am not that familiar with their family of brands but I've noticed more than a chorus of people who have their issues.
SLRlounge has a great article discussing the quality and durability of the Samyang lenses and goes as far as to describe them as practically 'disposable'.
Here is the full article:
https://www.slrlounge.com/rokinon-samyang-bower-lenses-long-term-quality-review/
I don't think the author of that article was actually being critical of their lenses (he seems to like them and even referred to it as the 'benefits of disposable') but if we're discussing variances in pricing, certainly the quality of design and construction and quality standards and thresholds needs to be a factor. It might not be unreasonable that it would cost 2 to 3 times as much to design/build something that will last decades instead of years.
For me the author's most relevant point regarding relative pricing is this comment on the Samyang lenses:
"this is what it costs if you ONLY pay for image quality alone."
Here is the specific discussion on that from the article:
Rokinon / Bower / Samyang’s Reputation For Amazing Sharpness
Simply put, if you’re in the market for a sharp lens but you’re on a budget, any of these lenses should be at the very top of your list of options to consider.
Rokinon / Bower / Samyang Construction Quality
However, in case you haven’t been reading online reviews as avidly as I have, it is no secret that Rokinon lenses aren’t the greatest quality when it comes to their actual construction. Simply put, plastic abounds. And not only that, but the overall construction quality is, well, hit-or-miss. Some would call it downright sloppy, I would just call it “low budget”. You get what you pay for, and apparently this is what it costs if you ONLY pay for image quality alone.
Roger Cicala over at LensRentals.com puts it very nicely in this article here…
I will note, this [Rokinon 14mm] is held together inside with plastic, glue, and small screws. You won’t be using it for years. But the price of a new one is less than the price of a repair on a 14-24 f/2.8.
Personally, I can confirm this in the real world that “you won’t be using it for years”. In short, over the past few years my friends and I have collectively had to repair or completely replace numerous Roki-Bow-Yang 24mm f/1.4’s and 14mm f/2.8’s. They just don’t stay together.
A wedding shooter, unfortunately, may find themselves in the same predicament. Especially if you use a rolling hard case such as a Pelican, which are notorious for giving all your gear a nice “gentle” rattling over time.
They might not fall apart in your hands, but your lenses may eventually get soft around the edges. This is a classic sign of a de-centered lens element, which is very common among poorly constructed lenses that are susceptible to light but repetitive bumps etc.
|
