kaldur wrote:
Re vs the 24 GM and 20G, Dustin's results don't quite match Marc Alhadeffs. One might wonder where the sample variation is
To avoid me having to read 6 reviews to find this disagreement, could you summarize it? Not having seen the discrepancy, and knowing that sample variation is a real thing, I know whose test methodology I think is more robust between those two people...
To be fair, Dustin compared to 20mm 1.8 G, where Samyang was superior, and to 35mm GM (so not 24mm) where Samyang was inferior. Also, Marc Alhadeffs compared Samyang only to 24mm 1.4 GM and concluded Samyang is inferior. But if you cross-compare Marc's reviews for 20mm 1.8 G and Samyang 24mm 1.8, you can definitely see different results compared to Dustin.
I think the biggest difference I saw was between Marc's and Dustin's review of Tamron 24mm f2.8. According to Marc that lens is resolution champion, while according to Dustin is about the same as 17-28 f2.8 zoom.
bjornthun wrote:
None of them do MTF meassurements, that lensrentals.com do.
None of them (except lensrentals ) test several copies which is needed for anything but an anecdote. Many well made anecdotes can still make a story. In this case the anecdotes differ somewhat, which can be sample variation, testing methodology, reviewer bias, whatever. I didn't mean to state "this is the objective truth", I merely wanted to point out that there are differing anecdotes and not all of them find this lens the best thing since granola. I have no horse in the race.
For Canadians, eh, I just ordered the SY 24mm f1.8 from Amazon Canada for C$526 (+ tax), which is around US$400 after factoring in F/X conversion rates, so about $100 savings. I have the Sony 20G too, so I'll be doing a comparison and deciding which one to keep, which might be both if the IQ is similar.
I just got my copy a couple of days ago and it is a killer lens for the money, much better than 28mm Sony in terms of sharpness and aberrations. AF works well, I tested its video AF at a wedding last weekend (both full frame and crop) and it did a very good job in low light. Stills low light AF is also great, eye-af works just fine, really no complaints. And it is super compact and lightweight.
I just have one question to all of you Lightroom users who happen to have this lens - which profile do you use to correct its distortion? Would Adobe profile for Samyang AF 24mm 2.8 be a good choice or do you suggest something else? Or maybe no correction at all until Adobe introduces the profile?
davidcarpenter wrote:
...I just have one question to all of you Lightroom users who happen to have this lens - which profile do you use to correct its distortion?....
There's some hint at time-stamp 14:00 on this video (for now, I don't correct it on mine):
chrisd999 wrote:
For Canadians, eh, I just ordered the SY 24mm f1.8 from Amazon Canada for C$526 (+ tax), which is around US$400 after factoring in F/X conversion rates, so about $100 savings. I have the Sony 20G too, so I'll be doing a comparison and deciding which one to keep, which might be both if the IQ is similar.
Received my Samyang 24mm f1.8 lens from Amazon yesterday. Unfortunately, it's clearly a bad copy. Very blurry across the entire frame with a ton of CA wide open. Doesn't clean up until f8. It's so bad, it has to be a bad copy, IQ looks nothing like the samples I have seen from CF and DA, as well as on Flickr. Back it goes.
davidcarpenter wrote:
I just have one question to all of you Lightroom users who happen to have this lens - which profile do you use to correct its distortion? Would Adobe profile for Samyang AF 24mm 2.8 be a good choice or do you suggest something else? Or maybe no correction at all until Adobe introduces the profile?
Er... if the image looks straight enough to you (e.g. in a landscape shot), then why correct? And if you see distortion (e.g. in an architecture shot), then you simply correct "by eye" - where is the problem? I photograph mainly with old manual lenses for the last 3 years, and they also have of course no "profile", and the instances where I have to correct for distortion are rare...
Basically summary seems completely opposite compared to Dustin Abbot's review. This is definitely much more than a simple "sample variation" difference. And what's strange is the fact that LensTip highly praised all other Samyang Tiny lenses, and they were specifically disappointed because performance is worse than other Samyang 1.8 lenses. So a completely opposite conclusion to Dustin, which praised this lens as the best Samyang 1.8 lens so far.
Basically summary seems completely opposite compared to Dustin Abbot's review. This is definitely much more than a simple "sample variation" difference. And what's strange is the fact that LensTip highly praised all other Samyang Tiny lenses, and they were specifically disappointed because performance is worse than other Samyang 1.8 lenses. So a completely opposite conclusion to Dustin, which praised this lens as the best Samyang 1.8 lens so far.
Let me put some context to this since LensTip is just an english translation of their main site which is Optyczne.pl. We talked with the author of this article in the comments and we almost all agree that he had an bad copy of the lens. We linked him some examples of our pictures with a good copy. Sadly just like QC in Samyang is still kinda random, Optyczne.pl/LensTip never retests the same lens with another copy.
In conclusion don't take their review to heart.
I also think Dustin is on the other extreme where he gets the best copy (like most YT reviewers) of the lens sent by Samyang so he almost never has any problems with their lenses while some people unlucky with QC do.
Immortal wrote:
Let me put some context to this since LensTip is just an english translation of their main site which is Optyczne.pl. We talked with the author of this article in the comments and we almost all agree that he had an bad copy of the lens. We linked him some examples of our pictures with a good copy. Sadly just like QC in Samyang is still kinda random, Optyczne.pl/LensTip never retests the same lens with another copy.
In conclusion don't take their review to heart.
I also think Dustin is on the other extreme where he gets the best copy (like most YT reviewers) of the lens sent by Samyang so he almost never has any problems with their lenses while some people unlucky with QC do....Show more →
Thanks for this post. My life is too busy to worry about QC problems, testing multiple copies and sending lenses back. Guess I will stick to the GM lens, which could also have QC issues as well, but the probability should be lower...I hope.
Basically summary seems completely opposite compared to Dustin Abbot's review. This is definitely much more than a simple "sample variation" difference. And what's strange is the fact that LensTip highly praised all other Samyang Tiny lenses, and they were specifically disappointed because performance is worse than other Samyang 1.8 lenses. So a completely opposite conclusion to Dustin, which praised this lens as the best Samyang 1.8 lens so far.
I really dont know how they do MTF's
one thing to note about the samyang is that IQ up close is very bad
possibly copy variation, the right side looks softer based on their sample image:
Maybe this question is beyond the scope of this thread, but how common is it that aberration control varies with copy, in lenses generally?
Here are lenstip's and DA's LoCA tests
It's interesting to me to consider whether this is sample variation or just similarly performing lenses reacting to different tests (and what does that mean for how we judge lens reviews).
NJPhotographer wrote:
That looks excellent to me. It's at f/2.
Did you open the image in a new tab and look at 100%? Personally I don't want to exclude DOF effects from the softness in that image, but regardless of why, I really don't think the image quality on the sides is excellent.
