Cableaddict wrote:
Careful. Bower & Rokinon (& Opteka, FWIW) aren't automatically the same lens. Case in point, the 85mm. The Bower, Rokinon & Opteka look slightly different, and sell for about $100 less.
.
In what way do they "look slightly different"? The label?
As far as I have seen, the specs and block diagrams are identical on all these 85s.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I have used the Canon EF 14 and it spanked both of the Sigma versions of the 14 I have tried. The Canon was sharper but the other big difference was that it did not flare as much as the cheaper lenses. You would expect some flare when shooting into the sun but my Sigma would pick up big globs of flare light in all kinds of normal shooting conditions. You really had to shoot with one hand and use the other as a custom lens flag. I notice that there is some flare in some of the Samyang samples. See the middle and right rows of building shots here: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?news=1761 Some of the "where did that come from" flare is the type of flare that drove me nuts with the Sigma. The couple of times I rented the EF 14 I really noticed how much better controlled this was.
Of course the big attraction here is the huge price difference with the Samyang as apposed to the Canon. It will be interesting to see when some early adopters from this forum get some copies of this lens for testing etc. I have the EF 16-35 II and its pretty decent in a non excellent kind of way. The super wide lens I plan on getting (might have to rob bank first) is the EF 17 TS-E. ...Show more →
I have the Sigma 14mm 3.5 and it sure can flare, but I bought it for one use, interior shooting. One of my clients builds custom cabinets and I am frequently shooting kitchens and baths in tight quarters. If you control lighting it works great. For grab shots and the like, not so great. For those not familiar with the lens, this is what you can expect with less than perfect technique:
I need to extend the wings of the built in hood about 1-2mm at most, as well as carry a small flag with me. Overall, though, for $200 I can't complain.
It would be interesting to stack it up against a de-fished 15 or 16mm shot though. I bet the Fisheye would be better. It was in a match up for Canon EF 15 vs. the 14L mk1.
"Samyang Optics has announced a delay in production of its new 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical lens. According to the company, the delay is due to partial redesigning of the lens construction and further improvements. The lens will now be available in the first quarter of 2010."
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Looks decent by f/8 or so. Not bad for $400!
Damn, 14mm is wide.
-Ed
If the 14mm is wide, the Sigma 12-24mm at 12mm is really...really...wide - that extra 2mm does make a difference.
Plus the Sigma has really good distortion control for a lens this wide. The best part is it sells for around $575-$600 used - not that much more than the $400 Samyang with the added bonus of 2mm, zoom, AF, etc..etc...
That said, I am quite impressed with what I see with this lens and am tempted to get it once it is available.
I'm happily surprised with a Nikon 14/2.8 AF lens I picked up here on the boards. I've had the Sigma 12-24, Sigma 14/2.8, Tamron 14/2.8, and Nikon 14-24/2.8 - and the Nikon is better than expected. Much better than what Mark reports on 16:9. I don't see that bad zone of focus that he reports. I have seen a super critical response to using a perfect adapter, and one must use correct focus technique. I have tried all 4 of my high quality adapters on it and they all perform differently. With the best adapter this lens performs better than any other 14mm solution I've tried, except for the Nikon 14-24G. The performance is good enough for me, and I appreciate it's smaller form factor compared to the 14-24.
I'd heard about the Samyang 14, and contemplated not buying the Nikon, but now I am very glad I did. It's an excellent perfomer, that's available now, and it is built like a tank. According to the seller my Nikon 14 has seen heavy pro use (and it is KEH UG) but it still performs admirably and all the controls are smooth and solid. Gotta love the Nikon pro bulid on this lens
"Samyang Optics has announced a delay in production of its new 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical lens. According to the company, the delay is due to partial redesigning of the lens construction and further improvements. The lens will now be available in the first quarter of 2010."
In other words, they see the 85/1.4 Aspherical selling like hot-cakes due to it's incredible performance for the money and they want to make sure to offer the same excellent value in the 14mm (and, presumably, in the 35/1.2 ).
Agree. Maybe what we were seeing in different sample pictures was a wide lens quality variation. If they're addressing that before they release the lens, I think it's admirable on their part.
This was originally a 300 lens. Presumably, they jacked up the price because of a bad production run which left them with soft lenses. They didn't sell one in the 3+ weeks they were taking pre orders on ebay @ $400 and now they've pulled the pre sale altogether.
The Samyang 14/2.8 has two aspherical lens elements, one being a molded aspherical lens. It seems that lens manufacturers have a hard time producing high quality/consistent performing molded aspherical elements. Every lens that I have seen using that technology (including my Tamron 20-40) seems to have a wide range of performance. Put on top of that the tolerances for an ultrawide...
Even Canon seem to have a hard time producing consistantly high performing wide angle lenses. Nikon is the only SLR manufacturer doing a top notch job. The Nikon 14-24G has three aspherical lens elements, but I don't think any of them are molded. The Nikon 17-35/2.8 is another consistantly excellent performer.
PSquared63 wrote:
Agree. Maybe what we were seeing in different sample pictures was a wide lens quality variation.
Or just different post processing. I have never understood how so many can judge lenses from pictures taken with unknown settings. You can't even know they are properly focused.
While perhaps more "lowly" vs. polished/ground elements, moulded asphericals are a mature technology and a known quantity. There shouldn't be consistency issues in producing them due to their construction nature.
There are a few types of molded aspherical lenses that often get lumped together. One is a single element, that can be made of glass or high index plastic. The other is a plastic element that gets molded to a glass element. It's not clear what Samyang was using in their design, but I still consider "molded aspherical" to be unreliable in perfomance. Does anyone know of a lens using a molded asherical that has a great reputation?
Thanks for the info that the release of this lens has been postphoned - very interesting. Seems like some problems with the lens were observed - at least they realized it and want to solve those issues. Let's hope that we will see a flawless product in 2010 - I still keep my hopes up that it will be optically in quality similar to Canon's 14 mm prime lens.
Erie Patsellis wrote:
I need to extend the wings of the built in hood about 1-2mm at most, as well as carry a small flag with me. Overall, though, for $200 I can't complain.
).