When I owned the Canon 85 1.8 EF, I was amazed at just how sharp it was wide open. The Bokeh could really be terrible though in certain situations. The lens also seemed to have very mushy-flat color contrast.
cogitech wrote:
Sure, I'll do some stopped-down testing as well, if I have time. I have to admit that I'd never use any of these lenses stopped down past f4, but it would be interesting.
I do know that the Rokinon is not so shit hot at infinity. Again, a moot point to me but may be important to some.
Thanks very much. I'm mostly curious what happens with your lens at 5.6 - 8. The lens reputedly has very little distortion so if it is sharp enough stopped down, it might also be useful for other uses beyond portraiture.
There was a thread awhile back with shots from this lens from someone here(maybe makten?) where I commented that this lens could be called Sammylux as it's very smooth bokeh reminded me of the sigma 50 lens(sigmalux).
In that thread it was reported that sammy 85 was designed more for the wide open end and was not as sharp as other 85's stopped down to 5.6 or f8.
Also, that it's other weakness was it's bad CA/LoCA.
Maybe you could include some CA/LoCA test shots?
Even looking at the center portion pixel peeps there really is very little between them.
Obviously there is a difference in oof areas between f/1.2 and f/1.8. Most of the time it is advantageous not to shoot wide open. For instance I would rather pick a higher ISO and shoot at f/2.0 than shoot at a lower ISO wide open with my 58/1.2 Rokkor.
Looking at these samples at f/2.0 there is not that much difference as far as I can tell. The EF version has slightly more rounded detail in the circles in the upper left corner and lower right corner. The center portion of the EF looks good. But this is picking nits. All three look really solid. I would welcome any of these three lenses into my camera bag. I have not used the EF 85/1.8 but I own and use the EF 100/2.0 and its a great lens when you consider that it can be focussed using AF, with manual focus, without needing stop down metering and no conversion hassles.
What I notice from these interesting tests is that these three lenses yield far more closer results than I would have expected. I would have expected the FD/1.2 to spank the other two lenses. Instead I am way impressed with the Rokinson as an affordable alternative. I am also impressed with the EF version given how many affordable used (or new) copies there are available. The EF is the only auto focus lens of the three. I know many Alt Forum members have zero regard for AF but there are legions of newspaper photographers who had to shoot high school basketball games in dark gymnasiums who would pray for and swear their allegiance/appreciation to the EF 85/1.8.
Paul, thanks for the great comparison. The one thing I noticed that is important to me is the shadow detail/color. Canon DSLR's boost the reds in the shadows too much, IMO. For that reason, I prefer the Canon 85/1.8. For portraits, it gives them a nice look (not as nice as the Nikon 85/1.8 AI which has better color and lovely bokeh). But it is still the only Canon lens I've ever recommended - and I've been shooting "Canon" for well over five years with my SLR/c
Looking at the samples I would actually say that the rokinon shows ever so slightly less cyan fringing in the bokeh than the SSC, which i find rather unbelievable seeing as the SSC/1.2 appears to be incredible with fringing and great with LoCA as Paul has shown in previous threads (the watch in the wedding photo particularly).
I have the EF 85/1.8 and I really doubt I'l ever sell it but there is definitely a place in my bag for a faster 85 that doesnt fringe out the wazoo every time I get a bride with shiny earrings, which is 99% of them!
Obviously, a good sample of this lens is a steal at $200 plus change. The question is what sort of sample variation exists. If I can end up with a lens that performs as good as the ca/sharpness test posted above wide open and at F8, I would be very happy indeed.
How in the world can a company not known for producing exceptional lenses come out of nowhere and offer such quality for practically nothing? Granted, I'm sure the mechanics/build quality is not incredible but what's the deal? Have we all been getting screwed that much buying expensive glass made by the usual suspects? Is there really that much profit in lenses? Or is this company giving these things away to build a name for themselves?
