Often we see in comparisons just how similar lenses are, but also we find out that subtle differences can have a lot of impact. So much of it is subjective, of course. I find the differences between the FD and the Rokinon to be subtle, but significant. The EF is sharp enough, but that's about all the positive I can say about it. Regarding bokeh, it is not even in the same class as the other two (this is where the subjectivity creeps in).
Ulrik,
If I have time, I'll test the bokeh at smaller apertures. Since you love the Sigmalux, I think this one is a good bet.
Empire,
Don't draw too many conclusions about CA simply from that cyan edge on the OOF highlights, as it isn't a good indicator of overall CA performance of these two lenses (as far as I can tell). Here is a separate test I did when I first got the Rokinon, which is a much better representation of the defocus CA.
Note: the FD is focused somewhere between 140mm and 150mm (on the scale) which results in both being a bit dull, whereas the Rokinon is pretty much bang on 140mm (so it is not so easy to conclude about resolution here, if you are tempted to do so )
Here, the FD has superior CA control (as I expected) but the Rokinon isn't that much worse. See how the reddish and greenish hues show up more along the right hand scale on the Rokinon shot. Also, the FD's CA seems to be more "blended" rather than super defined. This likely has to do with the relative lack of DoF (as both lenses are wide open). I think it is interesting that the defocus CA on the actual scales of the ruler is really well controlled in both lenses, but that the super bright, left edge of the ruler coaxes out the worse each lens has to offer. The full sun was reflecting directly off that left edge.
I think CA testing is one of the most difficult to to keep consistant, so I do not consider these results to be conclusive at all. "Purple fringing" can pop up out of the blue sometimes, so I need to use this lens a lot more in "real world" situations.
On a side note, one might notice how the Rokinon (Samyang) seemed to have better CA control than the EF 85/1.2 L II in that other test above, but worse CA control compared to the the FD 85/1.2 SSC Asph here, which says a lot about all three lenses, IMO.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
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?...Show more →
Same way Cosina did in the late 90's with RF lenses and what Nikon did in the 1950's. Design a top-quality optic, build it cheaply and sell not that much above cost.
Another great thread on this lens, thanks for taking your time to do the test! And for actually using a real subject rather than a fence or pole or something (not that those tests aren't helpful.)
Glad to see more people becoming Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Polar/Vivitar believers. It's a great 1/4 price alternative if you don't "need" AF. I honestly can't imagine paying 4x for the Nikon.
mawz wrote:
Same way Cosina did in the late 90's with RF lenses and what Nikon did in the 1950's. Design a top-quality optic, build it cheaply and sell not that much above cost.
I thought of Cosina but don't recall them ever being quite this inexpensive for fast glass. Closer to twice as much but then I suspect the Consina's are built to a higher mechanical standard with better materials. I have read of a few instances of aperture mechanism/blade problems with the Samyang.
OT: Does anyone have any comments regarding the build quality of the various versions of this lens and which version has the best build? I'd love to pick one up, but in the photos I've seen of the Vivitar, it looks pretty cheap. The Rokinon looks good though. Any thoughts?
All my research thus far has indicated that the mechanics of all the various Samyangs are the same and the only differences are cosmetic. Oddly, the pricing can vary quite a bit between the various brands.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
All my research thus far has indicated that the mechanics of all the various Samyangs are the same and the only differences are cosmetic. Oddly, the pricing can vary quite a bit between the various brands.
I came to the same conclusion based on all that I had read.
The Vivitar is by far the fugliest, and it is usually one of the more expensive "brands".
The Rokinon and Opteka are typically about $100 cheaper than the Vivitar and Samyang branded ones. Of these cheap ones, I decided on the Rokinon simply because it was the "latest version" as offered by Cameta and it came with the hood and soft case. The Opteka was about $20 cheaper but it didn't come with the accessories and c'mon, "Opteka"? Rokinon sounds way cooler!
There's also the Falcon, but who wants a reminder of the "(not so) Balloon Boy"?
One of the interesting things these kinds of tests reveal is that lenses can be much closer in terms of performance than we give them credit for.
You might have one photographer shooting something while thinking "thank God I am using this ABC lens." Or you might have another photographer shooting the same thing while thinking "if only I was not using this XYZ lens". But both lenses might be a lot closer than they realize.
If you condensed all the threads on this forum and poured it onto a inspection plate you would see that many, if not all of us, have our personal favorites, high regards and distastes for all the available lenses across the spectrum. We go out of our way to champion those lenses we believe in and sometimes go out of our way to undermine those we find lacking. All of which should be taken with a grain of salt as the saying goes.
When it comes to highlighting 85mm lenses I bet if Paul's test included 12 different samples there would not be that much between them really. Subtle differences for sure, but nothing mind blowing. Some might be slightly better at bokeh, close distances, or at infinity. But if they were all shot at a medium distance I would not be that surprised at the slight differences. When we shoot a photo with our favorite lens and post it here we are often saying "see how great THIS lens is!" But if the picture is well executed by a good photographer odds are another lens would have delivered a similar pleasing result.
But most of the fun here is exploring the possibilities and enjoying the lenses we individually choose.
Don't really need an 85 f1.4 for my Alpha 900, but I couldn't resist the price...ordered one today. OFF TOPIC--I am looking to put together a really LIGHT travel kit for my A900. So far I have a 20mm Minolta, 28mm Sony, 50mm f1.7 Minolta. Very nice, compact, and light. It leaves me short on the longer end though. I bought a $26.00 (no kidding) 35-70 f4 on ebay, which I guess will partly fill the bill. What I really need is a light weight, small 85mm f2.8 of f3.5. Any suggestions? (My normal kit when not considering weight is 16-35 Zeiss, 24-70 Zeiss, and 70-300 Sony G...you know what that weighs!)
Dave
Beach Haven NJ
I actually put my AF 85 1.4 up for sale today.. I'm thinking about getting rid of the 70-200 2.8 too, I have used it three times since I got it. Time to move stuff I don't use out!
Which seems to show that the Rokinon (Samyang) is basically on par (or better?) than the EF 85/1.2 L II with respect to defocus CA.
Thanks Paul for finding those LoCA comparison shots, very interesting results.
I found the page in the alt thread where Makten was commenting about the severe LoCA with his copy on the D700 and his B&W pictures which show how sharp the lens is wide open.
gurtch wrote:
Don't really need an 85 f1.4 for my Alpha 900, but I couldn't resist the price...ordered one today. OFF TOPIC--I am looking to put together a really LIGHT travel kit for my A900. So far I have a 20mm Minolta, 28mm Sony, 50mm f1.7 Minolta. Very nice, compact, and light. It leaves me short on the longer end though. I bought a $26.00 (no kidding) 35-70 f4 on ebay, which I guess will partly fill the bill. What I really need is a light weight, small 85mm f2.8 of f3.5. Any suggestions? (My normal kit when not considering weight is 16-35 Zeiss, 24-70 Zeiss, and 70-300 Sony G...you know what that weighs!)
Dave
Beach Haven NJ...Show more →
Not sure if the alpha mount will take Contax adapters (though I think it does), but the Zeiss 85/2.8 Sonnar is an absolute gem. Tack sharp straight from wide open, great contrast, good bokeh, and wonderful color. I don't think I'll ever get rid of mine.
Jman13 wrote:
Not sure if the alpha mount will take Contax adapters (though I think it does), but the Zeiss 85/2.8 Sonnar is an absolute gem. Tack sharp straight from wide open, great contrast, good bokeh, and wonderful color. I don't think I'll ever get rid of mine.
Thanks I do have an M42 adapter; I wanted to avoid the adapte route if I can.
Dave
It is SSC, of course.