Just out of curiosity does it report 14mm in the exif? I did not see any contacts on the lens so I am wondering if it reports anything?
I also noticed that Adobe has released their lens profile creator for CS5 so you can correct for lens distortion and make your own lens corrections so PTLENS will no longer be needed.
Just out of curiosity does it report 14mm in the exif? I did not see any contacts on the lens so I am wondering if it reports anything?
I also noticed that Adobe has released their lens profile creator for CS5 so you can correct for lens distortion and make your own lens corrections so PTLENS will no longer be needed.
Alan
There is no chip on the lens so the lens doesn't report anything at all in the EXIF, beyond what the body puts there.
It is possible to add one of the programmable AF confirm chips to report focal length and max. aperture but as the diaphragm is purely manual the f-stop used won't report either unless you dial it in the body on M and set the lens to the same f-stop. Or just not bother, not difficult to tell that you used a 14mm lens, especially on FF even in Av.
Yes I've got the Adobe Lens Profile Creator but haven't used it in anger yet - more when I have. The PTLens setting for the Samyang is really good though and I suspect that at first the Adobe LPC will need a fair bit of work to get the best out of the profiles - it just sounds too easy and too good to be true at the moment.
PaulB wrote:
OK so don't believe me - your loss.
No offence but I'll say again, my lens doesn't exhibit that kind of distortion.
Also things aren't always what they seem.................
if you care to look at the EXIF for that image you will see that it is taken on a D3x and the EXIF shows a focal length of 13mm - exactly what lens that is I don't know (but I suspect that the lens is one of last years pre-production models (date of image is 18-09-2009) which were withdrawn because Samyang weren't happy about the results) PTLens hasn't any distortion correction settings for this Nikon/Samyang combination either; but has for the Samyang 14/2.8 on Canon bodies, and which works rather well - but I assume you won't believe me about that either?. ...Show more →
What was it that they say? Oh yeah... Picture or it didn't happen. If your copy is so great, let us see some sample shots. How hard is that?
Now, you also said yourself,
There is no chip on the lens so the lens doesn't report anything at all in the EXIF, beyond what the body puts there.
So where did the detailed D3x EXIF info come from? Maybe the owner put a chip on it himself?
And first you said your lens doesn't have that kind of distortion and then you said PTlens has the correction setting for this lens on EOS bodies. Does that mean only your copy has no funky distortion?
So you expect me to believe what you said when your posts aren't even consistent? C'mon mate...
n0b0 wrote:
What was it that they say? Oh yeah... Picture or it didn't happen. If your copy is so great, let us see some sample shots. How hard is that?
Now, you also said yourself,
So where did the detailed D3x EXIF info come from? Maybe the owner put a chip on it himself?
And first you said your lens doesn't have that kind of distortion and then you said PTlens has the correction setting for this lens on EOS bodies. Does that mean only your copy has no funky distortion?
So you expect me to believe what you said when your posts aren't even consistent? C'mon mate... ...Show more →
PTLens has settings for lots of lenses which are reckoned to have minimal distortion - but that doesn't mean there is some which can be corrected. And, no my version of PTLens doesn't have the D3X/Samyang 14mm combination listed.(Up to date as far as yesterday).
My Samyang 14/2.8 doesn't exhibit the distortion (moustache, wave, call it what you will) that the sample images taken in 2009 on a Nikon D3X with the EXIF added (as pointed out by another poster) using a pre-production lens.
Samyang stated at the time that they were not happy with the results from the pre-production lenses and put back availability until Spring 2010 (ie. now).
Samyang explicitly stated that this was to improve performance, especially with regard to flare - this, of course, doesn't mean that they didn't tweak other aspects of the lens' performance when they improved the lens coatings and modified the internal baffling (which is what they say they did).
The point I am trying to make is that the Samyang 14/2.8 on sale today is different in some/possibly many respects from the one(s) which took the 2009 sample images.
Of course I could have the only 'perfect' example ever made to date...........but I think that that's unlikely.
Try this: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=448159&d=1272964750
Got any smaller pic? But no matter, even at that size, it still doesn't look sharp and it seems to be lacking in contrast. Maybe it's just the lighting, but either way, it's nothing special.
Heh, nice one with the UFO thing, a bit juvenile, but nice. I do think that there are other lifeforms outside of earth, not necessarily a grey man in a flying saucer though.
Ok, after my Samyang site is discussed here, I want to give further informations.
My Samyang 14 mm/ 2.8 should be out of the new production. In the Ebay auction it was stated that it should be ready in May, but it was ready end April.
My lens has the hevy distortion - which is not to see on every picture. If one photographs buildings frontal with parallel camera the distrotion is ugly. But at the moment I have only one image on the Samyang site distortion corrected with PTLens - for that correction parameters my lens was the model.
I like the lens - but it is clear to me, that it is not a realy good lens. But that is ok for me, cause I donīt want to spend more money. I would like if Tamron build their 14 mm / 2.8 lens, that lens was better I think. Every time I met a Tamron guy, I try to persuade him to persuade his bosses.
n0b0 wrote:
There are tons of exif editors out there, may not be in-camera but the result's still the same.
Got any smaller pic? But no matter, even at that size, it still doesn't look sharp and it seems to be lacking in contrast. Maybe it's just the lighting, but either way, it's nothing special.
Heh, nice one with the UFO thing, a bit juvenile, but nice. I do think that there are other lifeforms outside of earth, not necessarily a grey man in a flying saucer though.
Why would you want a smaller pic?
I thought that if you couldn't look at 300% of the original image it wasn't worth looking at at all.
I didn't promise 'special' anything about the image, it's not intended to be a great image, or for art printing, literally a snapshot (not even on a tripod I'm afraid) to see how the lens worked; it's not had anything done to it other than PTLens, no levels/contrast/sharpening/white balance etc.; it was just to illustrate how PTLens works with the 14/2.8.
There's no pleasing some folks I guess.
I think people need to be realistic as well. This lens is a 1/5 the cost of the Canon equivalent, so to expect on par performance is not going to happen, even if it is made without all bells and whistles like AF, auto aperture,etc. The real question is whether it produces acceptable results with or without correction steps. For me, I'm more of a critter photographer so forking over $2,500 for the Canon doesn't make sense. But if this lens gives decent results that can be corrected( or maybe even not noticeable in some situations), then it sounds like a good deal to me. Those photographing buildings may have a different opinion of course!
n0b0 wrote:
How would I know you only wanted to show the lack of distortion? There isn't much straight lines in the photo to begin with.
If you want to show the distortion (or the lack of), shoot that cathedral up close, then post the BEFORE and AFTER PTlens correction.
If you don't like my conclusions regarding 'my' copy of this lens then I suggest you don't read my posts about it.
That way we can both save ourselves some time.
What annoys me is that you seem to want to be convinced that ALL these lenses are the same and cannot accept that 'my' copy just may be as I say it is.
scott f wrote:
I think people need to be realistic as well. This lens is a 1/5 the cost of the Canon equivalent, so to expect on par performance is not going to happen, even if it is made without all bells and whistles like AF, auto aperture,etc. The real question is whether it produces acceptable results with or without correction steps. For me, I'm more of a critter photographer so forking over $2,500 for the Canon doesn't make sense. But if this lens gives decent results that can be corrected( or maybe even not noticeable in some situations), then it sounds like a good deal to me. Those photographing buildings may have a different opinion of course! ...Show more →
Well put, seems some have rather overlooked these points.
PaulB wrote:
If you don't like my conclusions regarding 'my' copy of this lens then I suggest you don't read my posts about it.
That way we can both save ourselves some time.
What annoys me is that you seem to want to be convinced that ALL these lenses are the same and cannot accept that 'my' copy just may be as I say it is.
And what annoys me is that you seem to think that YOUR copy sets the standard for this lens, which I think isn't really good anyway.
I saw the Nikon samples and I didn't think they're very good. You posted your own sample and I still think it's not very good. ZoneV who owns this lens also said it's not really good.
If you really think it's THAT good, feel free to post the best photo you think you can take with it and prove me wrong and I'd be glad to apologise... and go buy a copy of Sigma 8-16mm.
As one can see on my site, some kind of architecture are no problem with the Samyang - even without distortion correction.
With the correction one loose a bit of image quality, and a bit of wideangle, but it is still a interessting lens for me.
I would not like to spent > 1000 Euro for a Canon 14 mm lens, for that images I made at the moment with such a lens. There are mor interessting things to buy for that money. But, I understand taht not everyone would like this lens, because of the distortion, or lack of edge sharpness or even lack of autofocus ans auto-iris.
n0b0 wrote:
And what annoys me is that you seem to think that YOUR copy sets the standard for this lens, which I think isn't really good anyway.
I saw the Nikon samples and I didn't think they're very good. You posted your own sample and I still think it's not very good. ZoneV who owns this lens also said it's not really good.
If you really think it's THAT good, feel free to post the best photo you think you can take with it and prove me wrong and I'd be glad to apologise... and go buy a copy of Sigma 8-16mm....Show more →
There are differences within samples of many lenses, lots of them commented upon on forums such as this
I can only comment on my particular copy - I accept that some samples out there are different, but those images aren't from my lens.
I don't see why I should chase around trying to convince you personally - it's not as if I'm trying to sell you anything.
If you don't like my conclusions then tough.
PS. The Sigma wouldn't be any use to me, however good optically, as I don't use APS-C sensor bodies.
Perhaps you should get someone to test a Samyang 14mm on an APS-C sensor body as all the samples are from FF.
I did some tests with a crop camera - with my crop infrared camera exactly. The Samyang works well - but I would not buy that lens only for a crop DSLR camera. It is huge an heavy, and I think for crop are better lenses around for simmmiliar price I suppose.
If your copy is so great, let us see some sample shots. How hard is that?
