Distortion is a design property and not subject to copy variations. It does, however, vary with distance. In the Alt.gear forum, Toothwalker once showed an example with Zeiss 21 mustache distortion that disappeared / turned into barrel distortion at MFD. This can make it very difficult to correct for images with depth.
I am not especially grateful for links to images on other sites that requires a user registration at that site. Free image hosting is not difficult to find.
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 →
Why all this arguing? If you don't like the lens, don't buy it. Quite simple.
PaulB wrote:
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.
Same goes to you. I don't see why you have to argue with me for not liking the IQ of this lens. I realise it's a cheap lens and I don't expect the IQ to match an expensive L prime. And I don't think it does, but by the way you kept arguing with me, it seems like you want/wish it to. Perhaps you simply don't like the idea of buying an average lens?
chez wrote:
Why all this arguing? If you don't like the lens, don't buy it. Quite simple.
Why do you care? If you don't like the argument, just stay away from this thread, quite simple. Besides, it's not like you, and most regulars here, have never argued in this forum.
This is a lens even I can afford. I have tried the Sigma and the Canon 14MM, which resulted in disappointment. Sigma : Disappointment in image quality. Canon : Disappointment in cost.
harrygilbert wrote:
Anybody tried the Canon 15mm on the 5D2??
I have a 15mm and the 5D2 but the 15mm is a full frame fisheye lens and will have a lot of distortion. This 14mm is a rectilinear lens. The Sigma 12-24 works well on the 5Dm2 and I will compare it with the 14mm Samyang when I get it.
The 15mm fisheye on a full frame camera has a corner to corner fov of 180degrees a different type of lens design to this lens being discussed.
apsphoto wrote:
I have a 15mm and the 5D2 but the 15mm is a full frame fisheye lens and will have a lot of distortion. This 14mm is a rectilinear lens. The Sigma 12-24 works well on the 5Dm2 and I will compare it with the 14mm Samyang when I get it.
The 15mm fisheye on a full frame camera has a corner to corner fov of 180degrees a different type of lens design to this lens being discussed.
Alan
I'd agree with Alan.
I don't have a 5D2 but use 1DMkII and 1DsMkII and look on my15mm as more of a fun lens than a rectilinear like the Samyang.
I looked at some images from the Sigma 12-24mm and was quite impressed.
What put me off the Sigma is the overlap with existing lenses (16-35/2.8L and 24/3.5L TS-E) and the restricted aperture.
n0b0 wrote:
Same goes to you. I don't see why you have to argue with me for not liking the IQ of this lens. I realise it's a cheap lens and I don't expect the IQ to match an expensive L prime. And I don't think it does, but by the way you kept arguing with me, it seems like you want/wish it to. Perhaps you simply don't like the idea of buying an average lens?
Why do you care? If you don't like the argument, just stay away from this thread, quite simple. Besides, it's not like you, and most regulars here, have never argued in this forum....Show more →
So how about the distortion 'problem' now I've posted an image?
n0b0 wrote:
Same goes to you. I don't see why you have to argue with me for not liking the IQ of this lens. I realise it's a cheap lens and I don't expect the IQ to match an expensive L prime. And I don't think it does, but by the way you kept arguing with me, it seems like you want/wish it to. Perhaps you simply don't like the idea of buying an average lens?
Why do you care? If you don't like the argument, just stay away from this thread, quite simple. Besides, it's not like you, and most regulars here, have never argued in this forum....Show more →
The reason I'm interested in this thread is because of the lens, not all the arguing.
alundeb wrote:
Thanks for the images, Paul !
Distortion is there, but not bad for the price.
Not bad at all for about one seventh of the price of the Canon 14mm in the UK.
Funnily enough I ran an image from the Canon EF 14/2.8L II through PTLens and used, firstly, the 'correct' settings and then the settings for the Samyang.
The Samyang settings seem to give a better result although the L gives less obvious distortion when uncorrected. Strange.
Will have to try and take the same image with the Samyang to be sure though.
I don't think I've ever actually claimed that the lens doesn't suffer distortion.
Just that my copy doesn't suffer the same extreme distortions seen in some of the other samples.
Of course every UWA has distortions of some sort or another (most lens designs do) - or at least every one I've ever used did - that's part of the design compromises required to get them to work.
