wayne seltzer wrote:
Definitely a different price and performance point from the new ZE 35/1.4 and even the old C/Y 35/1.4. Don't try the new ZE 35/1.4 or ~$1800 might fly out of your account!
Two things I see in some of the Samy 35/1.4 shots that I thoght you guys could either confirm or deny:
1) Sometimes colored objects which are in defocused background seem to get rendered more saturated and slightly more brighter than what looks normal. It is similar to what I have seen in some Sigma 50/1.4 shots. I have also seen this in some Nikon 200/2 VR shots.
2) To me there seems to be a slight undercorrected SA design look to the wide open shots that I see with this lens. Not as much as the new ZE 35/1.4 but still there seems to be some. I was wondering if you have read the Zeiss paper on bokeh and could use their example test of focusing on a say a printed letter "X" and slightly rotate the focus ring and notice how the letter "X" gets rendered in the bokeh. This is on test to see if the lens design is undercorrected for SA.
TIA ...Show more →
I have not used the lens enough yet to answer your questions but one thing I have noticed with regard to shooting closer subject matter with F-stops below F4 is that this lens exhibits fairly strongly what I believe some call the Leica glow. There is a central bright area and I now don't believe it is entirely due to normal vignetting. My Leica Summicron 50mm R shows the exact same behavior.
I would love to try the new ZF 35 1.4 on my a900 sometime when available but I have not really been too impressed by what I have seen from it given it's price. Sacrilege I know, but I suspect this Samyang/ Rokinon may outperform it.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Definitely a different price and performance point from the new ZE 35/1.4 and even the old C/Y 35/1.4. Don't try the new ZE 35/1.4 or ~$1800 might fly out of your account!
Two things I see in some of the Samy 35/1.4 shots that I thoght you guys could either confirm or deny:
1) Sometimes colored objects which are in defocused background seem to get rendered more saturated and slightly more brighter than what looks normal. It is similar to what I have seen in some Sigma 50/1.4 shots. I have also seen this in some Nikon 200/2 VR shots.
2) To me there seems to be a slight undercorrected SA design look to the wide open shots that I see with this lens. Not as much as the new ZE 35/1.4 but still there seems to be some. I was wondering if you have read the Zeiss paper on bokeh and could use their example test of focusing on a say a printed letter "X" and slightly rotate the focus ring and notice how the letter "X" gets rendered in the bokeh. This is on test to see if the lens design is undercorrected for SA.
TIA ...Show more →
This is VERY interesting to me Wayne. I was (as probably many others) looking for a 1.4 35mm and I am keen to know the differences to eg Zeiss (in C/Y version that would have been an alternative to me). Or the L for that matter (there the AF is the obvious one). After (soon) three days with the lens I am very happy with the performance.
So for 1) I wonder, what is "natural". In my case I usually give images vibrance in ACR as it pleases me more with than without. Never more saturation though, to me THAT quickly gets unnatural with almost any lens in my world. Too much? I would not pay 1000€+ to get something I easily can REDUCE, in particular a characteristics that I normally INCREASE. (no shouting intended, just easier than some italics-tag... :-)
For 2) I am not sure what you mean. SA? Do you mean that this "cheapo" does better here. And if so, why get the Zeiss?
Bokeh rendering - IMHO - is something some fast Sigmas does better (or if you like, more natural) than some of the really great Zeisses - from which you and others posts VERY nice shots from. Often jaw dropping stuff, but the bokeh is seldom part of the jaw-dropping factor to me. Sigma examples are 50/1.4 and 30/1.4. I've had both but not anymore. I like it smooth and soft. As eg. the Samyang 85/1.4 (which I've never had, just browsed a lot of HQ images).
For the record, I am sure I would be VERY happy with the L as I would be with the ZE35/1.4. It will be very interesting to see the (very likely) forthcoming comparisons.
Here's another snap from today, as always F/1.4, I love it :-)
From the Nikon review: Samyang continues to surprise us with the high quality of their recently released products. The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC is capable of delivering a very high quality straight from f/1.4. The contrast level is a bit reduced at max. aperture. Stopping down boosts the contrast whereas the resolution improves to basically excellent results at medium aperture settings. It may be a surprising news but it matches the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.4 G here. There's a some vignetting at max. aperture but it's not an issue anymore at smaller apertures. There's a moderate amount of barrel distortions but that's nothing out-of-the-ordinary. The quality of the bokeh is on the nervous side but that's a fate that it shares with the Nikkor lens actually. The amount of bokeh fringing is typical for a lens in this class.
The mechanical quality of the Samyang lens is on a very high level. It may not be a full-metal lens but the lens body is made of high quality plastics and it's a joy to use the damped focus ring. A limiting factor is certainly the lack of AF. However, keep in mind that the lens costs just a fraction of the corresponding Nikkor so its a fairly obvious choice for budget-oriented users with a desire for high speed (ultra-large aperture) and high quality images....Show more →
