Got it yesterday evening. Here are some observations.
It's sharp. I am no tripod guy, that kind of usage is not interesting to me. Everything I do is handheld and more or less "on-the-fly". I have a 5D2 (21MP) and the replacement focusing screen EG-S. Works really fine, really easy close distance but long distance or infinity can be a little more tricky. After a day with the lens I get perhaps spot-on 1-2 out of 3-4. That is less than with AF, but to me fine given the performance of the lens.
Buildquality is fine, but actually I thought all the images on the web made it look a little better than it does. But it's more than ok, just as midpriced EF-lenses.
On the downside I sometimes find a "haze" on images taken in harsh sunlight (as we have here now). Maybe this phenomenon has a name, anyone?
I prefer to use Av since I dont plan photography too much. In light conditions I need to underexpose at least 2/3 to get happy. In harsher light even more. In eveninglight Av works better more or less +/-0. This "variable" behaviour is different from the fast Canon lenses I use.
Today we went to the summer-house and I walked around taking 100+ images. All images are at F/1.4 except the one on the house which is F/4. All handheld "just walking around" trying to find something to shoot.... sry for quite a lot images but hopefully it will show that this is a really nice lens. For it's price it's stunning (which my images are not...but in good use I am sure you can imagine what it can do... :-)
(sry for some b/w - I am into that nowadays)
A first shot, the sons bike on the balcony yesterday
Then we came to the summer house (only image F/4, rest is F/1.4)
The 100% crop is sharp enough, modestly sharpened in ACR
So, a strole in the "garden". What could these be called in english?
A former plum tree, fell under the snow this winter
Corner sharpness is absolutely fine, as this axe
EG-S works fine, this also shows a lot of bokeh char'
For horses some 100 years ago or so, the narrow DOF is obvious
Through the window, an old Husqvarna. They used to make anything containing metal, including cross-bikes and what have you...
There's a lot of flowers here but I missed them all
I just received this lens today and I'm still evaluating it's performance to decide whether to keep it or not. My first reaction was to wonder if they accidentally sent me a large aperture zoom lens as this thing is huge in size for a fixed 35mm lens - even a very fast one. First impression of image quality is that it reminds me very much of the Rokinon 85 1.4. It is fairly sharp wide open but does give that soft, low contrast look. A result of a little veiling glare I guess. Perfect for flattering portraits if that look is desired - detailed yet still soft looking. Most posted images I have seen from this lens appear to have been processed for greater contrast and color saturation. The look reminds me most of Canon if I had to make a comparison. I do find the lens somewhat difficult to focus and I suspect this lack of contrast/pop is to blame. One nice thing about the lens is that, unlike the 85 1.4, the 35 1.4 looks like it's going to perform well at both close distances and at infinity. On the downside, I have noticed some barrel distortion. The bokeh is also interesting as on close inspection, one can see patterns within the bokeh, I'm guessing a result of the way the aspherical element was made. Likely this only shows up in rare situations. Below is an example at 100% and wide open which shows the patterned bokeh. http://www.gibranstudio.com/rokbok.jpg
freaklikeme wrote:
Fingerprint bokeh! My copy of the FD 24L did that in certain situations, so you may be on to something about the aspherical element, Tariq.
This came up in another thread where it was said that either the mold for the aspherical element in the case of glass mold asphericals or the grinding technique might leave subtle shapes in the glass which in some cases may result in this look. Fingerprint bokeh is a great term for it.
Looks like I have to eat my words regarding my initial impressions. This lens is turning out to be quite amazing. In particular, now that I have had a chance to shoot in really good light, I see I was completely wrong regarding the color and contrast. Both are much greater than the previous Samyang/Rokinon 85 1.4 - at least as good as my Summicron 50 R, perhaps even better stopped down. The other nice quality about this lens is that it behaves more traditinally with regard to stopping down and continues to get sharp. By 5.6 or F8, it's pretty much tack sharp into the corners on FF so it's great for landscape use as well - not a one trick pony like the 85 1.4 which was not so sharp when used at greater distances. All this is as shot with my Sony a900. I am noticing that exposure can be tricky as there is quite a bit of vignetting until stopped down at least until F4. The result is that I find an exposure adjustment of -1 is required at the brighter stops or central subjects will be overexposed. After F4 or so, that compensation is not required and would result in underexposure. Anyway, great lens and I will definitely be keeping mine.
Here is a shot with ACR default settings except for slight exposure adjustment.
And for the record (Tariq), there's no added saturation or contrast in any of my images incl. the repeated image below. For color images I usually add a some vibrance (as in this image) and a bit of clarity (LCE). To finish off, there's a Levels in PS. That's it. Great lens indeed.
And for the record (Tariq), there's no added saturation or contrast in any of my images incl. the repeated image below. For color images I usually add a some vibrance (as in this image) and a bit of clarity (LCE). To finish off, there's a Levels in PS. That's it. Great lens indeed.
That's actually a lot given that vibrance increases color saturation, levels can be used to increase contrast thereby also increasing color saturation and clarity can have a similar effet with regard to contrast. Anyway, they look great. As I noted above, I do find the lens to offer much better out of camera contrast and color than I initially thought.
ovredal73 wrote:
I am on the fence about this Samyang still, but it looks good. I think I will wait for the Rokinon version, they seem to be a bit cheaper, and I am actually not in a hurry for another 35/1.4. I got the Canon, the Contax, the AiS and the OM f2 as well... Btw, based on the hyping done by the two of you, Paul and Ulrik, I got the Rokinon 85, which is a fantastic lens, so thank you for giving me the heads up on that one.
I will likely wait for a Rokinon version as well. I have no other 35/1.4, but I am still not in much of a rush
Glad to hear you like the Rokinon 85, and I'd love to see some of your photos with it (but I guess I'd have to visit here more than once every few weeks/months in order to see them...)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's actually a lot given that vibrance increases color saturation, levels can be used to increase contrast thereby also increasing color saturation and clarity can have a similar effet with regard to contrast. Anyway, they look great. As I noted above, I do find the lens to offer much better out of camera contrast and color than I initially thought.
You're right. Vibrance adds color in less saturated regions. Clarity (or LCE as I noted) works quite different than contrast IMHO. The problem with clarity and fast lenses is that it can produce unwanted results in the out-of-focus/bokeh areas. So in ACR it should be used with caution when using fast lenses. Otherwise it's a free lunch.
But generally, I believe you actually OWE F/1.4 images more of both vibrance and clarity compared to images stopped down. Samyang 35/1.4 is a good example. In the images below there is LESS vibrance and LESS clarity added in the F/3.5 image than in the F/1.4. You'll be able to see that despite this - the F/3.5 shows more local contrast and color SAT. To really see the difference, open in separate tabs/windows and swap).
(sorry for the lack of variation of motives, I'm still at the summer house)
F/1.4 (more vibrance and clarity employed in ACR)
F/3.5 (less vibrance, less clarity employed)
..and a bonus Samyang snapshot from today, F/1.4 and slightly out of focus/subject motion blur but still (IMO) a good picture.
Icecream but rain is coming...
Edit: error on which image that got the most ....now corrected, sry
wfrank wrote:
You're right. Vibrance adds color in less saturated regions. Clarity (or LCE as I noted) works quite different than contrast IMHO. The problem with clarity and fast lenses is that it can produce unwanted results in the out-of-focus/bokeh areas. So in ACR it should be used with caution when using fast lenses. Otherwise it's a free lunch.
But generally, I believe you actually OWE F/1.4 images more of both vibrance and clarity compared to images stopped down. Samyang 35/1.4 is a good example. In the images below there is LESS vibrance and LESS clarity added in the F/1.4 image than in the F/3.5. You'll be able to see that despite this - the F/3.5 shows more local contrast and color SAT. To really see the difference, open in separate tabs/windows and swap).
(sorry for the lack of variation of motives, I'm still at the summer house)
I agree. Most images shot wide open will benefit from a little more contrast due to the veiling glare caused by light bouncing around in the lens. Using clarity is not a free lunch though even beyond what it can do to out of focus areas. It was developed based on the technique of using an unsharp mask with a low amount (say 20) and a high radius (say 50) which many of us were using prior to the existence of the convenient slider. It does boost contrast but it's more of a localized boost. It will blow out both color channels and can also result in a loss of detail at both ends if not used with care. Instead, I now prefer to use a High Pass technique to avoid some of those pitfalls. I duplicate the image on a new layer in PS, run a low high pass sharpen (2 - 4) on that and then use a blending mode of soft light/ hard light or Vivid. I can then adjust the transparency of that layer for the degree of the effect I desire. Anyway, here is a comparison of the unaltered image, maximum clarity and the high pass method. Notice how the yellow is completely blown out using extreme clarity. it also dramatically increases contrast for a loss of highlight and shadow detail. All 100% crops wide open. http://www.gibranstudio.com/freelunch.jpg
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
).
As I noted above, I do find the lens to offer much better out of camera contrast and color than I initially thought.
