Scott Stoness wrote:
Photozone says - optical quality Samyang 14 2.8 is 4/5 Better than Tokina, 16-35 and less than TS17. But has complex distortion for architecture shots that is hard to fix. (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=2 ). This confirms my understanding of the lens as being really really good for the dollar but with lots of rough edges.
If you check out the MTF figures from the individual reviews on Photozone it actually scores higher than the 17TSE by quite a bit, not to mention smacking it around for CA correction. The \"star rating\" is misleading in that the Samyang gets knocked entirely for distortion, an issue I\'ve never had a real issue with. The distortion was an issue when it came out but there\'s LR profiles out that correct it perfectly with IQ still above the level of the ZE21, so I consider it perfectly corrected in terms of distortion for my use.
Kenrockwell.com says 14L is better and Samyang is quite soft. A good low budget lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/samyang/14mm-f28.htm Ken\'s review is the only one I\"m able to find saying the Samyang is anything less than spectacular, leading me to believe it\'s a bad copy issue. Not that I consider KR a usable resource anyway from his 14-24 and Tokina 16-28 reviews, both of which suggest that the 14-24 is better than anything from Canon and everything from Nikon but the 16-35.
Examine the blur patterns on the F2.8 shots on the 14L and Samyang 14. Though the Samyang is still a bit sharper, we see what appears to be guassian blur surrounding the high contrast edges. Compare that to the shots of some of well-known mediocre lenses (24-85, 28/1.8) and you see an entirely different blur pattern (radial streaking), which leads me to believe there\'s a focus error in that test on both the 14L and Samyang.
Did it again at 17 on TS17 and 18 on 14-24 at f8 and they are pretty comparible. So 14-24 is not very sharp at 14. Less sharp in 14L and even the Samyang 14 at 14mm. Comparing to 17-40L at f8, Nikkor 14-24 might be slightly better.
Clearly this is wrong as it goes against both Ken\'s and Photozone\'s review. Or maybe they\'re wrong. Or maybe online reviews are a mediocre and inconsistent way of comparing lenses.
Nov 23, 2011 at 10:41 PM
Previous versions of Sp12's message #10111439 « 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24 »
