Kind of an odd result but didn't they have a very bad review of the GM?
Well I do know that when tested with the last GM I owned none of the 3 copies I tested of the Samyang were sharper in the center or most part of the frames except the bottom part where my GM kept losing resolution for some reason. And of course neither was close to the Sigma I ended up keeping.
Bokeh wise, I think my sample images speak for themselves. The Samyang Is surely smoother than the Batis or Sony 1.8 but the GM and Art have smoother bokeh rendering.
I really wanted to keep that lens and use the money saved towards the 135mm GM but in the end the AF consistency, sharpness across the frame and bokeh rendering were not enough to my liking to make the change.
Of course that doesn't make it a bad lens, just one that did not fit my needs
derKoekje wrote:
zeitlos wrote:
Nice verdict:
"I think we don't even have to write a very lengthy summary in this case. If a lens of an independent producer three times cheaper than its well-done brand name rival fares in most categories better than the said brand name lens, you really don't have to be verbose"
(compared to the Sony 85/1.4 GM)
I don’t know if I can agree with this assessment . I mean I love the rendering of this lens from the samples I see, and it’s plenty sharp for sure, perhaps even sharper in the center, but mechanical vignetting leads to a pretty unique look that you really have to love. The bokeh is also busier compared to the GM. The GM is better corrected with less aberrations, and with less vignetting. This, along with its sluggish but reliable AF and better controls gives credence to it being the better portrait lens.
That being said, the differences are minor and I personally don’t think the GM is worth two and a half times the price of the Samyang, Sony’s lenses are notoriously expensive. But, I can very well imagine why people choose the GM over it.
Jul 06, 2019 at 01:32 AM
Previous versions of GabrielPhoto's message #14901808 « Official: Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 FE ($699) »
