denoir wrote:
Wayne, yeah, I\'m a bit skeptical especially about the LoCA. Cavewalker demonstrated clearly that the Samyang produces a lot more LoCA than the 35/1.4 Distagon. And the 35/1.4 distagon produces more LoCA than the 35/2 Distagon.
The LoCA would be visible as green rings around the highlights in the bokeh:
Green rings around the highlights have almost nothing to do with a CA correction, and everything do with SA correction. Page 37-39 of that PDF can fill you in with the details. Green rings (spherochromaticism) is definitely not a CA effect. Even APO glass can have it. It\'s a SA effect. We can definitely agree it\'s one of the worst points on the Samyang 35.
I\'d say the Samyang is definitely a winner over the Zeiss 35/2 and 35/1.4 in terms of CA and LoCA correction. It just has overcorrected SA at longer distances and undercorrected at close. Meaning you get glow at closeups and sort of ugly bokeh at moderate distances.
Edit: D: have you ever used the 35-70? It\'s my favorite landscape 35, plus it does decent macro and 36-70. Plus, please read pages 37-38 before implying I haven\'t read it. I was consulted in the writing OF it.
denoir wrote:
Wayne, yeah, I\'m a bit skeptical especially about the LoCA. Cavewalker demonstrated clearly that the Samyang produces a lot more LoCA than the 35/1.4 Distagon. And the 35/1.4 distagon produces more LoCA than the 35/2 Distagon.
The LoCA would be visible as green rings around the highlights in the bokeh:
Green rings around the highlights have almost nothing to do with a CA correction, and everything do with SA correction. Page 37-39 of that PDF can fill you in with the details.
I\'d say the Samyang is definitely a winner over the Zeiss 35/2 and 35/1.4 in terms of CA and LoCA correction. It just has overcorrected SA at longer distances and undercorrected at close. Meaning you get glow at closeups and sort of ugly bokeh at moderate distances.
Edit: D: have you ever used the 35-70? It\'s my favorite landscape 35, plus it does decent macro and 36-70. Plus, please read pages 37-38 before implying I haven\'t read it. I was consulted in the writing OF it.
denoir wrote:
Wayne, yeah, I\'m a bit skeptical especially about the LoCA. Cavewalker demonstrated clearly that the Samyang produces a lot more LoCA than the 35/1.4 Distagon. And the 35/1.4 distagon produces more LoCA than the 35/2 Distagon.
The LoCA would be visible as green rings around the highlights in the bokeh:
Green rings around the highlights have almost nothing to do with a CA correction, and everything do with SA correction. Page 37-39 of that PDF can fill you in with the details.
I\'d say the Samyang is definitely a winner over the Zeiss 35/2 and 35/1.4 in terms of CA and LoCA correction. It just has overcorrected SA at longer distances and undercorrected at close. Meaning you get glow at closeups and sort of ugly bokeh at moderate distances.
Edit: D: have you ever used the 35-70? It\'s my favorite landscape 35, plus it does decent macro and 36-70.
denoir wrote:
Wayne, yeah, I\'m a bit skeptical especially about the LoCA. Cavewalker demonstrated clearly that the Samyang produces a lot more LoCA than the 35/1.4 Distagon. And the 35/1.4 distagon produces more LoCA than the 35/2 Distagon.
The LoCA would be visible as green rings around the highlights in the bokeh:
Green rings around the highlights have almost nothing to do with a CA correction, and everything do with SA correction. Page 37-39 of that PDF can fill you in with the details.
I\'d say the Samyang is definitely a winner over the Zeiss 35/2 and 35/1.4 in terms of CA and LoCA correction. It just has overcorrected SA at longer distances and undercorrected at close. Meaning you get glow at closeups and sort of ugly bokeh at moderate distances.
Aug 27, 2011 at 11:26 PM
Previous versions of Sp12's message #9874546 « Zeiss 35mm F2 vs Samyang 35mm F1.4 »
