Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ Lens Test Report: Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye
#11
[quote name='popo' date='16 June 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1276680167' post='557']

I got one of these to play with and also noticed it does extend slightly when focusing closer. It is barely 1mm or less.



Klaus, was your sample's focus scale incorrectly set? I've seen it reported elsewhere so I'm quite sure mine isn't unique, but for sharpest infinity setting I found I had to set it to about 0.7m on the scale. I know with the massive DoF focus accuracy isn't the most important, but it did mean you miss out on a little close focus ability.



Also on the previous question on using it with full frame, [url="http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc260/popotehrawr/coate/5d1/g2-s.jpg"]here[/url] a test shot I did previously on the 5D just to see how the image was without cutting the hood:

[/quote]





I do never set infinity focus on an ultra-wide. That's a waste of DOF.
#12
[quote name='Klaus' date='16 June 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1276683441' post='558']

I do never set infinity focus on an ultra-wide. That's a waste of DOF.

[/quote]

I agree 100%.



DoF isn't infinite, after all, not even with UWAs or fisheye lenses, and especially not on digital <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#13
I also play with imaging the night sky, so in that case everything was at infinity. I'm not surprised if the scale was a little out on a lens, but 0.7m is not even close to infinity. It also impacted the scale at close focus too.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#14
[quote name='Klaus' date='16 June 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1276683441' post='558']

I do never set infinity focus on an ultra-wide. That's a waste of DOF.

[/quote]



[quote name='wim' date='16 June 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1276683917' post='560']

I agree 100%. DoF isn't infinite, after all, not even with UWAs or fisheye lenses ...

[/quote]



I do more or less always use infinity ... if there is something in the frame that needs

infinity-focussing ... if that is not the case, I focus on the item that is furthest away.



For a good description, search the web for Harold Merklinger and depth of field ...

or have a look here ...

[url="http://jimdoty.com/Tips/Depth_of_Field/More_DOF/dof_merklinger/dof_merklinger.html"]http://jimdoty.com/T...merklinger.html[/url]

and here ...

[url="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html"]http://www.trenholm....mmerk/DOFR.html[/url]



for me, this approach works visibly better than the hyperfocal distance approach

that you two seem to use.



just my 2cts...Rainer
#15
[quote name='Klaus' date='16 June 2010 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1276675245' post='555']

Are you talking about the inner lens tube or the whole lens (including hood that is) ?

I didn't notice any extension of the overall physical length but maybe I'm wrong.



Thx

[/quote]



I don't know how to describe it, but it's pretty much like old manual primes,

i.e. the front part of the lens (with hood) from the focus ring on moves out,

and the whole lens block moves as a single unit (you can see on the camera side

how the rear lens moves by about 0.5 mm), and you can see the gap behind the

hood increase by about 0.5mm.

See also Michel Thoby's site

http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/Samyang_shaved.jpg

http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/Earl...eport.html



PS: He also made a focus map, from looking at about 300 images,

at 3-4 meter focus distance, pretty much everything is in focus
#16
[quote name='photonius' date='16 June 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1276714179' post='567']

I don't know how to describe it, but it's pretty much like old manual primes,

i.e. the front part of the lens (with hood) from the focus ring on moves out,

and the whole lens block moves as a single unit (you can see on the camera side

how the rear lens moves by about 0.5 mm), and you can see the gap behind the

hood increase by about 0.5mm.

See also Michel Thoby's site

[url="http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/Samyang_shaved.jpg"]http://michel.thoby....yang_shaved.jpg[/url]

[url="http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/Early%20test%20report.html"]http://michel.thoby....t%20report.html[/url]



PS: He also made a focus map, from looking at about 300 images,

at 3-4 meter focus distance, pretty much everything is in focus

[/quote]





Ok, I've changed the wording here.
#17
[quote name='Rainer' date='16 June 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1276708219' post='565']

I do more or less always use infinity ... if there is something in the frame that needs

infinity-focussing ... if that is not the case, I focus on the item that is furthest away.



For a good description, search the web for Harold Merklinger and depth of field ...

or have a look here ...

[url="http://jimdoty.com/Tips/Depth_of_Field/More_DOF/dof_merklinger/dof_merklinger.html"]http://jimdoty.com/T...merklinger.html[/url]

and here ...

[url="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html"]http://www.trenholm....mmerk/DOFR.html[/url]



for me, this approach works visibly better than the hyperfocal distance approach

that you two seem to use.



just my 2cts...Rainer

[/quote]



I don't really use the HFD - typically I end up somewhere between infinity and the HFD.

The circle of confusion is usually a bit optimistic in the usual HFD calculators out there (IMHO).
#18
[quote name='Rainer' date='16 June 2010 - 06:26 AM' timestamp='1276665982' post='552']

No Klaus but ...



the Samyang has (as mentioned in the review) an untypical projection.

Therefore it covers APS-C albeit it has "only" 8mm focal length.

Would you "shave" the hood, the image circle would be too big to be

a circular fisheye on fullframe ... to be a diagonal fisheye on APS-C it needs

an image circle of at least 28-29mm ... to be a circular fisheye on fullframe

it needs an imagecircle of no more than 24mm ... obviously it cannot be

both at the same time.



So if the hoods are removed, the circle would still be cut on top and bottom

of the frame (when used on fullframe).

[/quote]



Thanks Rainer, Photinius...

Should have realized that since it covered the full APSC frame the circular image wouldn't fit on FF. But as P says, it could still make a good lens for VR photographs on full frame...
#19
I've been after an affordable Fisheye for APS-C for some time, after reading the review I just couldn't resist the temptation any longer. Aperture control from the body on K10D/K20D in 1/3 stops, sturdy build and well finished a joy to use. Replaces the Sigma 16mm Fisheye I used on the Pentax KX/MX/LX bodies. Outer lens body finish is reminiscent of Pentax DA* primes, lovely. Thanks for the review Photozone! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)