01-12-2015, 09:42 PM
01-12-2015, 10:40 PM
davidmanze
01-13-2015, 10:37 AM
Mounts agogo!
Guest
01-13-2015, 04:03 PM
Wow.
It makes complete logical sense to share the basic lens across DSLR mounts, I'm surprised that they just extended the tube down for the mirrorless APS-C/m43 mounts. At that size and weight I certainly don't want one.
Now if they had built in a focal reducer and made it a ~100mm f/1.4....I'd be all in.
It makes complete logical sense to share the basic lens across DSLR mounts, I'm surprised that they just extended the tube down for the mirrorless APS-C/m43 mounts. At that size and weight I certainly don't want one.
Now if they had built in a focal reducer and made it a ~100mm f/1.4....I'd be all in.
Scythels
01-13-2015, 04:13 PM
You don't want the size and weight yet you would accept more weight...
Designing focal reducers is a complex process, and the price with one would be a fair bit higher.
Designing focal reducers is a complex process, and the price with one would be a fair bit higher.
Guest
01-13-2015, 05:05 PM
Quote:You don't want the size and weight yet you would accept more weight...
Designing focal reducers is a complex process, and the price with one would be a fair bit higher.
Yes.
This is my exact 'Full frame vs. Cropped' argument. Why carry lenses designed for a different format, just re-badged for the smaller one?
I will carry weight if it is warranted, like for a 100mm/1.4 lens or something exotic. Or, alternately, I would buy a 135mm f/2 which was more compact and a lot lighter, as it would be if it was designed for the Fuji X/m43 format.
But to just take a lens with a too-big image circle and extend the tube down to the mount doesn't make much sense IMO. I'd rather pick up a Leica M 135mm, or in this case I'd even rather buy a Nikon/Pentax version and adapt it to Fuji X.
As for price, yes I understand that even designing a (non-focal reduced) Fuji X variant will cost R&D money.
01-13-2015, 07:01 PM
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Samyang-13...-135mm-2-L
Some tests here.
Looks very promising compared to the 135L for two major things I care about: LoCA and general resolution. If this is verified at other tests (I'm in no hurry) I would replace my 135L with one. Note I *only* use my 135L for astrophotography so considerations may vary from "normal" users of a 135mm lens.
Some tests here.
Looks very promising compared to the 135L for two major things I care about: LoCA and general resolution. If this is verified at other tests (I'm in no hurry) I would replace my 135L with one. Note I *only* use my 135L for astrophotography so considerations may vary from "normal" users of a 135mm lens.
01-13-2015, 08:46 PM
His 135L was clearly a bad one - see point A in the 2nd test. There is no way that the center of the image is worse than the borders C/D/E.
That being said - I continue to be surprised by Samyang.
Hopefully they got their quality control right though - they struggled with this in 2013 at least.
That being said - I continue to be surprised by Samyang.
Hopefully they got their quality control right though - they struggled with this in 2013 at least.
01-13-2015, 10:34 PM
Good point, but the relative absence of LoCA on the Samyang is a major point for me. Needs a harsher test to be sure though.
Scythels
01-14-2015, 04:02 PM
It seems to have some focus shift due to badly corrected spherical aberration. All other aberrations seem to be quite well controlled. After their new 50mm and now this I am beginning to think that samyang is designing their lenses with a workflow very dissimilar to other manufactures and strong weighting to off-axis (corner) performance.