08-16-2010, 07:26 PM
08-16-2010, 08:59 PM
14l II vs Samyang? AF and EF vs MF and non-automatic aperture? For me the 14L II would win, although I could be convinced to get a Samyang for curiosity 's sake <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I would be very interested in seeing the rendering differences, however, so I better check out the posted pics <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Thanks for the review, Klaus!
Kindest regards, Wim
Thanks for the review, Klaus!
Kindest regards, Wim
08-16-2010, 10:46 PM
Looking at current UK prices, the Canon is 6x the cost of the Samyang. It's better, but that is a tough value trade off. It's not a focal length I'm too interested in right now, but I think the distortion of the Samyang would be a deal breaker, and the price of the Canon likewise. Then again, unless I go FF again it isn't something I have to think about <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
If I want wide angle distortion, I already have the 8mm fisheye <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
If I want wide angle distortion, I already have the 8mm fisheye <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Yakim
08-17-2010, 01:20 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1281986812' post='1819']
Very good ... but is it really a better choice compared to the el-cheapo Samyang ? [/quote]
Not as I see it. If I was after that kind of lens I'd buy the Samyang, correct the distortion in PP and live with the MF. I do like AF on every lens (even on UWA and macro I used it extensively) but at this kind of price difference I'd happily live without it.
Very good ... but is it really a better choice compared to the el-cheapo Samyang ? [/quote]
Not as I see it. If I was after that kind of lens I'd buy the Samyang, correct the distortion in PP and live with the MF. I do like AF on every lens (even on UWA and macro I used it extensively) but at this kind of price difference I'd happily live without it.
Guest
08-17-2010, 01:58 PM
I am quite surprised by the results. Was expecting the optical quality to be a total disaster as compared to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 @ 14 mm. But hey, hey... it's just as good with much less distortion.
So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
08-17-2010, 02:36 PM
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1282053499' post='1841']
I am quite surprised by the results. Was expecting the optical quality to be a total disaster as compared to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 @ 14 mm. But hey, hey... it's just as good with much less distortion.
So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[/quote]
Actually the sample wasn't even perfect.
I am quite surprised by the results. Was expecting the optical quality to be a total disaster as compared to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 @ 14 mm. But hey, hey... it's just as good with much less distortion.
So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[/quote]
Actually the sample wasn't even perfect.
Guest
08-18-2010, 11:52 AM
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1282051204' post='1840']
Not as I see it. If I was after that kind of lens I'd buy the Samyang, correct the distortion in PP and live with the MF. I do like AF on every lens (even on UWA and macro I used it extensively) but at this kind of price difference I'd happily live without it.
[/quote]
Actually, with distortion correction having come more and more places, and the huge DOF of such a wide angle, those two points are really not that problematic. I'd go for Samyang unless I could point at a very specific reason why not.
-Lars
Not as I see it. If I was after that kind of lens I'd buy the Samyang, correct the distortion in PP and live with the MF. I do like AF on every lens (even on UWA and macro I used it extensively) but at this kind of price difference I'd happily live without it.
[/quote]
Actually, with distortion correction having come more and more places, and the huge DOF of such a wide angle, those two points are really not that problematic. I'd go for Samyang unless I could point at a very specific reason why not.
-Lars
08-18-2010, 12:04 PM
[quote name='larsrc' timestamp='1282132349' post='1863']
Actually, with distortion correction having come more and more places, and the huge DOF of such a wide angle, those two points are really not that problematic. I'd go for Samyang unless I could point at a very specific reason why not.
-Lars
[/quote]
Well, what about doing 24"x 36" prints after correction - the corners will be a lot less good due to the correction for barrel distortion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Much less of a problem with the Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Actually, with distortion correction having come more and more places, and the huge DOF of such a wide angle, those two points are really not that problematic. I'd go for Samyang unless I could point at a very specific reason why not.
-Lars
[/quote]
Well, what about doing 24"x 36" prints after correction - the corners will be a lot less good due to the correction for barrel distortion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Much less of a problem with the Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
08-18-2010, 12:19 PM
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282133048' post='1865']
Well, what about doing 24"x 36" prints after correction - the corners will be a lot less good due to the correction for barrel distortion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Much less of a problem with the Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[/quote]
Yes, but the Canon is less sharp to start with. Technically there's no reason in favor of the Canon I think.
Well, it's smaller if that counts maybe.
Well, what about doing 24"x 36" prints after correction - the corners will be a lot less good due to the correction for barrel distortion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Much less of a problem with the Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[/quote]
Yes, but the Canon is less sharp to start with. Technically there's no reason in favor of the Canon I think.
Well, it's smaller if that counts maybe.