[Klaus]

http://www.samyang-lens.co.uk/samyang-13...-lens.html

[dave9t5]

Mounts?  We got mounts! 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atc...inon+135mm

[davidmanze]

Mounts agogo!

[Guest]

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.

[Scythels]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[popo]

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.

[Klaus]

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.

[popo]

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]

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.