Quote:Wide open and with well corrected characteristics, it coul be great for night sky and Milky Way pictures. The fluorescent distance scale will become very handy for that while AF lenses usually are difficult to set up at night to infinity.
But in "normal" daylight photography, the fast aperture will be challenging for every non-LiveView focus setup.
Again, it in not challenging at all, especially with a focus screen like the Eg-S in my 6D.
03-20-2016, 10:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2016, 10:25 AM by Rainer.)
Quote:... now if it could be "el cheapo" into the bargain, it could be very tempting...... however if it's "costa bigga dosha"........ it's "sleeps with the fishes"
Exactly what I thought.
Some years ago, this would have been a quite unique lens ... but today ...
there are the Sam 14/2.8s ... the Tam 15-30/2.8 ...the Tok 16-28/2.8
and the Can 16-35/2.8 ... so it must fit into the field of competitors ...
and frankly ... f/2.4 instead of f/2.8 is not really worth mentioning.
If it is cheap enough, it will find its place in the market ... if it is not,
it better have really outstanding optical quality.
Rainer
Don't forget it weighs 600 grams and takes 95mm filter. A bulky lens, as Rainer said unless it has outstanding optics it will have a hard time selling
Quote:Exactly what I thought.
If it is cheap enough, it will find its place in the market ... if it is not,
it better have really outstanding optical quality.
Rainer
Better than the Samyang's already outstanding IQ............. and at it's price point........
....Oh the 95mm filters......an ND and a UV MC......I guess the rear gelatines are small!
Well if nothing else it makes for good reading......at least till the weather breaks.
650EUR I read somewhere ... hard to believe ...
Quote:Exactly what I thought.
Some years ago, this would have been a quite unique lens ... but today ...
there are the Sam 14/2.8s ... the Tam 15-30/2.8 ...the Tok 16-28/2.8
and the Can 16-35/2.8 ... so it must fit into the field of competitors ...
and frankly ... f/2.4 instead of f/2.8 is not really worth mentioning.
If it is cheap enough, it will find its place in the market ... if it is not,
it better have really outstanding optical quality.
Rainer
Well, if you already mention zooms, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 would also fit in this category and still is outstanding for it's price, as well as Canon's 11-24/4 although only f/4. Then there's a Zeiss 15/2.8 Milvus...
You all relaized, there will be two versions of this Irix Lens? same optical data, but one with lighter body and the other with tougher materials. Therefore 650€ will be possible for the cheaper one.
Makes it more difficult to see it's place in the market.
The rear gelatines mean you have to remove the lens fro the body for each change of a filter, also at slower apertures you will see (at this FL) each grain of dust. Also, a M95 filter might be cheaper than the adaptors with 150×150 Filters, but a good polarizer or ND at that size is no bargain. Expect 200-250€ for the circular polarizer.
Dave, I don't see the point of a lens with high resolution when the distortion sucks. Measure the resolution after correction of distortion and all of a sudden, it's just a mediocre glass. Maybe I read too much bad stuff about Samyang like badly centerred or poor assembly and those comments were only exceptions but usually you get what you pay for.
Quote:Well, if you already mention zooms, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 would also fit in this category and still is outstanding for it's price, as well as Canon's 11-24/4 although only f/4. Then there's a Zeiss 15/2.8 Milvus...
You all relaized, there will be two versions of this Irix Lens? same optical data, but one with lighter body and the other with tougher materials. Therefore 650€ will be possible for the cheaper one.
Makes it more difficult to see it's place in the market.
<div>
The rear gelatines mean you have to remove the lens fro the body for each change of a filter, also at slower apertures you will see (at this FL) each grain of dust. Also, a M95 filter might be cheaper than the adaptors with 150×150 Filters, but a good polarizer or ND at that size is no bargain. Expect 200-250€ for the circular polarizer.
Dave, I don't see the point of a lens with high resolution when the distortion sucks. Measure the resolution after correction of distortion and all of a sudden, it's just a mediocre glass. Maybe I read too much bad stuff about Samyang like badly centered or poor assembly and those comments were only exceptions but usually you get what you pay for.
</div>
I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration...although perhaps they have been looking over Fuji's shoulder  ....
....most lenses at that FL have strongish distortion but not many achieve the resolution of the Samyang into the corners.....corrected it will still be "way way" better than mediocre......the word on the street is that it's quite the opposite in fact...... also, it is often used for astro-photography where straight lines are not of high importance.
At €345 grey and €395 non grey... it's the sort of price a lot of people will pay for a lens that may not be often used.
Because of all that, the Samyang (and in it's other guises) has become a "cult lens", however as you say one has to "fix bayonets" in the battle to find a good copy. (I'm just sharpening mine now B) )
Oh and in the Nikon and Pentax mount it is AE.......sweet.....
You're right, for astrophotography it doesn't matter if a lens is distorting or not - the relativity theory claims also that planets and more whole galaxies can bend the light massively, so maybe the Samyang just puts it back in to proportion 
Good luck with finding a good copy - that can happen with other manufacturers, too.
The Irix lens has a click position at infninty hwich is, nect to the fluorescent focus scale of the expensive version, another help for astro shooters. I'm just two little bits too desinterested in that kind of photography although it looks very decorative. Call me in, if we can see Martians on the pictures
03-21-2016, 09:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2016, 09:23 AM by Rover.)
Quote: I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration...although perhaps they have been looking over Fuji's shoulder ....
....most lenses at that FL have strongish distortion but not many achieve the resolution of the Samyang into the corners.....corrected it will still be "way way" better than mediocre......the word on the street is that it's quite the opposite in fact...... also, it is often used for astro-photography where straight lines are not of high importance.
At €345 grey and €395 non grey... it's the sort of price a lot of people will pay for a lens that may not be often used.
Because of all that, the Samyang (and in it's other guises) has become a "cult lens", however as you say one has to "fix bayonets" in the battle to find a good copy. (I'm just sharpening mine now B) )
Oh and in the Nikon and Pentax mount it is AE.......sweet.....
I thought there was a shot of a Canon version - and it had electronic contacts too?
Personally I find Samyang's stance inexcusable. They should at least include the Dandelion chips. But that's beside the point.
It's a nice touch that this lens can accept filters, however large they are, because with pretty much everything else mentioned so far (15mm or wider) you're SOL for front filters. Unless you're using external filter systems with square glass, and that adds to bulk and cost greatly. I'm a little worried that they're emphasizing "bells and whistles" so much (the dual build versions with fancy names) - something's telling me that whenever the manufacturer is doing this, there's something wrong with the product itself, and / or the company is not confident in it. I'm still laughing at the "it has a metal ring at the front of the zoom ring to give it an upscale image" line from the description of the (otherwise awful) Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens ("The silver ring at the front of the zoom ring presents high-quality appearance" is an equally laughable sentence from the marketing description of the Canon 28-90 kit lens - I see they were that desperate to push it). Maybe it's just me though. 
I was talking Samyang there!
The Canon/Samyang 14mm F2.8 version is fully manual and a widdly bit cheaper....as per all the Samyangs!
|
