Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Samyang XP 10mm f/3.5 for Canon EF announced
#1
https://www.samyanglensglobal.com/en/product/product-view.php?seq=406

Quite an achievement - if those MFTs are really reflecting its performance.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
Yikes, that is one impressive lens, indeed!
#3
I'll wait for the AF version. Smile
#4
In the gallery there is a picture with pebbles in the lower left corner. Absolutely no smearing like with the Sigma extreme UWAs, so very, very impressive indeed.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 11 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#5
AF is the least important aspect of such a wide angle lens, Rover.
#6
(02-27-2019, 03:05 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: AF is the least important aspect of such a wide angle lens, Rover.

Well, not for me. Smile I can't get anything done (in a reasonable timeframe, that is) when I'm using MF anyway.
#7
With such ultra wideness everything is basically in focus anyway, if you set the focus at a reasonable setting. No need to focus. 10mm on FF is 7.6mm APS-H equivalent, hard to imagine, isn't it?
#8
A focus lock would be nice on such lenses.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#9
(02-27-2019, 04:18 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: With such ultra wideness everything is basically in focus anyway, if you set the focus at a reasonable setting. No need to focus. 10mm on FF is 7.6mm APS-H equivalent, hard to imagine, isn't it?

At least the 14mm I have misses focus plenty of times. Smile Definitely I can't say "everything is in focus", and it definitely isn't even with the 10-17mm fisheye I have in the household. Maybe it comes close to that when focusing at long distances but, well, that doesn't cover my usage of an ultrawide.

Or maybe our definitions of what's in sharp focus differ. Smile If something isn't smeared into background blur that surely doesn't it automatically make usably sharp for me - the subject has to be sharp period, not some ways off it though "maybe" saved by the deeper depth of field.
#10
(02-28-2019, 07:51 AM)Rover Wrote:
(02-27-2019, 04:18 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: With such ultra wideness everything is basically in focus anyway, if you set the focus at a reasonable setting. No need to focus. 10mm on FF is 7.6mm APS-H equivalent, hard to imagine, isn't it?

At least the 14mm I have misses focus plenty of times. Smile Definitely I can't say "everything is in focus", and it definitely isn't even with the 10-17mm fisheye I have in the household. Maybe it comes close to that when focusing at long distances but, well, that doesn't cover my usage of an ultrawide.

Or maybe our definitions of what's in sharp focus differ. Smile If something isn't smeared into background blur that surely doesn't it automatically make usably sharp for me - the subject has to be sharp period, not some ways off it though "maybe" saved by the deeper depth of field.

14mm on APS-H is equivalent to 18mm on FF, just to clarify. If that lens is AF and not focussing very accurately (which 14mm is it?) and it focusses to to 5 meters when 1.5 meters is needed, then yes, you get a more OOF image than wanted. Or if it goes to 10 meters when 2 meters is asked. But we are not talking about bad AF, just MF with a good/smart setting of the distance.

If I set my 20mm FF lens to infinity with city/landscape stuff, things are sharp. If i set it to 3 meters with closer outdoor subjects, things are sharp without needing to focus between various pictures. Only if I want to make a close up image of a person or animal for a distorted portrait, I need to actually "focus".
 
And that is with a 20mm lens. We are discussing a 10mm FF lens here. Not a bad focussing AF APS-C Tokina fisheye zoom...
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)