Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 v Samyang 85/1.4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:22 pm    Post subject: Samyang Reply with quote
Just great !!

Even though the testing is not to scientific.....

I couldn't get a Tak 85mm in time so i bought the Samyang
for my Vietnam trip...

Your test is encouraging !

Thanks !


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks AhamB Smile

OK, weird weather today. Here's some shots into the light without hoods. WB the same for both, both lenses shooting at f2.8, ISO 100.

Samyang



CZ Planar



Trifox was certainly right about this particular challenge Wink


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Time for a quick portrait.

Samyang



CZ Planar



Samyang - eyes



Problems focusing the Samyang again...weird. Re-focused twice and missed a bit on both! I'm certain it can be sharper than this.

CZ Planar - eyes



Samyang - bokeh 1



CZ Planar - bokeh 1



Samyang - bokeh 2



CZ Planar - bokeh 2



I much prefer the Planar's bokeh in a real world situation! No sign of the ninja blades at f2.8 which is very encouraging!


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Samyang Reply with quote
Mir wrote:
Just great !!

Even though the testing is not to scientific.....

I couldn't get a Tak 85mm in time so i bought the Samyang
for my Vietnam trip...

Your test is encouraging !

Thanks !


Mir, it's a great lens! But I've learnt today that use of the hood is probably a good idea outside Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, I've definately fallen for the Planar Laughing



PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:05 pm    Post subject: Samyang Reply with quote
@ ManualFocus-G

I typically use hoods and filters... unless you guys teach me otherwise...

Thanks for the tip !


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why stop using the hoods for the outdoor tests?

In the indoor shots, it's clear that the Planar sharpens better when stopped down. At 2.8 it has more detail. In the 1.4 shot, the Samyang is focused a bit closer and that might contribute to the smoother background.

In the outdoor shots, the Planar is impressive in the portrait details. Unfortunately, the Samyang looks misfocused. I also find 85s tricky to focus manually - not sure why.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
Why stop using the hoods for the outdoor tests?

In the indoor shots, it's clear that the Planar sharpens better when stopped down. At 2.8 it has more detail. In the 1.4 shot, the Samyang is focused a bit closer and that might contribute to the smoother background.

In the outdoor shots, the Planar is impressive in the portrait details. Unfortunately, the Samyang looks misfocused. I also find 85s tricky to focus manually - not sure why.


I don't have a hood for the Planar, so I didn't use the Samyang hood either to keep things fair Smile

As for the Planar sharpening better when stopping down, this is consistent with the existing view that the Samyang is great wide open but doesn't improve massively when stopped down.

For some reason I struggle to focus the Samyang as well as the Planar. All my Planar shots were spot on today, whilst 75% of my Samyang shots were off...weird!


PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sharper and more contrasty lenses are easier to focus. The focal plane just "pops" in viewfinder. It's one of the sign of good lenses. When I'm trying some new lens, it's the first thing I watch.

I quickly compared Samyang to my Summicron-R 90 in local shop. Wide open the sharpness is comparable (maybe Samy is little bit sharper @f1.4 than Leica at @f2) but the images looked flatter in comparison to Cron.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
Arkku: This is nollatutkimusta, Finnish for 0-value research; a waste of time. You are free to like what you want, just as I am free to express my opinion about "comparisons" which I find useless,


Of course you are free to express such an opinion, and like I said, I even mostly agree. However, in my characteristic way I wanted to start an off-topic argument (mostly for the fun of arguing) about the two points I quoted before.

Assume that the test was otherwise “perfectly scientific” by whatever definition you choose, but one lens was from the 1960's and the other from 2010's—why would this have any significance for the comparison of image quality today? Perhaps I misunderstood your point—and I realise what I'm picking on is just a small part (and, again, I mostly agree with the rest)—but it seems like you were saying that older lenses can only be compared to each other. (And similarly for using a lens on a system for which it wasn't intended; should old lenses only be tested on film? Which film is the one that C/Y lenses were “calibrated” for? =)


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't take this as a serious test. I think it's just a fun kind of way
to check out a couple of lenses and get a SORT of feel about them.

I think when it comes down to it, I feel that the sharpness or "pop"
of a lens is a very small percentage of the quality of an image, and
that composition and "moment" are a huge percentage of the quality.

So to me, I barely even compared them, other than to say to myself,
"Oh, that's delivering nice rich color and sharpness", and "Wow, those
lenses show nice bokeh". These lenses are probably so close in
rendering good images on the objective side, that the differences are
really not enough to quibble about.

I'll take an extremely good cheaper lens, as I would
rather have two or three extremely good lenses for the cost of one
extremely good lens. Only if the cheaper lens really WAS just a dog of
a lens, and obviously orders of magnitude worse than the expensive
lens, then I'd consider its counterpart at a higher price.

It's interesting too, that I had a guy say that my Pentax lenses for the
Pentax 645 just weren't up to Zeiss standards. Well, maybe so, but I've
not even thought about that when taking pictures, and I don't think the
"lesser" lens actually ruined any of my attempts at capturing good
composition. Perhaps there might be a noticeable difference at the
smallest level, or when enlarging to a very large size. But, I seldom
enlarge images anyway, so the "non Zeiss quality" lens works for me. Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
However, in my characteristic way I wanted to start an off-topic argument (mostly for the fun of arguing) about the two points I quoted before.
Question Question
Maybe start a thread of your own in the dive bar if you want to "argue" off topic.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the outdoor test, Graham.
At f/2.8 Zeiss's contrast looks better and the bokeh more creamy, right?

By the way, dont you think the Samyang color is a little bit brownish? or just my feeling.

So, based on many review and examples on the internet that I've read so far, I think Samyang is specially optimized for wide open only (@f/1.4), both for sharpness and the creamy bokeh, as if you dont need the aperture blade at all ... Very Happy.

Anyway, instead of fighting, defending and rejecting this Samyang, lets celebrate, even try out (borrow, rent or buy) and have fun with our new MF baby lens Very Happy ... since we are all manual focus lens enthusiast, right? .. hahaha Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd choose the Planar anyway, without the test Cool

better construction, better NAME

Samyang looks like a car name Wink


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
I'd choose the Planar anyway, without the test Cool

better construction, better NAME

Samyang looks like a car name Wink


Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:
Anyway, instead of fighting, defending and rejecting this Samyang, lets celebrate, even try out (borrow, rent or buy) and have fun with our new MF baby lens Very Happy ... since we are all manual focus lens enthusiast, right? .. hahaha Very Happy

+1 Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:

Maybe start a thread of your own in the dive bar if you want to "argue" off topic.


I meant off-topic in the sense that it's not related to the specific lenses being discussed in this thread, or even to the methodology of testing, but rather to the arguments about the methodology of testing. It's not necessarily off-topic for this forum as such, and I certainly hope it's not considered offensive enough to go in the dive bar.

Of course we could start a new thread here (not in the dive bar) about “how to compare lenses”, but…

nixland wrote:
Anyway, instead of fighting, defending and rejecting this Samyang,


Who here has fought about the Samyang, or rejected it? The only post doing anything of the sort is the joke by hexi about Samyang sounding like a car name. Arguing is not fighting, and arguing about testing methodology is not arguing against the “test” “results”.

(For what it's worth, I personally have the Samyang and I like it very much, but I wouldn't mind having the Planar, too…)


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
I'd choose the Planar anyway, without the test Cool

better construction, better NAME

Samyang looks like a car name Wink


You can get the Samyang also under the Rokinon/Vivitar/Polar badge and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few others. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
hexi wrote:

Samyang looks like a car name ;)


You can get the Samyang also under the Rokinon/Vivitar/Polar badge and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few others. ;)


Samyang - car.
Rokinon - cough syrup.
Vivitar - dietary supplement products (marketed for women, “healthy taste”).
Polar - cheese. (In actual fact.)
Bower - subwoofer for cars (excessive bass, requires adjusting suspension).
Falcon - motorcycle for men with midlife crisis (red, big exhaust pipes).


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lol @ Polar cheese Very Happy

Also:
Sigma - paint brand (and many other sectors of industry - it's a popular name)

I coudn't care less about the name though. The new Samyang 35/1.4 looks to be pretty damn good value for money (just like their 85/1.4, 14/2.8, 8/3.5).


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All we need now is a Samyang 200/2 for 300€ Smile


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
NikonD wrote:
All we need now is a Samyang 200/2 for 300€ Smile


Or 135mm f/1.5 like old Vivitar... oh boy .. Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:
NikonD wrote:
All we need now is a Samyang 200/2 for 300€ Smile


Or 135mm f/1.5 like old Vivitar... oh boy .. Very Happy


I'd go for that -- except one that's sharp. I owned one of those old Vivitar 135/1.5s for years and even stopped down it was soft.

No, I'd settle for a new version of the old generic 135mm f/1.8. I'm sure Samyang could nail that optic and sell it for less than a lot of the 40-year-old ones are selling for now.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
.... and sell it for less than a lot of the 40-year-old ones are selling for now.


Amen. Very Happy
On eBay, Pentax 135/1.8 price is a titanic $2,187, while Soligor 135/1.5 is $1,932. Sony-Zeiss has 138/1.8 and on Canon rumor website, there is a rumor about Canon 135/1.8.

OK, back to the main topic. Smile
Maybe Graham could post more photos from Samyang such as flare comparison with Zeiss (flare doesnt always bad thing cause sometimes we need it for certain effects Smile ), microcontrast & 3D effects (objects with rich texture maybe?), etc.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:


nixland wrote:
Anyway, instead of fighting, defending and rejecting this Samyang,


Who here has fought about the Samyang, or rejected it? The only post doing anything of the sort is the joke by hexi about Samyang sounding like a car name. Arguing is not fighting, and arguing about testing methodology is not arguing against the “test” “results”.

(For what it's worth, I personally have the Samyang and I like it very much, but I wouldn't mind having the Planar, too…)


OK, I apologize for exaggerated thing and the wrong choice of words.
I am eager to try this Samyang too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5