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

Surprised and Impressed: Samyang (Rokinon) 85/1.4 MF
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:47 pm    Post subject: Surprised and Impressed: Samyang (Rokinon) 85/1.4 MF Reply with quote
I know it's been written about here before, but I just had to reiterate how surprisingly good the Samyang (Rokinon, Falcon, Bower, Vivitar Series 1, etc) 85/1.4 is.

I'd been waiting for the new Nikon AF 85/1.4, figuring a new version would cause a price drop on the older models--it's happened many times before. Unfortunately, the new AF-S Nikkor 85/1.4G is so expensive (at $1,700 for a short telephoto prime, it's moving toward Leica territory), that prices have been increasing on the Ai-s and AF-D. Six months ago, I saw plenty of excellent condition, Ai-s 85/1.4s for sale at around $600-650, but I didn't want to spend that much. Now, they seem to be hitting $750 on up.

Since I will need an 85/1.4 for my trip to coastal Oregon in two weeks, where 'gloom' is a way of life, I broke down and bought the Rokinon flavor of Samyang for a bit over $250.

I haven't had much time to play with it, but I've seen just enough to know that it works very well. I've probably shot about 20 pics with it, so I'll have a much more refined opinion after another couple hundred or so.

Attached is the very first shot I took--I was sitting in the dim light of my office when I unboxed the 85/1.4. I set up my D700 (no, I didn't get the chip version: it was almost $100 more), set the aperture to f/1.4, leaned back in my chair, and snapped this pic with ISO 220, f/1.4, and 1/60. Oh, no sharpening or post production anything--straight from the camera-generated JPG, reduced to 1024x1539, posted. The second pic is a 100% crop of the mug.

What impressed me was:
1) the focus is smooth and well-damped (maybe a bit too much);
2) It was very easy to get good focus;
3) The center of focus on the mug is very sharp; and,
4) The out-of-focus areas are very smooth.

The other shots I've taken were of better subjects, but there are already many, many Samyang 85/1.4 photos posted in this forum.

Thanks to everyone here who contributed to the various Samyang 85/1.4 threads. Your info helped me decide to buy one, and I'm glad I did (so far, at least). Of course, the big test will be Oregon, so we'll see what I think about it after that.




PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Conglats. There is a serious amount of +ve views expressed about this lens already here:
http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14608


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mine's the Vivitar series 1 branded lens and I do enjoy shooting with it. Surprising for the cost and makes you wonder why the "Big Boys" can't do the same cost wise.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Big Dawg wrote:
Mine's the Vivitar series 1 branded lens and I do enjoy shooting with it. Surprising for the cost and makes you wonder why the "Big Boys" can't do the same cost wise.


I played with the Rokinon for a day (a friend has it) and it is a superb lens. It just requires the ability to focus manually. The Big Boys don't care because manual focusing is a niche market, so they are happy to sell AF for $600+ premium to the crowds that need it. I often wish that the budget lenses would be MF versions of high-end AF lenses instead of just being slower AF designs.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The sample is very good indeed.
I would like to see samples testing CA performance.

My local dealer has just brought Samyang lenses and invited me to test them. I think I am going to try the 14mm. Someone posted very impressive samples a few months ago.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They are both stunning lens 85mm and 14mm too. Congrats for your new gem!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Big Dawg wrote:
Mine's the Vivitar series 1 branded lens and I do enjoy shooting with it. Surprising for the cost and makes you wonder why the "Big Boys" can't do the same cost wise.


If they do how can they offer luxury living for owners , leaders etc,

another fact cheap is never good as than expensive ones Wink


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:
I would like to see samples testing CA performance.


It was pretty good in this aspect. Here is some additional information: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/483-samyang_85_14_5d?start=1.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
nkanellopoulos wrote:
I would like to see samples testing CA performance.


It was pretty good in this aspect. Here is some additional information: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/483-samyang_85_14_5d?start=1.


Careful in interpreting this.
The reviewers (on purpose?) did "split" what they call "chromatic aberration" report from what they call "bokeh fringing", which is a category that has no scientific fundation and is in fact real chromatic aberration just as the "other" chromatic aberration.

The fact that some digital cameras do enhance the "purple fringing" because of the densely nested cells, is real (just compare the same lens on a EOS 5D and on a EOS 5D Mark II and you get immediate evidence of that) - but - it is not the digital sensor to create the fringing, it just amplifies (under certain conditions) what is already there - and for sure, it is not the bokeh to create the fringing, or to represent a separate category different from chromatic aberration Laughing

Photozone guys have set up an appealing site - unfortunately the scientific credibility of their tests and especially of their conclusions seems approximate to me at the least.

To get back on the strict subject - if you see the so called "bokeh fringing" department it is obvious that the CA in the Samyang is not better than in other similar lenses.
Which does not detract from the fact that it's a very good lens at a very interesting price.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

The reviewers (on purpose?) did "split" what they call "chromatic aberration" report from what they call "bokeh fringing", which is a category that has no scientific fundation and is in fact real chromatic aberration just as the "other" chromatic aberration.


I'm not sure what you're reading but the sections include clear names (my emphasis):

Lateral Chromatic Aberrations (CAs)
Bokeh Fringing / Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations (LoCA)

They're both indicated as chromatic aberrations and their names are standard. Bokeh fringing is just a nickname for LoCA. The Lateral CA section is usually called Purple Fringing in other reviews. Makes sense to me to cover them separately - I find that lenses usually have an issue in one area only.

As for my comment that the lens is pretty good in the CA department, it was based on my experience using it on an APS camera. I couldn't get any purple fringing (lateral CA if you prefer the term) and the LoCA I've seen wasn't anything of concern - all my fast lenses show LoCA and it doesn't bother me. PF on the other hand is a different issue and my experience was that it's not a problem for the Samyang, same as the conclusion from photozone.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think that this nicknaming generates a lot of confusion, which should not be introduced in a scientific test.
Both types of aberrations are generated by the same thing: the lens.
Digital sensors with dense cells can amplify the aberrations, but they are not the origin of the problem.
Longitudinal aberration is something that is present only in the very worst lenses. It is really a minimum requirement for good lenses of today not to display it. The lateral CA that I see in the samples is not better than other 85mm 1.4 lenses that I know. Which doesn't change the fact that it's an excellent lens - but it can't be sold as a champion of CA control, when it's correct to say that it's on par with other fast short tele lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The point is this:
An aberration is defined only within the focal plane.
Outside the focal plane it is not an aberration.
So even though it is the same physical phenomenon, color fringing in the out-of-focus area is just color fringing or bokeh fringing or whatever you want to call it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
The point is this:
An aberration is defined only within the focal plane.
Outside the focal plane it is not an aberration.
So even though it is the same physical phenomenon, color fringing in the out-of-focus area is just color fringing or bokeh fringing or whatever you want to call it.


Agreed. LoCA and bokeh fringing are both caused by dispersion though, so they are closely related. According to the definitions they are not the same thing, so a perfectly apochromatic lens can still have bokeh fringing (evidenced by some Leica apo lenses).

Bokeh comparison of the Rokinon/Samyang with some Canon 85's: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/932389/1#8806673

There was a very good series of comparison shots in another thread, but unfortunately the person removed the images from his blog. The conclusion was that the Rokinon/Samyang is VERY close in wide open sharpness to the EF 85LII. Blue CA is a little bit less intense than the Canon (from my memory, the images are gone now so I can't check).


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
The point is this:
An aberration is defined only within the focal plane.
Outside the focal plane it is not an aberration.
So even though it is the same physical phenomenon, color fringing in the out-of-focus area is just color fringing or bokeh fringing or whatever you want to call it.


I'm not a physicist, but if it is true that the origin of the two phenomena is the same (which is, for what I know, a fact), then in my opinion it is not possible to say that the out of focus chromatic aberration is not an aberration.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Longitudinal aberration is something that is present only in the very worst lenses.


That is not true. LoCA is present in many fast lenses of top quality. If you meant to refer to lateral CA, those are usually minimized by high end optical designs, but there are still many great lenses that are far from being considered as "very worst" which suffer from lateral CA.

blende8 wrote:
The point is this:
An aberration is defined only within the focal plane.


Wikipedia disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration#Types_of_chromatic_aberration

Orio wrote:
Which doesn't change the fact that it's an excellent lens - but it can't be sold as a champion of CA control, when it's correct to say that it's on par with other fast short tele lenses.


I wasn't aware the Samyang was sold as a champion of CA control. I'd expect such claim only from lenses like the Voigtlander 90/3.5, which is an APO lens.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A non scientific comparison : Wink
http://forum.mflenses.com/flower-with-flek-4-50-volna-3-2-8-80-and-samyang-1-4-85-t33111,highlight,samyang+1+4+85.html


PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
A non scientific comparison : Wink


FWIW, the minimum focusing distance of 1m is a property shared with the much more expensive Zeiss Planar 85/1.4. The closest focusing 85/1.4 appears to be the new Sigma with 0.85m. Slower 85s focus closer - Jupiter-9 85/2 has 0.8m.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
Orio wrote:
Longitudinal aberration is something that is present only in the very worst lenses.


That is not true. LoCA is present in many fast lenses of top quality. If you meant to refer to lateral CA, those are usually minimized by high end optical designs, but there are still many great lenses that are far from being considered as "very worst" which suffer from lateral CA.

blende8 wrote:
The point is this:
An aberration is defined only within the focal plane.


Wikipedia disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration#Types_of_chromatic_aberration


After looking around, I'm more confused than ever. So I'm offering some apologies and will start a new thread on the topic of types of CA.

blende8: you seem to be right. I'm wondering then what is the correct term for bokeh fringing - I always thought it's LoCA because it's relative to the focal plane, so I thought longitudinal refers to that aspect.

orio: seems I was using the terms the wrong way. still, if we consider purple fringing to be a form of LoCA, then I know high end lenses that suffer from it. I've only seen lateral CA in wide angles.

Anyway, will open a new thread on this.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
FWIW, the minimum focusing distance of 1m is a property shared with the much more expensive Zeiss Planar 85/1.4. The closest focusing 85/1.4 appears to be the new Sigma with 0.85m. Slower 85s focus closer - Jupiter-9 85/2 has 0.8m.

Helios-40 85mm f:1.5 has minimum focus about 0.75m.

Else, as I talked about it, Volna-3 80mm f:2.8 has min focus of 0,60m.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:

Helios-40 85mm f:1.5 has minimum focus about 0.75m.

Else, as I talked about it, Volna-3 80mm f:2.8 has min focus of 0,60m.


Good to know about the Helios. But the Volna-3 is a MF lens. I expect the mfd are not so great for these lenses on 35mm because they're mainly intended for portraits. An 80mm on MF is probably closer to 60mm on 35mm.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:

FWIW, the minimum focusing distance of 1m is a property shared with the much more expensive Zeiss Planar 85/1.4. The closest focusing 85/1.4 appears to be the new Sigma with 0.85m. Slower 85s focus closer - Jupiter-9 85/2 has 0.8m.


Don't forget lenses with floating CRC elements, the Nikkor AIS 85/1.4 and Olympus Zuiko 85/2 that focus at 0.85m.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
Olivier wrote:
A non scientific comparison : Wink


FWIW, the minimum focusing distance of 1m is a property shared with the much more expensive Zeiss Planar 85/1.4. The closest focusing 85/1.4 appears to be the new Sigma with 0.85m. Slower 85s focus closer - Jupiter-9 85/2 has 0.8m.


Furthermore, the Samyang does not really focus as close as 1m. Samyang decided to measure the distance from the front lens instead of from the sensor plane, so it is more like 1.14m.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I'm not a physicist, but if it is true that the origin of the two phenomena is the same (which is, for what I know, a fact), then in my opinion it is not possible to say that the out of focus chromatic aberration is not an aberration.


Orio, the point is that the "abberations" simply do not describe what is happening in the blurry background (of foreground). So technically speaking you cannot place bokeh fringing under the category of abberations. For the same reason we have no standard physical properties that are used to describe aspects of bokeh.

Abberations are clearly defined optical flaws of lenses, but you cannot use them outside of the area of their definition, unless you give up the definition on which they are founded. This is no problem as long as it's clear what we are talking about, but people with knowledge of physics usually like to use separate terms for LoCA and bokeh fringing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1