View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
stingOM
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 3168 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2012-12-27
|
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:39 am Post subject: Samyang vs. Nikkor 85mm f1.4 |
|
|
stingOM wrote:
http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2010/11/samyang-85mm-f14-ae-part-2.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
So, for the nth time, someone again proved that with camera optics, the last 20% of performance will double the price.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe it is excellent that there exists lots of choice between lenses, because amateur use does not necessitate professional tools/quality. That aside, as a full-time photographer I love dealing with amateurs who bought too expensive equipment and sell it little used
On a side-note, I'm getting the Nikkor 85/1.4G AF-S shortly. It will be very interesting to see how it compares with the Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF. I suspect I will keep the Planar for studio portraits and use the Nikkor for location portraits and documentary work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arninetyes
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 312 Location: SoCal
Expire: 2013-03-26
|
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arninetyes wrote:
Esox lucius wrote: |
So, for the nth time, someone again proved that with camera optics, the last 20% of performance will double the price.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe it is excellent that there exists lots of choice between lenses, because amateur use does not necessitate professional tools/quality. That aside, as a full-time photographer I love dealing with amateurs who bought too expensive equipment and sell it little used
On a side-note, I'm getting the Nikkor 85/1.4G AF-S shortly. It will be very interesting to see how it compares with the Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF. I suspect I will keep the Planar for studio portraits and use the Nikkor for location portraits and documentary work. |
I've not run into that kind of amateur. The type I like are the ones who think that the latest, most expensive equipment will make them better photographers. They see a new lens come out and sell the old for a bargain.
I used to have an acquaintance like that--thought equipment made the photographer. He has upgraded his digital SLRs almost every time a new model comes out, switching from a Nikon D200 to a D300 about 1 1/2 years ago. But, he hadn't spoken to me since I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D700. Recently, he showed up at one of my fave hangouts to show me his new Canon super-megapixel and matching "L" lenses. He started telling me how much better his Canon was, and how his photography had grown by leaps and bounds since he dumped his Nikon gear. He showed me some photos, emphasizing how 'sharp' they were, unlike 'low megapixel' cameras. Apparently, I damaged his ego by buying a "better" camera than he had.
His whole purpose was to brag about having better equipment than I, which was true. However, he was confusing better equipment with better photography. So, I decided to change the game.
I pulled out my laptop and showed him a few pix my wife had taken. He was quite impressed. He was surprised that my D700 (with 'only' 12mp) and my stable of used, mostly MF lenses could take pictures that nice. But my wife hates my D700--too heavy (she's not wrong about that). She used an old Nikon D40 (6mp) and a Nikon 28-300/3.5-5.6 consumer zoom (she also hates switching lenses). I don't think he believed me, but he was missing the point anyway. My wife isn't interested in equipment, she's an artist, so composition, balance, colors, etc, all were as they should have been. New equipment can't help you with those things.
I haven't heard from him since. I'm not sure if he was embarrassed or thinks I was lying. Too bad. The truth is, my photography is much better now than it used to be, but NOT because I have better equipment. My photography started improving when I started learning about fundamentals of art, thanks to my wife. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6622 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Arninetyes wrote: |
Esox lucius wrote: |
So, for the nth time, someone again proved that with camera optics, the last 20% of performance will double the price.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe it is excellent that there exists lots of choice between lenses, because amateur use does not necessitate professional tools/quality. That aside, as a full-time photographer I love dealing with amateurs who bought too expensive equipment and sell it little used
On a side-note, I'm getting the Nikkor 85/1.4G AF-S shortly. It will be very interesting to see how it compares with the Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF. I suspect I will keep the Planar for studio portraits and use the Nikkor for location portraits and documentary work. |
I've not run into that kind of amateur. The type I like are the ones who think that the latest, most expensive equipment will make them better photographers. They see a new lens come out and sell the old for a bargain.
I used to have an acquaintance like that--thought equipment made the photographer. He has upgraded his digital SLRs almost every time a new model comes out, switching from a Nikon D200 to a D300 about 1 1/2 years ago. But, he hadn't spoken to me since I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D700. Recently, he showed up at one of my fave hangouts to show me his new Canon super-megapixel and matching "L" lenses. He started telling me how much better his Canon was, and how his photography had grown by leaps and bounds since he dumped his Nikon gear. He showed me some photos, emphasizing how 'sharp' they were, unlike 'low megapixel' cameras. Apparently, I damaged his ego by buying a "better" camera than he had.
His whole purpose was to brag about having better equipment than I, which was true. However, he was confusing better equipment with better photography. So, I decided to change the game.
I pulled out my laptop and showed him a few pix my wife had taken. He was quite impressed. He was surprised that my D700 (with 'only' 12mp) and my stable of used, mostly MF lenses could take pictures that nice. But my wife hates my D700--too heavy (she's not wrong about that). She used an old Nikon D40 (6mp) and a Nikon 28-300/3.5-5.6 consumer zoom (she also hates switching lenses). I don't think he believed me, but he was missing the point anyway. My wife isn't interested in equipment, she's an artist, so composition, balance, colors, etc, all were as they should have been. New equipment can't help you with those things.
I haven't heard from him since. I'm not sure if he was embarrassed or thinks I was lying. Too bad. The truth is, my photography is much better now than it used to be, but NOT because I have better equipment. My photography started improving when I started learning about fundamentals of art, thanks to my wife. |
Haha, I love these stories! _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
Arninetyes wrote: |
I've not run into that kind of amateur. The type I like are the ones who think that the latest, most expensive equipment will make them better photographers. They see a new lens come out and sell the old for a bargain. |
Yes, exactly same kind of guy. Buys newest gear and blames equipment when photos are not great. Sells little used lenses when interest fades and he realizes it does not make sense to invest that much money in a hobby.
Samyang is for the sensible user, who knows what he is buying. Their product position is one of clearly give great value for money |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hooper
Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 174 Location: N.W UK
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hooper wrote:
I think, for a new lens and the image quality for the price it is hard to ignore the Samyang.
Against the Summilux 80mm 1.4;
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8293
now, as an amateur, can I see a £2500 difference in output quality? nope.
but then again, if I could afford the Leica, I could probably afford the lens too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nixland
Joined: 30 Jan 2011 Posts: 577
Expire: 2012-07-29
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nixland wrote:
Hooper wrote: |
I think, for a new lens and the image quality for the price it is hard to ignore the Samyang.
Against the Summilux 80mm 1.4;
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8293
now, as an amateur, can I see a £2500 difference in output quality? nope.
but then again, if I could afford the Leica, I could probably afford the lens too. |
Wow, Samyang bokeh at f/1.4 is smoother
Well, soft doesn't mean the best, and I like harsh bokeh too for artistic reason, but it's bloody smooth indeed.
By the way the color seems little bit muted and less contrasty than Leica, is it? or it's just my eye? _________________ Carl Zeiss Jena: Biotar 58/2 1Q, DDR Pancolar 80/1.8 MC, Biotar 75/1.5, Biotar 10cm/2, DDR Sonnar 135/3.5 MC
Carl Zeiss C/Y: Planar 50/1.4 T*, Planar 85/1.4 T*, Planar 100/2 T*, Sonnar 135/2.8 T*
Leica: Summicron-R 35/2 v1, Summicron-R 50/2, Summilux-R 80/1.4, Summicron-R 90/2
Pentax: A 50/1.2
Minolta: Rokkor MC 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 85/1.7, Rokkor MC 100/2, MD 200/2.8
Olympus: Zuiko MC Auto-W 21/2, Zuiko 50/1.2, Zuiko MC Auto-T 85/2, Zuiko Auto-T 100/2
Nikon: Nikkor 28/2.8 Ais, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikkor 105/1.8, 300/2.8 ED (Ais)
Canon: FD 50/1.2 L, FD 85/1.2 L
Sony: 135/2.8 STF
Jupiter: 85/2 Alu
Cyclop: 85/1.5
Meyer-Optic: Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5
Samyang: 8/3.5 FE, 14/2.8, 85/1.4, 85/1.4 UMC
FOR SALE
Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 10cm/2 || Carl Zeiss ZE Distagon 28/2 || Minolta Rokkor MD 35/1.8 || Rokkor-X MC 85/1.7 || Rokkor MD 85/1.7 || Olympus Zuiko MC Auto-W 21/2 || Olympus 100/2 || Nikon Nikkor 35/1.4 || Canon: FD 55/1.2 || Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 VMC || Tamron: 90/2.5 SP
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arninetyes
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 312 Location: SoCal
Expire: 2013-03-26
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arninetyes wrote:
nixland wrote: |
By the way the color seems little bit muted and less contrasty than Leica, is it? or it's just my eye? |
Nope. Not just your eye. It's subtle, but the color isn't as nice as my better Nikkors, let alone a Summicron. I often use a warming filter on mine, especially with slide film.
It seems like a minor price to pay for such an inexpensive lens. That, and I'm not excited by its performance stopped down past f/2.8. Then again, I didn't buy it to stop it down--my Nikkor 105/2.5 handles that task just fine. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
The Samyang is nice, yet the contrast is definitely on the low side. If Samyang improves coatings on this one, it will be a killer. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Arninetyes wrote: |
Esox lucius wrote: |
So, for the nth time, someone again proved that with camera optics, the last 20% of performance will double the price.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe it is excellent that there exists lots of choice between lenses, because amateur use does not necessitate professional tools/quality. That aside, as a full-time photographer I love dealing with amateurs who bought too expensive equipment and sell it little used
On a side-note, I'm getting the Nikkor 85/1.4G AF-S shortly. It will be very interesting to see how it compares with the Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF. I suspect I will keep the Planar for studio portraits and use the Nikkor for location portraits and documentary work. |
I've not run into that kind of amateur. The type I like are the ones who think that the latest, most expensive equipment will make them better photographers. They see a new lens come out and sell the old for a bargain.
I used to have an acquaintance like that--thought equipment made the photographer. He has upgraded his digital SLRs almost every time a new model comes out, switching from a Nikon D200 to a D300 about 1 1/2 years ago. But, he hadn't spoken to me since I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D700. Recently, he showed up at one of my fave hangouts to show me his new Canon super-megapixel and matching "L" lenses. He started telling me how much better his Canon was, and how his photography had grown by leaps and bounds since he dumped his Nikon gear. He showed me some photos, emphasizing how 'sharp' they were, unlike 'low megapixel' cameras. Apparently, I damaged his ego by buying a "better" camera than he had.
His whole purpose was to brag about having better equipment than I, which was true. However, he was confusing better equipment with better photography. So, I decided to change the game.
I pulled out my laptop and showed him a few pix my wife had taken. He was quite impressed. He was surprised that my D700 (with 'only' 12mp) and my stable of used, mostly MF lenses could take pictures that nice. But my wife hates my D700--too heavy (she's not wrong about that). She used an old Nikon D40 (6mp) and a Nikon 28-300/3.5-5.6 consumer zoom (she also hates switching lenses). I don't think he believed me, but he was missing the point anyway. My wife isn't interested in equipment, she's an artist, so composition, balance, colors, etc, all were as they should have been. New equipment can't help you with those things.
I haven't heard from him since. I'm not sure if he was embarrassed or thinks I was lying. Too bad. The truth is, my photography is much better now than it used to be, but NOT because I have better equipment. My photography started improving when I started learning about fundamentals of art, thanks to my wife. |
Ok, I'm selling my 5D mkii and my L lenses and buying a Holga. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3438 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
Martin, You don't need much for refunding, the Holga is cheap! So can we talk about your price for the Canon ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tomasg
Joined: 01 Nov 2009 Posts: 1135
Expire: 2014-04-28
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tomasg wrote:
aoleg wrote:
The Samyang is nice, yet the contrast is definitely on the low side. If Samyang improves coatings on this one, it will be a killer.
This was shot with the 85/1.4 UMC AE version for Nikon, it`s the multicoated chipped version...check the original on pbase, i don`t know why my images get so compressed here, thus robbed of all the contrast and saturation
the original:
http://www.pbase.com/tomasg_71/image/130316397 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|