Battle of 35/1.4 lenses [vnphoto.net]

[Langstrum]

This review was done in Vietnamese and posted in one of the most active photography forum in my country. I want to share it with our members here because it has some useful information as reference for choosing lenses. Even though the lenses are both AF and MF, and quite common, they're rarely gathered together for judgement. This young guy did a very good job on this battle with the support from other members to get the lenses. He planned to make comprehensive reviews for other users to have a non-bias evaluation of these lenses, and in the future he will expand the test to various focal lengths and brands.



Joining this battle are:

_ Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L
_ Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZE
_ Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art
_ Samyang 35mm f/1.4 UMC
_ Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S

these are two 35/2 lenses will be used as references:

_ Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZE
_ Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS

Methodology:

- Body: EOS 6D, mounted on a stable and sturdy tripod at a fixed location.
- All the image modification functions of the camera were turned off
- Same shooting conditions with all the lenses
- No hood, filter was used and all the lenses are brand new or lightly used (>98%)
- Images were captured as RAW files and exported to jpeg using the same parameters
- Lighting condition wasn't changed throughout the test

Categories for battle:

• Bokeh
• CA: Longitudinal-CA/Color fringing, Lateral-CA, Sphero-Chromatism
• Contrast against light
• Vignette and Light Falloff
• Distortion
• Flare/Halo
• Color Rendition
• Detail and Sharpness Center/Border

This is the original thread (in Vietnamese, but I think it's not difficult to follow the photos and numbers) : http://www.vnphoto.net/forums/showthread.php?t=189358

And the translated one using Google translate (but it's quite inaccurate): http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vnphoto.net%2Fforums%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D189358&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

This test is not finished yet since he said he will upload the rest.

In general, the Sigma Art and Samyang are very promising and some bad characteristic of Zeiss and Nikon were showned.
Because there are lot of information there, so I think it's better to see them clearly and have your own conclusions.
He gave all the Flickr links so you can check the full resolution of each photo.

I asked him for the permission to post his results here and he said the English version will be done latter for foreigners.

I hope that it's helpful to many people here.

Cheers!

Langstrum

[hoanpham]

Thanks Langstrum.
I have the nikkor ais and the samyang in f1.4.

[cyrano]

That Samyang surprises me, I think it holds up rather well as does the Sigma. The 35L is the winner to my eyes. The Nikon is the loser. I should think the Samyang offers quite exceptional value for money here, I doubt it's anywhere near the Canon in price. Hmmm.

[Langstrum]

[doomed-forever]

The Samyang 35/1.4 is no surprise here, it's simply good, check out the photozone review (1st site for great lens reviews, more then lenstip, too)

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/657-samyang35f14eosff?start=2

Verdict
Samyang continues to surprise us regarding the quality of their recently released products. The full format Samyang 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC is capable of delivering a very high quality straight from f/1.4. The contrast level is a bit reduced at max. aperture though. Stopping down boosts the contrast whereas the resolution improves to excellent results at medium aperture settings. It may be a surprising news but this is easily superior to the results of the "mighty" Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM L here. There's a fairly heavy amount of vignetting at max. aperture so it's advisable to correct the issue during post-processing or by stopping down to at least f/2.8. The rather moderate amount of barrel distortion is generally not overly relevant. A weakness is the quality of the bokeh - it's quite nervous but that's a fate that it shares with the Canon L lens actually. The amount of bokeh fringing is typical for a lens in this class.

The mechanical quality of the Samyang lens is on a very high level. It may not be a full-metal lens but the lens body is made of high quality plastics and it's a joy to use the damped focus ring. A limiting factor is certainly the lack of AF as well as the uncoupled aperture which forces photographers into a rather classic style of shooting again. Magnified Live-View (or a split-image viewfinder screen) can help to overcome some of the focusing problems but it will slow you down for sure. However, keep in mind that the lens costs just a fraction of the corresponding Canon lens so its a fairly obvious choice for budget-oriented users with a desire for high speed (ultra-large aperture) and high quality images.

Optical Quality: 3.5/5
Mechanical Quality: 4/5
Price/Performance: 5/5




And here goes the lenstip review:

http://www.lenstip.com/297.11-Lens_review-Samyang_35_mm_f_1.4_AS_UMC__Summary.html


Samyang 35 mm f/1.4 AS UMC

11. Summary

Pros:

very good, momentarily even splendid image quality in the frame centre,
good image quality on the edge, even on full frame,
low lateral chromatic aberration,
moderate distortion,
splendidly corrected astigmatism,
the smallest vignetting in the 1.4/35 class lenses,
decent work against bright light,
very good price/quality ratio.

Cons:

visible longitudinal chromatic aberration,
noticeable coma.

In this summary you can write just one thing: aces of the photographical market, it’s high time you got down to work seriously! If Samyang is able to launch a 540$ lens which, when it comes to the image quality, is only slightly worse than the Canon 35L, which can compete on equal terms with the Nikkor 1.4/35G and leaves far behind the Sony 1.4/35G; if such a lens is able to correct the lateral chromatic aberration, coma and vignetting the best of all instruments in this group and it is not worse when it comes to the distortion and astigmatism correction, what else could be said here?

I haven't tried that Samyang - but i'd say the nervous bokeh is a dealbreaker for myself...

[Nordentro]

I need to consider the Samyang after this, thx

[hoanpham]

[fermy]

On the subject of the Nikkor. I have its predecessor, radioactive pre-AI Nikkor-N 35/1.4. The bokeh is quite good, I have no complaints. Another case where old lenses offer some advantages over more modern design. The images are here: http://forum.mflenses.com/nikkor-n-35mm-1-4-t50884.html#1242685

[Gerald]

The test is very interesting, but it must be said that it compares lenses designed in very different times, so somehow apples were being compared with oranges. For example, the Sigma Art is a very modern lens 13 with optical elements, with two aspherical and five made of very low dispersion glasses. In contrast, the Nikon is a lens which was designed in the late '60s with 9 elements made of ordinary optical glasses.

As far as I know, in the late 1970s, only Nikon and Zeiss manufactured 35mm F1.4 lenses for SLR cameras. Yes, there was the Summilux 35mm F1.4, but it was only for Leica rangefinder cameras. At that time, the design of a super-fast retrofocus 35mm lens was very difficult, and only Nikon and Zeiss dared to launch this type of lens on the market. Of course, nobody expected a stellar wide open performance. Who employed this type of lens were basically the photojournalists who were more interested in getting a photo in extreme low light conditions. Remember that the films of that time were 50-100 times less sensitive than a current FF digital sensor. That said, it seems that the tested Distagon was the second generation with 11 elements, not the original Distagon for Contax/Yashica, which had 9 elements and probably a performance similar to the Nikon.

In terms of chromatic aberration, the worst two lenses were the Nikon and Zeiss Distagon. The mediocre performance of Nikon is understandable because it's a lightweight (400g) and a relatively simple (9 elements) lens that was designed more than 40 years ago. Less acceptable is the performance of the Zeiss Distagon ZE, which is heavy (850g), more complex (11 elements) lens, and has a much more recent design.

Today it is relatively easy to design an excellent 35mm F1.4 lens because low-dispersion optical glasses and aspherical lenses are relatively cheap. The Samyang is an example of how it is possible to produce an optically very good lens at a modest price.

[Langstrum]

[CuriousOne]

Very strange test, why no Minolta 35/1.4, which is know to be one of the best 35/1.4's ?

[Langstrum]

[kuuan]

Samyang and Sigma sure look good! Good to know that these rel. cheap new lenses mostly outperform famous, expensive older lenses.

..
a bit off topic: recently Samyang announced 5 lenses for FF Sony E mount, incl. the 1.4/35. Sounds great, but it seems that these lenses simply are the SLR lenses with a tube attached to make them fit for E mount. In short, these are huge lenses!
I really wished that there were more lenses out there from makers like Samyang, that is good performing, modern lenses with a moderate price point, made for mirrorless which are small in physical size, catering to that advantage of mirrorless cams. Or am I missing some offerings I am not aware of? hopefully..

[Langstrum]

[kuuan]

buying a Samyang for dSLR and adapting it to mirrorless certainly makes sense
to be fair Sigma has some great offers for mirrorless, e.g. the AF f2.8/19mm, 30mm and 60mm for Sony APS-C make a quite complete set of great performers for a decent price and they aren't bulky.

[Langstrum]

[FotoPete]

I have all three and all very good performers, fairly quick to focus and sharp. Nothing to really carp about aside from the lack of manual focus grip.

I have the nikkor 35/1.4. For pure sharpness, I'd probably have to go with the Art 30 but there's something about manual focus that has me reaching for the AI 35/1.4 every once in a while.