Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone test the FF Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f/1.2?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anyone test the FF Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f/1.2?

    I'm talking about the full-frame Rokinon SP/Samyang XP 35mm f/1.2 in EF mount.

    I want to know about its light transmission and if it is actually half a stop brighter than the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4.

    Anyone have any idea?
    www.VideoAbe.com

    "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

    #2
    Hope you receive a specific answer, but on a side note; I don't know if you'll want to use any of those wide open because they are very soft at 1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8.

    The difference (if any) is pretty negligible between 1.2 and 1.4 anyway.

    The f/1.x all sharpen up nicely at f/2-2.8 with optimal quality at f/4.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
      I'm talking about the full-frame Rokinon SP/Samyang XP 35mm f/1.2 in EF mount.

      I want to know about its light transmission and if it is actually half a stop brighter than the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4.

      Anyone have any idea?
      I dunno if this helps, but with the noise reduction and clean sensors we have these days, Norbro is right about 1.2 vs 1.4

      So, unless you have a specific need for seeing in the dark, the question is one of creative choice. in that sense, I find 1.2 to be a creative option that is not possible on 1.4.

      Comment


        #4
        Have you guys seen sample shots from the Rokinon SPs? They look much sharper to me wide open than the regular series.

        Besides, a half-stop is a half-stop. If I'm desperate for light, I'll take it even if it's soft.

        I have the Rokinon Cine DS primes and yes, I'd rather close them down a stop (except the 50mm which is pretty darn good wide open). But I would like to set myself up for underlit situations.

        The Canon 50mm f/1.2 registers a T1.5 on dxomark and the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 registers a T1.6. (They haven't tested the cine version.)
        www.VideoAbe.com

        "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

        Comment


          #5
          I was actually thinking about 'DS'.

          'SP' looks to be a photography lens and I guess means "Special Performance" so they are probably sharper than the previous offerings.

          Still think it would be a waste of money for just half a stop though...but half a stop is indeed half a stop and you know what's best for you.

          OTOH, for a creative choice like James mentioned would make more sense to capture just a little bit more shallow DOF.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
            Have you guys seen sample shots from the Rokinon SPs? They look much sharper to me wide open than the regular series.

            Besides, a half-stop is a half-stop. If I'm desperate for light, I'll take it even if it's soft.

            I have the Rokinon Cine DS primes and yes, I'd rather close them down a stop (except the 50mm which is pretty darn good wide open). But I would like to set myself up for underlit situations.

            The Canon 50mm f/1.2 registers a T1.5 on dxomark and the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 registers a T1.6. (They haven't tested the cine version.)
            I've not looked into the SP's.

            Are they based on the glass of their Xeen series? Xeen is quite nice.

            Sounds like you've got something really specific in mind. Kind of crazy to think you might be in one of the better cities to test out lenses at a shop or studio, and yet under the circumstances you maybe can't?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by NorBro View Post
              I was actually thinking about 'DS'.

              'SP' looks to be a photography lens and I guess means "Special Performance" so they are probably sharper than the previous offerings.

              Still think it would be a waste of money for just half a stop though...but half a stop is indeed half a stop and you know what's best for you.

              OTOH, for a creative choice like James mentioned would make more sense to capture just a little bit more shallow DOF.
              My shift is over. Going to look at trees and rest the eyes. you take over bro. clocking out, grabbing a cold one with the boiz.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                Still think it would be a waste of money for just half a stop though...but half a stop is indeed half a stop and you know what's best for you.

                OTOH, for a creative choice like James mentioned would make more sense to capture just a little bit more shallow DOF.
                Well there were lots of situations as an AC where I saw DPs push their ISO above their self-imposed limit. Usually their limit was like 1600 but if they were looking at an underexposure, they would usually crank the ISO instead of removing diffusion. Sometime every half-stop counts. Is it worth the price? Dunno. For $300 it would be. Maybe the price will come down or more used copies will become available. Not buying now anyway.

                As for DOF - sure it'll be shallower, but that's not my specific need.

                Originally posted by James0b57 View Post
                I've not looked into the SP's.

                Are they based on the glass of their Xeen series? Xeen is quite nice.

                Sounds like you've got something really specific in mind. Kind of crazy to think you might be in one of the better cities to test out lenses at a shop or studio, and yet under the circumstances you maybe can't?
                I think the Xeens are rehoused DS lenses, probably with different coatings. I mean, the DS lenses themselves have a nice look IMO, and the 50 and even the 85 can be used wide open without blushing.

                They sort of have a vintage-y softness but still resolve 4K and don't fall to pieces with veiling glare like old lenses because they have newer coatings. And actually I see a lot of manufacturers running away from that sharp clinical look, like Sigma with the Classic Primes.

                I might be able to check it out at B&H but I live in the burbs now so every trip to the city is a to-do. Even if you live in the boroughs, it's always a 1- or 2-hour round-trip. Plus the pandemic. Plus since having a kid, my free time isn't really free. Plus I'm not buying any time soon. Blah blah blah
                www.VideoAbe.com

                "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

                Comment


                  #9
                  But that's what I'm thinking...if you need some light, just crank up the ISO.

                  With modern post and noise reduction, you can also recover like 3-4 stops later if necessary.

                  Totally not trying to discourage you from purchasing the lens if it's truly right for you, but sometimes I see these kind of similar questions asked, and I think to myself: "If you're finding yourself in a lot of situations where a half of a stop will be a difference maker then maybe you need a different camera or more light." (And I know more light isn't always possible - like weddings - but then post will help a lot as mentioned.)

                  Half a stop might sound like a lot, but not sure if you're really visualizing the difference practically.

                  Nevertheless, when and if B&H opens, you can check it out upstairs (it's actually listed as 'on display in store').

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                    But that's what I'm thinking...if you need some light, just crank up the ISO.

                    With modern post and noise reduction, you can also recover like 3-4 stops later if necessary.

                    Totally not trying to discourage you from purchasing the lens if it's truly right for you, but sometimes I see these kind of similar questions asked, and I think to myself: "If you're finding yourself in a lot of situations where a half of a stop will be a difference maker then maybe you need a different camera or more light." (And I know more light isn't always possible - like weddings - but then post will help a lot as mentioned.)

                    Half a stop might sound like a lot, but not sure if you're really visualizing the difference practically.

                    Nevertheless, when and if B&H opens, you can check it out upstairs (it's actually listed as 'on display in store').
                    Sure, but assume that your ISO is cranked as far as you want to go and you still need more light. Let's say you're lighting an entire beachfront at night with a single M18 through a silk. (This is one of the scenarios I AC'd where the DP pushed his ISO higher than he said he would.)

                    Or take the Pocket 4K. I reviewed a low-light test of the camera recently and it genuinely seemed to me that when the camera was pushed from ISO 5000 to ISO 6400, the noise level noticeably increased and started dancing across the screen in waves. That's only a third of a stop.

                    For weddings, I'm fine. I will happily push my S1 to 12800, 25600, or even 51200 if necessary. That camera is a beast in low light, and up to 12800 I find the noise tolerable for the target viewing size (granted that there's NR happening in-camera). Above that, it's definitely noisy, but who cares - you're getting an exposure in an impossible situation.

                    I'm pondering getting a cleaner exposure for a movie. Let's say you're shooting in moonlight. You can light your main actor, but you don't want to overpower the ambient light too much because you can't light the entire landscape.
                    www.VideoAbe.com

                    "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

                    Comment


                      #11
                      But the difference is like... |___|


                      It's not like f/1.2 to f/2.8 which is like... |____________________|


                      We are still talking about a f/1.2 and f/1.4 difference, right?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Yes, but let's say you'll die if you crank your ISO one more notch.

                        Also, we don't know if the difference is 1.2 to 1.4 because no one has verified the transmission of the 1.2. We could be talking about nothing. Or maybe we're talking about 1.2 and 1.6 because supposedly the 1.4 transmits a 1.6.
                        www.VideoAbe.com

                        "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                          I think the Xeens are rehoused DS lenses, probably with different coatings.
                          Really?I trust you over me on that. I'm just trying to recall why I thought they were different designs.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by James0b57 View Post
                            Really?I trust you over me on that. I'm just trying to recall why I thought they were different designs.
                            Well, AFAIK, the optical design is the same but everything else is updated. This, from cinema5D:

                            "Aren’t these just rehoused Samyangs?
                            Not really. The new XEEN’s may share the same internal optical design, but new coatings have stepped it all up a notch. You’ll see noticeably less flaring and better contrast. Everything else has been built from scratch."
                            https://www.cinema5d.com/xeen-cinema-lenses-impression/

                            That's part of the reason I like the DS so much. They're plastic and they won't last forever and I wouldn't impress a client with the look of the lens itself, but I actually like the flaring etc. Sort of a poor man's Sigma Classic prime. And having a matching T1.5 maximum aperture on the 24/35/50/85 is the way to go.

                            I put together a set of those 4 plus the 16 and the 135 for less than $2k
                            Last edited by ahalpert; 05-07-2020, 07:55 AM.
                            www.VideoAbe.com

                            "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                              But the difference is like... |___|


                              It's not like f/1.2 to f/2.8 which is like... |____________________|


                              We are still talking about a f/1.2 and f/1.4 difference, right?
                              One last thing to mention is that the SP at 1.2 might be as sharp as the DS at 1.8 or 2. So, if you'd rather not open the DS past 2, we might be talking about a bigger effective brightness difference. Just thinking about options. Whether or not it's worth it would depend on its actual transmission and its cost.

                              They don't have the Rokinon DS 50 in this database, but here's a tool showing how much sharper the SP 50 is at 1.2 than the much more expensive Canon L 50 1.2:
                              https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=0
                              www.VideoAbe.com

                              "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X