Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

    #16
    Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
    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/
    Wow, shows how important the details are in manufacturing. The DS line has always been hit or miss for many. But cool to think one could have two different variations of the same optical design. Not to mention, the DS line is cheap enough on the used market to even do a couple DIY mods to further make a versatile set of looks.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
      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.
      Also, the Sigmas are just a different coating, but they retain some of the same character of the standard set, no? That is what a rep told me at a show, anyway. And from what I could tell, the Sigma alternate coating set seemed to have modern sharpness with a lot of flare. Whereas the Canon's actually seemed softer and more visual aberrations than just reduced flare control. I could be misguided by marketing BS, but in my brief interactions, that was the sense I got as well.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by James0b57 View Post
        Wow, shows how important the details are in manufacturing. The DS line has always been hit or miss for many. But cool to think one could have two different variations of the same optical design. Not to mention, the DS line is cheap enough on the used market to even do a couple DIY mods to further make a versatile set of looks.
        Right. If you were handy you could break down the lenses and strip the coatings for that saving private ryan look.
        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


          #19
          Originally posted by James0b57 View Post
          Also, the Sigmas are just a different coating, but they retain some of the same character of the standard set, no? That is what a rep told me at a show, anyway. And from what I could tell, the Sigma alternate coating set seemed to have modern sharpness with a lot of flare. Whereas the Canon's actually seemed softer and more visual aberrations than just reduced flare control. I could be misguided by marketing BS, but in my brief interactions, that was the sense I got as well.
          Yes, the Sigmas are just a different coating AFAIK. Seems hard to argue that the coating doesn't impact the sharpness... but yeah same optics.

          Canon claims the Sumires have a different optical design than the CN-E. But they have the same focal lengths, t-stops and weights. I wonder if they just do the same thing there that they do with the RF 85mm "Defocus Smoothing" lens...dunno

          I haven't played with either set, so I just know what I've read online
          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


            #20
            Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
            Yes, the Sigmas are just a different coating AFAIK. Seems hard to argue that the coating doesn't impact the sharpness...
            What I meant, is that beyond the flaring and lower contrast, the lens elements aren't further adding aberrations or softening. It is still the same sharp precise Sigma look through all that haze. Whereas the Canon's seem more diffused wide open, some good amount of chromatic aberration, and then snap into sharpness stopping down and adding a matte box and eyebrow. The Canon's are a little like Zeiss Super Speeds in a way, but I felt, and I can't confirm this based on such limited interaction, but I felt that the transition from the crazy soft wide open to the sharp stopped down look was more abrupt than the Zeiss Super Speed transition between stops. The Canon felt like two different lenses. Whereas the Zeiss SS feel like one on a gradient, or maybe 3 different looks: crazy, soft, and sharp. Canon was 2 : crazy and sharp.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
              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
              Canon's 50mm f/1.2 is from a different world in 2007 (part of what I mentioned the other day about lenses improving).

              A lot of the high end glass from back then is now noticeably softer when compared to newer, cheaper options.

              I used to use that same tool and obsess and waste money constantly for years. Not saying it would be a waste for you, but it was for me because it was unnecessary, wasn't as useful or practical the way I imagined it, and no one would ever notice a difference, quite frankly.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                I used to... ...obsess and waste money constantly for years.
                used to? what do you think talking gear most days of the week is? Haha, we still obsess, bro.

                Comment


                  #23
                  haha - well, we do still obsess, but you've broken/restructured that quote out of this particular context.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                    haha - well, we do still obsess, but you've broken/restructured that quote out of this particular context.
                    The joke wouldn't have worked otherwise.

                    But in all the same, you're not so jaded as you try to sound. Cheers!

                    Comment


                      #25
                      You're bored again, lol.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                        You're bored again, lol.
                        oh, c'mon. Don't be so down. I enjoy talking to you and many others here. In particular during the pandemic lock downs. It is kind of a lovely routine of coffee and breakfast and film maker discussion.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                          Canon's 50mm f/1.2 is from a different world in 2007 (part of what I mentioned the other day about lenses improving).

                          A lot of the high end glass from back then is now noticeably softer when compared to newer, cheaper options.

                          I used to use that same tool and obsess and waste money constantly for years. Not saying it would be a waste for you, but it was for me because it was unnecessary, wasn't as useful or practical the way I imagined it, and no one would ever notice a difference, quite frankly.
                          This is true re:50 EF but people are still buying it.

                          If you compare the RF 50 1.2 in that tool to the EF, you can see that it absolutely smokes the EF wide open.

                          People would notice that performance difference. That doesn't mean these charts are the end-all be-all.

                          The point I was making was simply that the Rokinon SP is relatively cheap and usable wide open.
                          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


                            #28
                            A lot of people buy a lot of things because they don't know or didn't know any better (including myself x2).

                            Canon's 50mm f/1.2 is considered an iconic classic and a status symbol among photographers.

                            Most of whom have extremely high-resolution sensors and capture formats. They aren't too bothered by the edges or contrast of the lens wide-open since most of the time it's all a blur anyway besides the signature middle part of the frame surrounded by its famous creamy bokeh.

                            Most of the people purchasing it aren't on forums discussing minute details (or even are aware of how rapidly everything is changing).

                            [And most photographers are keeping their high-performing DSLRs and not upgrading yet, so the 50mm RF isn't really on the radar yet until RF is widely accepted and used.]

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Also, I'm not sure if you mentioned it already or not, but you also have to consider which camera the SP would go on. IMO, you're not going to be able to shoot anything moving at f/1.2 (35mm) on the S1 without being one of the world's best focus pullers. I guess you can use the S35 mode but I don't think you'd do that because it sounds like you're mostly interested in using a full-frame sensor.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                                Also, I'm not sure if you mentioned it already or not, but you also have to consider which camera the SP would go on. IMO, you're not going to be able to shoot anything moving at f/1.2 (35mm) on the S1 without being one of the world's best focus pullers. I guess you can use the S35 mode but I don't think you'd do that because it sounds like you're mostly interested in using a full-frame sensor.
                                What makes you think I'm not the world's best focus puller? ;) yes, it would be hard at 1.2 but could work for a static scene or a constant focus distance, and in any case you might have no other choice.

                                As to your points earlier about not buying lenses based on resolution tests - I completely agree. In this particular case, I was checking to see if the lens can actually resolve fine detail wide open because many lenses can't.

                                But a great counterexample of relying on these tests is the Sigma ART lenses. They're very good lenses, but IMO a bit clean and clinical. The right choice for some purposes, and indeed I like their OOF and broken very much. But I actually prefer the Rokinon look (and certainly the Rokinon price). However, wide open I think that the Sigmas are clearly better and the Rokinons, for the most part, I try to avoid opening all the way. But it's really the color and chromatic aberrations that I object to more than the softness in the Rokinons at f/1.4 (but again the Rok 50 is quite good wide open and the 85 is passable as well).

                                I'm not in a rush to buy any new gear anyway as the projects I would need it for are likely years away. But it never hurts to obsessively research...
                                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