Anyone test the FF Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f/1.2?
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
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.
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.
G
Guest
Guest
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.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.)
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.)
NorBro
Major Contributor
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.
'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.
G
Guest
Guest
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?
G
Guest
Guest
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.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
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
NorBro
Major Contributor
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').
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').
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
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.
G
Guest
Guest
Really?I trust you over me on that. I'm just trying to recall why I thought they were different designs.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
G
Guest
Guest
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.
G
Guest
Guest
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.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Right. If you were handy you could break down the lenses and strip the coatings for that saving private ryan look.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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
G
Guest
Guest
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.