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

ahalpert said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
haha - well, we do still obsess, but you've broken/restructured that quote out of this particular context.
 
NorBro said:
haha - well, we do still obsess, but you've broken/restructured that quote out of this particular context.
Click to expand...

The joke wouldn't have worked otherwise.

But in all the same, you're not so jaded as you try to sound. Cheers!
 
NorBro said:
You're bored again, lol.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NorBro said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.]
 
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.
 
NorBro said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
ahalpert said:
But it never hurts to obsessively research...
Click to expand...

Especially lately. have some time to think about options. Many of the new lenses are cheap and good, but don't have an exhaustive collection.

For example, if you go the Zeiss vintage route you have a lot of choices in lens types. 8mm s16, cheap Contax options, Standard speeds, super speeds. then the spectrum shift, from MKii to UP to Supreme to MP with the CP/CZ, Radiance, and Otus in between. Not to mention the growing family for modern stills and hybrid cameras. An insane spherical family of lenses.

Or, SLR Magic APO has 4 lenses. for around $5K

We've got options.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
Only lens on my Pocket is a Rok 20mm DS. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Cool - how do you like that one? I've never tried it. I wish it were a 1.5 but a 1.9 at 20mm is pretty great. It's hard for me to justify that purchase already having the 24 and then the 16. Oh, if I could have all the lenses...
 
It's the sweet spot as far as an everyday on S35.

Just a bit wider than a normal 35mm FOV to squeeze in a bit more.

Like the CFast cards, I repurposed it for the camera.
 
James0b57 said:
Especially lately. have some time to think about options. Many of the new lenses are cheap and good, but don't have an exhaustive collection.

For example, if you go the Zeiss vintage route you have a lot of choices in lens types. 8mm s16, cheap Contax options, Standard speeds, super speeds. then the spectrum shift, from MKii to UP to Supreme to MP with the CP/CZ, Radiance, and Otus in between. Not to mention the growing family for modern stills and hybrid cameras. An insane spherical family of lenses.

Or, SLR Magic APO has 4 lenses. for around $5K

We've got options.
Click to expand...

This is all true.

I'm not super well-acquainted with real cine glass. I used to AC and became familiar with CP.2s and CN-Es and superspeeds and RED primes. But I wasn't personally shooting with them.

As an owner/operator (and even the narrative stuff I shoot typically uses my gear) I'm more familiar with the stills stuff and the Rokinon "cine" lenses.

One thing I'll say about vintage glass - I generally think that modern coatings are objectively superior. I like the softness of some older glass, but the old coatings make them hard to use in backlit situations and also lend a dated low-contrast feel to the image, which may or may not be your goal.

SLR Magic APO lenses look nice. I haven't used them. But you're still talking about a higher price point than I'm invested in. I bought 6 Rok DS lenses (16/24/35/50/85/135) for like $1800 total used.

I have Canon L 24-70 and 70-200 for a more commercial/clean look. If I wanted something more clinical I would be happy to get the sigma 18-35 and 50-100 and stay on a cropped sensor (only because a full set of sigma art f/1.4s would be much more expensive).
 
ahalpert said:
SLR Magic APO lenses look nice. I haven't used them. But you're still talking about a higher price point than I'm invested in. I bought 6 Rok DS lenses (16/24/35/50/85/135) for like $1800 total used.
Click to expand...

And that's pretty great. The DS has a pretty good range. enough to count as a legitimate set. And even though I think that I won't like them, every time I have, they perform very well. If they were vintage, I might actually might envy them. I should re-evaluate them again. Put them up against some of the other lenses I have been considering owning.
 
James0b57 said:
And that's pretty great. The DS has a pretty good range. enough to count as a legitimate set. And even though I think that I won't like them, every time I have, they perform very well. If they were vintage, I might actually might envy them. I should re-evaluate them again. Put them up against some of the other lenses I have been considering owning.
Click to expand...

If the Rokinons were not plastic, made in Korea, and manufactured with less quality control than some other brands, they would be far, far more expensive. Granted, those are each significant issues. But the point is that the optics themselves are quite fine. It's a look. And I personally prefer it to the Sigma look, at least.

But the DS are not truly cine lenses. They have geared focus and aperture rings, and that's great. And they are supposedly color matched, so at least the manufacturer is trying to unify the look. The attempt to color match is one reason I went with them. And the matching focus gear placement is nice. But they haven't been rehoused and engineered to lessen breathing vs the regular stills lenses. I don't remember thinking that they breath awfully but I'm not sure.
 
Yeah, Sigmas aren’t my favourite. I can see the appeal, and i really want to like them, but i don’t.

But gosh, used Rokinon DS has got to be one of the best bang for buck right now.

This was all Rokinon on A7sii. Test footage.
26975953396_bb0f0b07cd_w.jpg
 
James0b57 said:
Yeah, Sigmas aren’t my favourite. I can see the appeal, and i really want to like them, but i don’t.

But gosh, used Rokinon DS has got to be one of the best bang for buck right now.

This was all Rokinon on A7sii. Test footage.
26975953396_bb0f0b07cd_w.jpg
Click to expand...

Your shots? Looks nice. Maybe a touch more distortion in the close-ups than some lenses but I can't quite rightly tell and in any case that can be a nice look. But honestly I think they've got a pretty look and punch way above their weight. I think they've got warmth and character and unless you want something more clinical, they're a great budget option. I mean, the Xeens use the same optical formulas. Yes, there are important differences, but...
 
ahalpert said:
Your shots? Looks nice. Maybe a touch more distortion in the close-ups than some lenses but I can't quite rightly tell and in any case that can be a nice look. But honestly I think they've got a pretty look and punch way above their weight. I think they've got warmth and character and unless you want something more clinical, they're a great budget option. I mean, the Xeens use the same optical formulas. Yes, there are important differences, but...
Click to expand...

Thanks, yeah, but they were just testing out the A7sii + Rokinon combo. Was seeing what kind of look it could get. This was likely the year the A7sii came out. Had to test the low light.

Yeah, i am kind of surprised the Xeens are the same thing, but also, i’ve never shot on a Xeen, and was always happy with the DS results.

I get the same sort of vibe on the lens characteristics that you describe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top