More Rokinon and Nikon comparisons including 24mm...

boghav said:
Apologies to Duke M and to anyone else offended by my snide tone. But to trash a manufacturer's product while making subjective tests is unprofessional as well. Still no excuse for my post today.
Click to expand...

The idea of this series of tests is to do a series of stress tests. Looking at images from ideal conditions will tell you nothing as many lenses are at least moderately good and look just fine under ideal conditions.

My plan and method was to use uniform lighting and uniform settings on the camera. This pointed out certain things. It is as objective as you're going to get and didn't trash anyone's product.

I said at the beginning that some people would complain about the test. No test is perfect. Will you be showing us your test?
 
Last edited:
Duke M. said:
The idea of this series of tests is to do a series of stress tests. Looking at images from ideal conditions will tell you nothing as many lenses are at least moderately good and look just fine under ideal conditions.

My plan and method was to use uniform lighting and uniform settings on the camera. This pointed out certain things. It is as objective as you're going to get and didn't trash anyone's product.

I said at the beginning that some people would complain about the test. No test is perfect. Will you be showing us your test?
Click to expand...

I don't own any Rokinon lenses, but I do have a couple of Nikon lenses that don't show any of the severe lack of image quality you have experienced with your Nikon glass. Would be happy to share some lens comparisons for the glass I do own if that would be of any interest.
 
I have some Nikon lenses and they do tend to go very soft when opened all the way (I have a 35mm f.2 that is pretty awful when opened up fully, and a 50mm f1.4 that is useable but relatively soft when opened fully, and a 85mm f.2 thats reasonably sharp when open). Those images were crops by the way; the actual full images won't look as soft as the crops do.

Probably the age of the glass has something to do with it; my Nikkors are vintage lenses, so presumably newer glass will be sharper thanks to improved tolerances and better coatings. However, newer Nikkon lenses tend to be something like 2 or 3 times more expensive than the similar and equally fast Rokinons (also the Nikons won't have the 'cinevised' features that would cost a few hundred dollars more to convert).
 
boghav said:
I don't own any Rokinon lenses, but I do have a couple of Nikon lenses that don't show any of the severe lack of image quality you have experienced with your Nikon glass. Would be happy to share some lens comparisons for the glass I do own if that would be of any interest.
Click to expand...

If you have a Nikon 24mm or 35mm try taking an indoors picture lit with one 60 watt bulb with the lens 50" away from the subject with the lens wide open, crop in to the subject to a 2"x3" area (a short lens is the right size and has writing on it) and let's see what you get in comparison.

Tell us what the aperture is. Almost all lenses are good at F4-F11. This is to see how good it is at F1.4 or T1.5.
 
Duke do you know release schedule for 85mm, and/or longer focal lengths for the Rokinons? Also have you used Zeiss ZF.2 and aware how they might compare?
 
starcentral said:
Duke do you know release schedule for 85mm, and/or longer focal lengths for the Rokinons? Also have you used Zeiss ZF.2 and aware how they might compare?
Click to expand...

They said the 85mm at the end of November.

No I've never tried the ZF.2. Only Nikon, Rokinon and Canons.
 
Images of the 85mm have been put up on the Rokinon Facebook page.

229908_444450252267565_552437057_n.jpg

Anyone know where I can get a hold of the 14mm, 24mm & 35mm in Canon mount together, preferably in NY? I have a friend going there in mid October for a week; and had hoped to get them from B&H, but the 35mm is backordered. I can't get any reply from B&H - and every time I go to their website it seems to be closed down for some holiday or another.
 
simonpwood said:
Anyone know where I can get a hold of the 14mm, 24mm & 35mm in Canon mount together, preferably in NY? I have a friend going there in mid October for a week; and had hoped to get them from B&H, but the 35mm is backordered. I can't get any reply from B&H - and every time I go to their website it seems to be closed down for some holiday or another.
Click to expand...

I assume you're out of the US. I bought my 35mm from bestpriceoptics on Ebay. [Note: I see no 35mm cine's on ebay right now. They must be really popular.]
 
I think the 50mm will be at least a T1.5, but it might be as fast as T1.3 (F1.2) and with modern coatings and ED glass who knows, maybe even faster.
 
Here's my 2 cents on the Rokinon's.
I was excited when I heard they were "cine lenses" because I thought they might have longer focus throws than other still lenses and their other still lenses. But as far i can see all they have is declicked apertures and focus rings. All fine but no different than getting a Duclos Mod.

Aside from the 24mm and the 8mm the question becomes are they worth buying instead of the Zeiss ZF series.
Well they are a little cheaper and as someone who stayed in the Zeiss ZF school instead of laying down $4K + per lens to get true cine lenses I understand the need to save money. However i own a Zeiss ZF1 35mm f2. It is sharp right down to F2 and a great lens. I liked the idea of 1.4 though and tried out a Zeiss and Rokinon 1.4
Sharpness on the Zeiss f1.4 was phenomenal but the axial CA was terrible when wide open - magenta and green fringing really jumped out at you. Worse than any still lens I've encounterd and much worse than the Zeiss F2 even at F2. I figured it wasn't worth having a client say - "What the hell is that!" Especially when I would see it on contrasty objects like lampshades, windows or lights behind but near the focus plane at F1.4 - in other words exactly what I might be using that lens for. So I returned it. The Rokinon also had more CA than the Zeiss and was soft at F1.4. So unless I wanted a soft fast lens with more CA I just had a cheaper F2 lens that wasn't made as well.
(Actually considered keeping it as an emergency f1.4 option).

Is the price difference worth it? Well the old NikonAI 35mm is even worse at f1.4. But you can a used Zeiss 35mm ZF f2 for a round a grand or less and add $250 for Duclos to do its magic. So its $600 vs maybe $1300 for a better lens and the ability to tell clients you have Zeiss glass not some cheap asian knock- off.
For a DSLR guy it might be worth it. If you've upped the game to a Red or an F3 you are already saving so much money with still lenses that it seems penny wise & pound foolish.

Lenny Levy
 
Last edited:
No lens is right for everyone. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that a Rokinon is as good as a ZF set. I am reminded of Matt Duclos' review where he's wondering why the Zeiss lens is that much more expensive for that little bit extra capability.

I would quibble a little bit about the prices though. The 35mm is $550, the 14mm is $450 and the 8mm $350. And a ZF set isn't always available used and not always at that price.

Also, you are comparing a new Rokinon lens with a used Zeiss lens. I know that when I've bought used lenses they aren't always in perfect condition.

Zeiss may be a great fit for you. Not everyone can afford them and at those prices can't afford to take chances on used ones. Different lenses for different situations. For many of us its the choice between a new Rokinon with gears or an old Nikkor (which may have dust, scratches, etc) and no gears.
 
Last edited:
Duke,
Yes, everybody makes their own choices and I'm not criticizing your choice just adding a different perspective to all the Rokinon excitement. I would go Rokinon over many old Nikons also but its pretty close in some cases.

When I bought my F3, Zeiss ZF (not ZF2) lenses they were quite easy to find used and all were in perfect shape. I'm pretty cheap but on a $16K camera, I just don't see a significant enough difference in price to drop down a step in optical quality and the Zeiss name. I find a lot of clients ask what lenses i have . Zeiss carries weight. A lot of dealers like Adorama and KEH are great places to look for used lenses though I've never been burned on craigslist either.

For example Adorama has 50mm f1.4 for 575 - add in Duclos and you have a Zeiss for $850. Not bad though that is the cheapest. A used 85mm f1.4 ZF2 was $1100. Still way way below cine lens prices. If you can afford the dfference from Rokinon I think its worth it.I agree they are pretty damn good for the price though.

If they had longer focus throws I would be tempted because that is a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Lenny, I think your write-up is spot-on. I'd rather have good glass in front of a lesser sensor.
Like most things, on a quality score, there's low-budget that gets you 75% of the way there, 95% costs twice as much and 98% costs ten times. (none are at 100 and the 99's think they're 100's.)
 
As I've said in another thread, I'll be covering the PhotoPlus show in NYC this week (I'm at Javits Center all day Thurs if anyone in NYC wants to connect). I see in the exhibitor listing that Vivitar has a booth. Will be very interested in seeing whether they are showing any of the Rokinon Cine lenses. For those who haven't followed the various threads, Vivitar=Samyang=Rokinon

Ned
 
Phil's piece is beautiful. But he could make a magnifying glass look great. Phil never does careful comparative tests with lenses and doesn't claim to. I've talked with him about this. He uses the tools he tries out and keeps what he works for him. i have no doubt the Rokinon's will generally be very nice and a fabulous deal for the money. How they compare to a Zeiss wide open and whether the difference is worth the money remains an open question, but boy this piece looks great. Might be my favorite from Phil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top