SAMYANG 14MM T3.1 VDSLR vs 14MM 2.8
- Thread starter ROCKMORE
- Start date
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I came across a pretty good explanation from Matt Granger on YouTube if anybody is interested .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI8uAzX0bBw
He also mentioned a data base that lists the f and T rating of just about any lens out there which could be useful in deciding on a lens for it's actual speed.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Samyang/14mm-F2.8-IF-ED-MC-Aspherical-Canon
Samuel H
Major Contributor
same glass, slightly more convenient housing
the difference between 2.8 and 3.1 is the light absorbed by the different layers of glass (i.e. 2.8 is theoretical, 3.1 is measured)
the measures by dxomark will depend on what sensor size they use, and how they account for vignetting
the difference between 2.8 and 3.1 is the light absorbed by the different layers of glass (i.e. 2.8 is theoretical, 3.1 is measured)
the measures by dxomark will depend on what sensor size they use, and how they account for vignetting
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Yes I did notice they have different ratings based on diffrent cameras.
Looks like pretty good lens. I have a shoot next week with a 5Dmk3 and I thought I might pick up a 14mm T3.1.
Below is a quote from Photozone. They aren't easy to hand out complements.
[h=4]MTF (resolution)[/h] Well, we were stunned by the results in this category and I reckon you will join us once you've had a look at the charts below. The Samyang produced nothing short of outstanding resolution figures for a lens in this class. The results are very even across the tested aperture range which means excellent to superb center resolution and very good to excellent borders and corners. Field curvature (flatness of the focus plane) is well controlled.
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
It's a very nice lens. The biggest issue with it is that, on FF, it has a not-really-flattering moustache distortion (it's a much less ugly barrel distortion on APS-C). But even with that, there's nothing around that can match it at its price.
The closest thing would be the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, used as a 16mm f/2.8 prime (it's an APS-C lens but it works great on FF too, except only at 16mm).
The closest thing would be the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, used as a 16mm f/2.8 prime (it's an APS-C lens but it works great on FF too, except only at 16mm).
Kyron
Well-known member
I have the Rokinon 14mm non-cine version and can vouch for that moustache distortion. The lens is incredibly sharp and great for landscapes etc, but when I used it on a video shoot showcasing architecture, the distortion became more readily apparent thanks to the buildings straight lines.
The most obvious example was when using it on a jib. As the crane rose up and the horizontal lines of the 2nd floor deck passed through the lower third of the frame, it was like HELLO MOUSTACHE!
Fortunately I found a lightroom lens correction profile for this lens and ran the video through that and it fixed it fairly well (albeit while losing a little resolution.)
It is difficult not to like this lens at that price. I don't think the cine version would be that much of an upgrade for me. I see no point getting follow focus gears or declicked aperture on a lens this wide. Its a case of set it to f10 to 16, dial it to infinity and let it do what it's best at. Wide landscapes, architecture and steadycam.
The most obvious example was when using it on a jib. As the crane rose up and the horizontal lines of the 2nd floor deck passed through the lower third of the frame, it was like HELLO MOUSTACHE!
Fortunately I found a lightroom lens correction profile for this lens and ran the video through that and it fixed it fairly well (albeit while losing a little resolution.)
It is difficult not to like this lens at that price. I don't think the cine version would be that much of an upgrade for me. I see no point getting follow focus gears or declicked aperture on a lens this wide. Its a case of set it to f10 to 16, dial it to infinity and let it do what it's best at. Wide landscapes, architecture and steadycam.