C100: Samyang/Rokinon Cine Lenses - any dogs?

MattDavis

MattDavis

Well-known member
As a C100 shooter, I've bowed to the inevitability of getting a set of fast primes in addition to my 'variable prime' IS zoom set. My clients won't pay extra for Zeiss CP2s or even L-glass, so I'm looking at Samyang's Cine line.

Are there any lenses in the range that, even with the cheap price, aren't worth it?

If one already has a Tokina 11-16 2.8, doesn't that sort of rule out the 14mm T3.1? Or would the prime outshine the zoom at, say, f4?

And here's a real wildcard question - I have the Nikkor 10.5mm semi fisheye which has been fun on some interior shoots (corporate 'Grand Designs' sort of thing). I've looked at a few shots from the Samyang 8mm semi-fisheye and it seems less grotesquely distorting - anyone use this lens? Sharp? Contrasty?
 
I have the Duclos Tokina 11-16 2.8 so I didn't get the 24mm 1.5. Unless you really need or want f1.5.
I went with the 35mm and 85mm Rokinons. Really nice for the price. The 85mm focal length has always been my favorite.
 
Haven't used the wides, but the 24mm, 35mm and 85mm lenses are must-haves. While the 35mm can do the job most of the time, the 24mm really shines on the C100 in tighter spaces. The 14mm has a weird front element / lens hood design so you can't use it with a matte box - I think that's the reason they came out (recently) with the 16mm T2.2 which is a normal design.

The jury is still out about how the Tokina performs against the 16mm. But since the 11-16mm covers most of it anyways at a decently fast aperture, no real reason for me to swap it out anyways.
 
I like my 35/1.5. 85/1.5 is on my list but I have heard some say the 24/1.5 is soft wide open. That may also be due to sample variation. On crop you may want to consider the Sigma 18-35 when available. That would give you a 18, 21, 25, 28 and a 35 in one lens. That is insane. That lens is next on my list.
 
The Tokina 11-16 is better than the 14mm in both resolution and distortion. The 8mm fisheye comes in different flavors. The original one that I have is just okay. The HD cine is reported to be better glass.

The 35mm and 85mm are most haves. Since the STILL don't have a 50mm I had Duclos modify a Nikon 50mm. The 24mm is usable, but it is softer.
 
I was a firm believer in the brilliance of the Samyang lenses until I had them for about a year. I ended up selling them and buying Canon lenses. I still have the 85mm and the fisheye, but I would sell the 85 if Canon had a decent alternative. I just didn't find them very well built. Both my 24mm and 35mm had quite a bit of play in the focus ring. They also made a grinding/fluttering noise while focusing. I have declicked most of my manual lenses and have therefore taken apart the Samyang lenses and a large number of older manual focus lenses. The Samyang lenses have what I consider to be poor design that involves a lot of plastic and rubbing parts. They are nothing like older manual focus lenses and I doubt they will last very long. The aperture mechanism is weak. The focus ring uses a plastic guide that allows a lot of play and will wear down over time. I just don't think the new 35mm, 25mm, and 16mm lenses are worth the price that Samyang is selling them for.
 
I have the 14mm and 85mm and they are both cracking lenses. I have the cine versions, so they have the follow focus gearings and are already de-clicked for smooth iris operation.

The 24 & 35 are on my list to acquire in the new year, although with Canon adding the ability for the C100 to AF I'm really tempted to hang on and (re)buy the Canon 24/35 instead. I'm seriously disappointed in myself for selling those two a couple of years ago, wish I'd held on to them!
 
85mm f1.4 is nice, what you expect... nice bokeh but can take on a swirly look. Really decent lens. Focus gear is hard to turn on photo version, haven't used "cine" version.

35mm f1.4 is even nicer. Great lens, pretty sharp corner to corner good contrast. Great for video, even wide open.

24mm f1.4 is bad wide open. Ok by f2. Messy color rendering and bokeh. Meh. Not great. Adequate I guess.

I hear the 16mm f2 is excellent but I haven't tried it.

14mm f2.8 is sharp but terrible distortion, ugly... Cool for videos without straight lines, I guess? I don't like it. 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina is more useful, though corners are not great (still good) and it is not expensive, either.

Really into the 18-35mm Sigma, though, hence I passed on the 16mm f2.
 
Have you thought about getting some Zeiss ZF.2 lenses? They are photography lenses obviously, but they use the same glass as CP.2's, and you can get them cine modded by Duclos for $250 per lens.

I'm planning on picking up some used ZF.2's, and then having them modded.

Just a thought.
 
I don't want to rag on these lenses, because they are a really good value. But after renting a set to try before I buy, I decided to pass on the purchase. The optical quality was OK, but the build quality reflected the low purchase price.
 
David W. Jones said:
I don't want to rag on these lenses, because they are a really good value. But after renting a set to try before I buy, I decided to pass on the purchase. The optical quality was OK, but the build quality reflected the low purchase price.
Click to expand...

I agree with David. I have a complete set and what I do like about them is they are like expendable lenses. When the situation is to risky for Ultra Primes or even CP.2's these lenses are used. Image quality is good but build quality is a little weak. However, I had a set on a feature filmed in difficult locations this summer and they all came back in great shape. This could be because the 1st AC was excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top