Shocking Samyang, Zeiss, Nikon 35mm comparative optics testing...

Duke M.

Duke M.

Veteran
LeavingTheCandy said:
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.)
Click to expand...

That's a little disingenuous because you can't really define good. No lens is great at everything. Its more a matter of which characteristics vs cost are more important to you.

For example, I looked up actual testing of the Zeiss 35mm F2.0, the Nikon 35mm F1.4 AFS and the Rokinon/Samyang 35mm F1.4. The testing is very, very interesting. I think the results may surprise you.

** CHROMATIC ABERRATION:
The Rokinon is noted in the review as having a lot of longitudal CA. That should be shown in the top photo as a magenta shift. It is there, but not anywhere near as much as the Nikon. Unfortunately the Zeiss F2 review doesn't show that same image for comparison, however it does show photo in the F1.4 review (link below).

But in lateral CA it's charted and the Samyang/Rokinon has less CA than Canon L glass, less than Nikon and less than Sony glass.

In fact, although the Zeiss IS a little better than Nikon or Canon glass its not that much better. The Rokinon is about a third of the Zeiss in lateral CA. The lower the CA percentage the better.

The Samyang at the sharpest aperture of F5.6 the CA is about .05%. Look at the chart for Samyang here:
http://www.lenstip.com/297.5-Lens_review-Samyang_35_mm_f_1.4_AS_UMC__Chromatic_aberration.html

The Zeiss F2.0 at the sharpest aperture of F5.6 the CA is about .12%. Unfortunately stopped down further it becomes worse, in fact as bad as the Nikon at about .15%. Then look at the Zeiss here:
http://www.lenstip.com/179.5-Lens_r..._mm_f_2_ZF_ZK_ZS_ZE_Chromatic_aberration.html

The Zeiss F1.4 at the sharpest aperture of F5.6 the CA is about .09%. The review specifically says it beats everyone except... the Samyang. Then look at the Zeiss F1.4 here:
http://www.lenstip.com/307.5-Lens_r...35_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Chromatic_aberration.html


You'll notice that the Zeiss lens is comparatively best wide open and the Samyang is comparatively best a couple stops down. Please also look at the test image crop at the end.

The Nikon at the aperture of F5.6 the CA is about .15%. The Nikon AF-S (most of us have AI-S which is worse and often has a weird color shift due to old coatings) is much worse. The Rokinon has about 1/5th the lateral CA of this modern Nikon lens. Like the Rokinon its comparatively worse when wide open.
http://www.lenstip.com/286.5-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_35_mm_f_1.4G_Chromatic_aberration.html

That means the Zeiss has less CA up and down and the Samyang has less CA side to side.

** RESOLUTION:
On the Samyang in the usable portion of the aperture from F2-F16 its ~36 or better. With the sharpest being ~44 at F5.6.
http://www.lenstip.com/297.4-Lens_review-Samyang_35_mm_f_1.4_AS_UMC__Image_resolution.html

Then on the Zeiss F2 in the usable portion of the aperture from F2-F16 its ~39 or better. With the sharpest being ~46 at F5.6.
http://www.lenstip.com/179.4-Lens_r...*_35_mm_f_2_ZF_ZK_ZS_ZE_Image_resolution.html

Then on the Nikon it has a really weird curve in the focus ability. While both the Zeiss and the Rokinon have high resolution from F2-F16 the Nikon is only in that league from F2.8-F11! In the usable portion of the aperture from F2.8-F11 its ~39 or better. But F2 and F16 drop down significantly to about 32 lines. Also, the other two are sharpest at F5.6 and the Nikon is sharpest at F4 (although they're very close.)

Then on the Zeiss F1.4 in the usable portion of the aperture from F2-F16 its ~39 or better. With the sharpest being ~46 at F5.6.
http://www.lenstip.com/307.4-Lens_r..._T*_35_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html


The Zeiss F2.0 beats the Samyang by 2-3 lines.
The Zeiss F1.4 beats the Samyang by 2-3 lines.

** BARREL DISTORTION:
Wide lenses have a tendency to cause the image to bulge outward from the center. This is something that can be tested on a machine so its subject to a high degree of accuracy. I'm showing the results on an APS-C / S35 size sensor. Again, lower is better.

Nikon = −0.96%
Zeiss F2= -0.75%
Samyang = −0.83%
Zeiss F1.4 = −0.74%

So again, the Samyang is better than the Nikon but anything less than one is good. Obviously the Zeiss is better, but that small difference isn't going to be visually noticeable.

** LIGHT FALL OFF/VIGNETTING:
These are all done on APC-S / 35mm sized sensor at F2.0 since Zeiss doesn't go faster.

Nikon = 14%
Zeiss F2 = 35%. (And is 15% at F2.8.)
Zeiss F1.4 = 17% at F2 and 32% at F1.4
Samyang = 9% at F2 and 21% at F1.4
CanonL = 16% (if you're interested)

Samyang / Rokinon is the clear winner here.

** COMA:
This is to check that the horizontal and verticle blur are nearly the same.

Nikon = Just as with the resolution test there is a weird curve. At F1.4 and F2 the correlation is horrible. At F2.8 and onward its better. 13.8%.
Zeiss F2 = The average difference in MTF50 function values amounted to 5%. Very good.
Zeiss F1.4 = The average difference in MTF50 function values amounted to 6%. Again, very good.
Samyang = The average difference in MTF50 function values amounted to just 2.5% which is a splendid result.

Samyang / Rokinon is again the clear winner.

I was amazed to see the performance of Samyang falling more within the curves of the Zeiss than the Nikon. I leave it to you to judge the results and determine if Zeiss is worth about three times as much and what 'good' means to you.
 
Last edited:
IN SUMMARY:

The Zeiss has less CA up and down, by a lot.
The Zeiss beats the Rokinon in resolution by 2-3 lines. (Less than 1%, so minimal)
The Zeiss has .08% less barrel distortion. (minimal)

Samyang has less CA side to side, by a lot.
The Samyang has approximately one third less the light fall off than the Zeiss F1.4 at F1.4. (depends on whether vignetting bothers you)
The Samyang has half the coma aberration of the Zeiss.
 
Last edited:
Lenny kept talking about the ZF F2.0 so that's the one I used. However, there are test results for the ZF2 F1.4.

I've now added in the Zeiss F1.4 test result comparisons to the first post. The summary remains the same. Both Zeiss lenses had very similar results.
 
Last edited:
Duke,

I've seen those tests and I agree the Rokinon beats out old Nikon AI glass. That's why i purchased a 35 from B&H. All i can say is I had the lenses next to me on the same camera and compared them very carefully. I made a decision to send back the Rockinon and the Zeiss f1.4 ( considered keeping the Rokinon just to have a 1.4 lens though.)
I was and continue to be mainly concerned with performance wide open as I rarely shoot at 5,6 and if I do they are all pretty good there anyway.
I also have not found the the other forms of aberration to be nearly as noticeable as axial CA which can really jump out at you and you may not see except on a big monitor - so I just didn't pay attention to them. The other issue I imagine could be noticeable is flare but I haven't tested for it. One issue with axial (longitudinal) CA is that it gets worse as the lens gets sharper and f stop opens up. The Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is razor sharp but pays with CA. Still photographers however can eliminate CA with the push of a button in post so they don't care too much about and Zeiss didn't make that lens for us.

By the way , the fact that they are all made by the same company is no assurance that they will color match. I have Nikon's and Zeiss that match great. However I sent back 2 Nikon ZF 21mm lenses that had really different color than the rest and which I found inferior to my Nikon 17-35 zoom. So I'm not wedded to Zeiss, just think you might think carefully before saving $400-$1000 on lenses that are already way way cheaper than the true cine alternatives.

I'm sure you'll be happy with your lenses and I may end up buying a 24mm myself (though my old Nikon is actually quite good). There's no question they are a great deal and who knows maybe I'll follow you on all of them if they turn out that good. (As an example of the name factor to consider in our business though - I interviewed with someone recently for a job and they were disappointed I didn't have Cooke lenses. At least I could throw out the name Zeiss and Nikon. Samyang would be less effective at least for the time being.)
 
The trade off of sharpness is CA and vice versa. The 24mm has almost no CA, but isn't as sharp until F4 and does have barrel distortion over 1. In comparision the Nikon and Samyang 24mm lenses are very similar in resolution curves and CA, with the Samyang having a bit more barrel distortion.
 
Lenilenapi said:
Duke,

I've seen those tests and I agree the Rokinon beats out old Nikon AI glass. That's why i purchased a 35 from B&H. All i can say is I had the lenses next to me on the same camera and compared them very carefully. I made a decision to send back the Rockinon and the Zeiss f1.4 ( considered keeping the Rokinon just to have a 1.4 lens though.)
I was and continue to be mainly concerned with performance wide open as I rarely shoot at 5,6 and if I do they are all pretty good there anyway.
I also have not found the the other forms of aberration to be nearly as noticeable as axial CA which can really jump out at you and you may not see except on a big monitor - so I just didn't pay attention to them. The other issue I imagine could be noticeable is flare but I haven't tested for it. One issue with axial (longitudinal) CA is that it gets worse as the lens gets sharper and f stop opens up. The Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is razor sharp but pays with CA. Still photographers however can eliminate CA with the push of a button in post so they don't care too much about and Zeiss didn't make that lens for us.

By the way , the fact that they are all made by the same company is no assurance that they will color match. I have Nikon's and Zeiss that match great. However I sent back 2 Nikon ZF 21mm lenses that had really different color than the rest and which I found inferior to my Nikon 17-35 zoom. So I'm not wedded to Zeiss, just think you might think carefully before saving $400-$1000 on lenses that are already way way cheaper than the true cine alternatives.

I'm sure you'll be happy with your lenses and I may end up buying a 24mm myself (though my old Nikon is actually quite good). There's no question they are a great deal and who knows maybe I'll follow you on all of them if they turn out that good. (As an example of the name factor to consider in our business though - I interviewed with someone recently for a job and they were disappointed I didn't have Cooke lenses. At least I could throw out the name Zeiss and Nikon. Samyang would be less effective at least for the time being.)
Click to expand...

Zeiss 21mm is one of the best lenses i ever owned...it will s... Over any Nikon 17-35 zoom(which i also own)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/21mm-f28.htm
 
"it will s... Over any Nikon 17-35 zoom" .... well not mine apparently

I've read the reports abut those lenses. All i can say is I tried a Zeiss 21mm ZF lens against my 17-35 and was dumbstruck to find the Zeiss was noticeably softer, at least 1/2 stop slower and had a warmer color than the other Zeiss family. I even brought them over to Chater camera in Berkeley, CA which has good charts and testing facilities and compared it to 2 of their's with their techs around. Everyone concurred and was surprised. The Zeiss had a flatter field but that was about it.
Since they were both f2,8, about the same weight and focus throw length I sold the ZF.

Maybe there is a lot of individual variation. I was very careful in testing though especially as I didn't believe it at first.

Have you had yours up against each other to compare?





[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 91%"]1-888-318-PYLE"[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Look,
this is a Legendary piece of glass. It is so sharp it is close to TS lenses, colour is typical Zeiss( not warm).
I do not know what to say....you can not compare this magical piece of glass to any zoom.
I own whole Zeiss set and 21mm with 35mm f1.4 and both Macro are fantastic.
New 15mm is a beauty too. I am sorry but you either had bad luck or .....
 
Avro, don't take it personally. We're not comparing legends, we're comparing test results.

Sometimes (unfortunately) there is significant lens to lens variation. You may have received a great version and Lenny may have received a bad version, or both. You can both be perfectly right in your judgements of your individual lenses.

I know I have rec'd some less than stellar Nikon lenses in the past. However, many people consider the Nikon 17-35mm AF-S the best piece of glass Nikon ever made. My copy is fantastic. It beats my primes for sharpness and is only limited in that it's F2.8.

I don't think any of us should be saying anything in absolute terms. Its all food for thought. IMO machine tests are more consistent than eyeball tests as it tends to limit subconscious bias and individual perception.
 
Avro, If your 21mm matches the rest of your Zeiss lenses and is sharper than your Nikon that's great. I wish the 3 I looked at performed as well. Its pretty pointless to tell me I didn't see what I saw because of its reputation. I'm quite careful when I test.

BTW - Have you compared it directly to your 17-35?

I see you also have the 35mm f1.4, another lens I rejected. Have you seen any CA?

Not sure what you meant by:
"you either had bad luck or ...." I hope you didn't mean I either had bad luck or I'm an idiot - that wouldn't be nice.
 
Duke, I'm not a lens-snob (my kit is filled with all kinda interesting glass) I love the look of my F3 kit lenses. The plastic-factor is off the charts, but optically I think they are fantastic.
However, you generally get what you pay for with lenses. Generally speaking, a $5-600 lens will not stand against a $5-6K lens. (put them on a projector).

Leni makes a great point, stereotypes and perceived value mean a lot! My clients perk-up when I talk about shooting with Red vs. Sony, Cooke vs. Rokinon, Steadicam vs. Glidecam. For the most part, they trust my opinion and decision, but if they know that I have it, and choose something else, it's for their benefit and not my own.

However, I'd also bet that I am 10x more critical of it than my clients. Sometimes I wonder if I'm more interested in critical-acquisition than my clients! (at a steep cost to my own self). :undecided
 
LeavingTheCandy said:
Duke, I'm not a lens-snob (my kit is filled with all kinda interesting glass) I love the look of my F3 kit lenses. The plastic-factor is off the charts, but optically I think they are fantastic.
Click to expand...

Many people have been very happy with them. There was an article by one of the big lens guys (in the back of my mind it was Matt Duclos but I didn't double check) who tested them and found them a little less sharp than still lenses, but at 1080p resolution that will make no difference. What dissuaded me from buying them (beyond the pirce) were the huge front diameters, lack of markings, a limited set range and since I couldn't afford all PL lenses trying to switch back and forth. That and that their form of PL mount was not universally compatable so you couldn't necessarily use them on another camera.

LeavingTheCandy said:
However, you generally get what you pay for with lenses. Generally speaking, a $5-600 lens will not stand against a $5-6K lens. (put them on a projector).
Click to expand...

There I will partially disagree with you. Generally speaking I believe a modern stills lens is designed for a higher resolution than most cinema lens. The cinema lens will win in mechanical areas like breathing, focus throw, gears, etc. It also seems there have been great advances in coatings so that modern lenses beat older lenses in contrast, color, etc.

LeavingTheCandy said:
Leni makes a great point, stereotypes and perceived value mean a lot! My clients perk-up when I talk about shooting with Red vs. Sony, Cooke vs. Rokinon, Steadicam vs. Glidecam. For the most part, they trust my opinion and decision, but if they know that I have it, and choose something else, it's for their benefit and not my own.
Click to expand...

Okay, your clients are lens snobs. LOL Of my clients only one has ever asked me what lenses I had. That doesn't mean I'm not aspiring to a nice Cooke zoom. :)

LeavingTheCandy said:
However, I'd also bet that I am 10x more critical of it than my clients. Sometimes I wonder if I'm more interested in critical-acquisition than my clients! (at a steep cost to my own self). :undecided
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. The money saved buying a set of Rokinon primes instead of a set of Zeiss primes would just about pay for a good Cooke or Angenieux Cinema zoom.

I think what it comes down to is that there are no right and wrong answers, its a matter of making informed choices based on your needs and budget.

My only assertion is that the Rokinon cine primes are good for the price and a good product for low budget filmmakers. Anything beyond that is simply a matter of choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top