Jump to content

Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS X Mount


dv.

Recommended Posts

certainly an unorthodox way to use this lens but you are right, a lot of your shots are not sharp.

 

This is really surprising since this lens has huge depth of field, just focus on 1 meter and place your aperture between 8 and 11 and you should have plenty to play with?

 

I don’t bother ever trying to focus. If I do this at all is only to get to focus even closer than with the (for me) standard setting.

 

This example is focused closer to render the detail of the concrete and the leaves.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous comparisons online, and, obviously, the Zeiss is superior. For me, though, the price for very similar results was a no brainer! 

You made the right choice. Here's a website that actually measured raw files from both lenses on the same sensor, the Rok measured better for coma, distortion, and sharpness ... I guess the Zeiss is "obviously" superior at making the well-heeled feel good? Recording EXIF? It is a LOT better at autofocusing. CA is definitly lower in the Zeiss, even in the RAFs. There are things you have to attend to in post that would be handled automatically in a Fuji jpeg from the Zeiss. (That's probably what trips up the, lets say, "casual" lens reviewers on the internet.)

 

Read the entire review for coma examples and distortion measurements, but sharpness info would be right here: 

 

http://www.lenstip.com/382.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Touit_12_mm_f_2.8_Image_resolution.html

 

and here

 

http://www.lenstip.com/404.4-Lens_review-Samyang_12_mm_f_2.0_NCS_CS_Image_resolution.html

 

The ROK is certainly not better than the Fuji 14... but it's wider and faster so the two are not really that comparable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this small review http://www.aps-photo.com/2014/04/rokinon-12mm-f2-0-for-x-mount-a-first-look/ , just above "Conclusions", there are two shots taken with Fuji 10-24mm and Samyang 12mm. They provide absolutely different color rendition, while fuji is perfectly balanced the one by Samyang looks too vivid. Never thought that the lens itself can change the colors this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the “ problem” with digital photography is that by comparing a lens that isn’t communicating with the camera and a lens which does you are not comparing the same quantities, but their rendition as allowed to be seen from the camera software, and this as true as raws as it is a jpegs In case someone was under the impression that a raw is a completely untouched by software version of the true image captured by the lens,... it is not.

 

A certain amount of corrections will be made by the camera processor once it knows which lens in on the camera.

 

In case of the Samyang or any adapted lens, de camera won’t correct for aberrations or light fall off as it might ( the use of  a conditional is here de rigueur because very few people would know for sure what the camera corrects, what not, and how!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its personal taste but I find the 10-24 image a bit dull and lacking that tiny bit of contrast for a nice sense of depth. But color is easy to adjust in post processing.

 

An other thing I found out lately with this lens is that in some light circumstances and in combination with a Lee Seven5 Soft Grad. ND filter the Samyang logo is too shiny so it's reflecting on the filter and will be visible in the picture! Just to let you know! Maybe if its going to happend that much I will put sticky tape on top of it... ;)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A certain amount of corrections will be made by the camera processor once it knows which lens in on the camera.

 

In case of the Samyang or any adapted lens, de camera won’t correct for aberrations or light fall off as it might ( the use of  a conditional is here de rigueur because very few people would know for sure what the camera corrects, what not, and how!).

It is a mystery what "corrections" (perhaps "profiles" would be a better word?) are applied to RAW files in camera. Careful analysis suggests both Fuji and Nikon are doing something to the noise in RAW files above a certain ISO, that's for sure. Much less of a mystery are the corrections applied in the jpeg engine as we can compare the resulting images. I know it's not a perfectly controlled comparison, but it's still useful information for a photographer. 

 

All of which makes it all the more impressive that the Rok/Sam 12 measures better than the Zeiss in Raw files, as it does not have the advantage of these possible RAW corrections/profiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its personal taste but I find the 10-24 image a bit dull and lacking that tiny bit of contrast for a nice sense of depth. But color is easy to adjust in post processing.

 

An other thing I found out lately with this lens is that in some light circumstances and in combination with a Lee Seven5 Soft Grad. ND filter the Samyang logo is too shiny so it's reflecting on the filter and will be visible in the picture! Just to let you know! Maybe if its going to happend that much I will put sticky tape on top of it... ;)

[emoji15] [emoji15] [emoji15]

 

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely, the 12mm  performs way above its pricetag and even better than the Zeiss (at least from the tests that I’ve seen).

 

Raws shot with fuji and zeiss lenses on fuji are seemingly corrected for light fall-off and some perspective and aberrations corrections too.

Can you please show these tests, where Samyang performed better than Zeiss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well it always depends how you read a test but here the resolution charts of these people at lenstip.  You may argue that the at f8 they both have the  same balanced performance  between center and edge but the Samyang resolves just a little bit more of lines at more open aperture but at the considerable cost of leaving the edge way less resolved than the center.

 

Bu, in absolute terms and only at the center, Samyang  at 2.8 and 4 beats the Zeiss hands down.

 

Of course there is more than resolution alone but remember that we are talking of lenses with a vaste difference in price.

 

 

 

http://www.lenstip.com/382.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Touit_12_mm_f_2.8_Image_resolution.html

 

 

Res charts of the Zeiss

 

 

 

while these are the Resolution charts of the 12mm samyang

 

http://www.lenstip.com/404.4-Lens_review-Samyang_12_mm_f_2.0_NCS_CS_Image_resolution.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please show these tests, where Samyang performed better than Zeiss?

There are plenty of test out on the web, like this one: http://petapixel.com/2014/06/04/review-rokinon-12mm-f2-0-great-option-astrophotogs-budget/

 

I never read an argument that would let me consider the Zeiss. Both lenses are competing each other in terms of image quality. But definitely not in terms of pricing. More expensive is not always better and the Zeiss is definitely not performing twice as much better then the Samyang.

 

And besides that I prefer red accents more then the blue ones on the Zeiss...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is one argument that speaks clearly for the Touit. It has 9 aperture blades instead of the 6 the samyang offers, and thus renders starbursts with 18 rays instead of only 6 rays as the samyang does. Apart from that, i don't see an reason to chose the Touit over the Samyang.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is one argument that speaks clearly for the Touit. It has 9 aperture blades instead of the 6 the samyang offers, and thus renders starbursts with 18 rays instead of only 6 rays as the samyang does. Apart from that, i don't see an reason to chose the Touit over the Samyang.

I agree with you on the starburst thing. It was the only point I was worried about. But I found some images (on flicker I guess) which convinced me buying this lens. The six rays can (I.M.H.O.) give a really clean looking starburst from the sun or from lampposts. See one of my first pictures I shoot with this lens. If I desperately need more rays then I can always use my 18-135mm.  ;)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well...I’ve just touched up this here and there but 6 points are quite enough for me

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is one argument that speaks clearly for the Touit. It has 9 aperture blades instead of the 6 the samyang offers, and thus renders starbursts with 18 rays instead of only 6 rays as the samyang does. Apart from that, i don't see an reason to chose the Touit over the Samyang.

Autofocus is not the argument any more? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of test out on the web, like this one: http://petapixel.com/2014/06/04/review-rokinon-12mm-f2-0-great-option-astrophotogs-budget/

 

I never read an argument that would let me consider the Zeiss. Both lenses are competing each other in terms of image quality. But definitely not in terms of pricing. More expensive is not always better and the Zeiss is definitely not performing twice as much better then the Samyang.

 

And besides that I prefer red accents more then the blue ones on the Zeiss...

This particular test seem like misfocused Zeiss to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Autofocus is not the argument any more? :)

 

For me personally, it never was. As I wrote in the lens overview thread: "at those short focal lenghts, the depth of field is very large anyway, and fujifilm cameras have focus peaking to aid manual focussing." As we all know, the common application for those ultrawide lenses is to set them to the hyperfocal distance for the chosen aperture and leave them there. Of course, as always, there will be people who use them in a different way, e.g. close up shots, and then the Zeiss' autofocus might be a useful feature.

 

And I know that the number of rays for sunbursts is very subjective, too. I just wanted to mention this fact, because for some people, it might make a difference.

 

/edit1: (Perhaps we should open a dedicated Samyang 12mm vs Zeiss 12mm thread?)

 

/edit2: One thing that bothers me now: In Burb's picture, there's a clearly shaped 6-sided lens flare. Samyang wrote on their product page that they have a "rounded aperture". So based on that picture, I guess they don't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit 1 Maybe a good idea to collect pro's and con's for both lenses although don't think that there are many people really owning or had both lenses?

 

Edit 2 You're right, the information on the site is rather suggestive: "Aperture closed to circle shape

6 aperture blades create almost a full circle when closed and express ray beautifully as starlight."

It's definitely more of a hexagon shape than a circle. I did a bit of a test to see if the shape changes by the aperture setting but as far as I could see it didn't change to a more rounded shape.

 

A hexagon is "almost" a full circle.... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...