Posts: 1,067
Threads: 181
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
You guys may already know that, but Samyang is beating big boys in the art of lensmaking. It is not a fluke with just one lens. It is their whole line. Their lenses are very well built and they are optically superb. The only downside is - no electronics. For those of you salivating over Zeiss, that should not be an issue. The price is bargain basement for top notch lenses. I would certainly consider this company before buying any new stuff. Check them out on Photozone. Most are reviewed with Cannon mount, some with Nikon. I love their fisheye - the only lens of theirs I actually own.
Please see my photos at
http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
Posts: 264
Threads: 35
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
I hope to see some fish photos taken with your fisheye lens from your latest maritime adventure.
.....Dennis
Posts: 5,739
Threads: 264
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
2
I have also heard positive reviews of their lenses - and the fisheye gets called out frequently as being particularly good. With the DOF a fisheye, auto-focus isn't really an issue anyway...
Posts: 1,067
Threads: 181
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
@ Dennis - not fish but boats. It was cruel what I did to them with a fisheye
@Robert - focus is not much of an issue either - everything from about 10 cm on is sharp
Please see my photos at
http://mullerpavel.smugmug.com (fewer, better image quality, not updated lately)
or at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/ (all photos)
Posts: 2,123
Threads: 352
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation:
1
Take your point, and I agree they're getting well-deserved plaudits, but to be fair "beating big boys" and "salivating over Zeiss".... are perhaps a wee bit hyperbolic Pavel..?
That said, they've been helpful enough to provide a depth of field scale with their 35/1.4..and even though it's a plastic stop-down only job, it makes darn good sense to those on a budget who would weigh up the £320 for that against 3 times that for the Canon. I personally at this price point would edge up to the Voigtlander 40...a bit slower, but metal and with focus-confirm, both of which(hypothetically) would justify for the the extra £60 for the latter.
All my stuff is here:
www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
(This post was last modified: Jun 27, 2011, 11:58 by
zedbra.)
Posts: 3,036
Threads: 253
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
3
Looking at the reviews â I've always liked photozone â I have to say that I'd be interested in the fisheye, if fisheyes were something I was interested in, but not any of their others. The 85/1.4 seems decent, but I wouldn't trade my 85/1.8D for it, even if the /1.4 had autofocus.
If I'm looking for ultimate lens quality, I'm still reaching for my Zeiss lenses â five of them in two different mounts â or the Nikkor 85PC-E. They'll all manual focus, so it's not that I'm an AF snob, but on the other hand the 105VR and 85/1.8D are also excellent lenses. For that matter, when the 50/1.8s of the world are stopped down to f/4, they also produce excellent results⦠just like the Samyang 85/1.4.
matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com