[Docrwm]

If you have the one with the removable hood and take it off, you get an almost circular fish-eye - it has some short straight edges top and bottom otherwise showing almost half a sphere. With the hood, you get the almost circular image, with the hood in the picture just outside the APS-C crop image area.

Thanks. Mine has the permanent hood.

[northcoastgreg]

Which FE would you get, if you could have only one, for the K-1, and why?

For the K-1, I wound up getting the F 17-28 because (1) it's the only FF one that zooms from fisheye FOV to something narrower, and that turns out to be enormously useful for how I use this type of lens; (2) I preferred the rendering and colors of the F zoom to the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm prime. I looked at hundreds of images from both the F 17-28 and the Samyang 12mm. The Samyang variants do seem to be sharper. But I wasn't so thrilled with the rendering of that lens. I found it a bit on the dry and flat side, which can be problematic in an ultra-wide lens where, most of the time, everything's going to be in focus. The F 17-28 is not as sharp, but renders in a more natural way and the colors are absolutely gorgeous. For those who regard sharpness as the most important attribute of lenses, the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm is the FF FE lens to get. For those who are more concerned with color, contrast, rendering, flare control, the F 17-28 is the preferable option.

Patrick's Point with the F 17-28:

[dms]

More about the HD (hood detachable) version of the Samyang 8mm FE. Chris Frost has a video review where he shows the view on a FF w/ hood removed, and does a brief "real world" assessment.

[Docrwm]

More about the HD (hood detachable) version of the Samyang 8mm FE. Chris Frost has a video review where he shows the view on a FF w/ hood removed, and does a brief "real world" assessment.

Thanks!

You Tube

You Tube

[JensE]

For those who are more concerned with color, contrast, rendering, flare control, the F 17-28 is the preferable option.

I suspect this has a lot to do with how and what you shoot and how the pictures get processed - I'd really like to see the Samyang side-by-side the FE zoom in your hands, with your workflow. The Samyang renders very contrasty, so I often need to 'tame down' the pictures a bit, but when I do, I find the rendering really nice. Flare control, as in avoiding excessive flare, is absolutely superb - as shown in this thread several times. Sometimes, starbursts can be rendered a little unpleasantly wide though.

[goatsNdonkey]

If you have the one with the removable hood and take it off, you get an almost circular fish-eye - it has some short straight edges top and bottom otherwise showing almost half a sphere. With the hood, you get the almost circular image, with the hood in the picture just outside the APS-C crop image area.

My Bower-badged Samyang 8mm has a non-removable hood. I mean it probably comes off somehow, but I don't want to damage the lens trying to figure out the secret to what holds the hood on.

[JensE]

My Bower-badged Samyang 8mm has a non-removable hood. I mean it probably comes off somehow, but I don't want to damage the lens trying to figure out the secret to what holds the hood on.

The one with the detachable hood is a mechanically slightly changed model, see the video above at 3:54 for how it is detached and 0:04 for the respective label on the box. Mine has the fixed one too, and it looks like being an integral part of the lens barrel assembly.

[goatsNdonkey]

The one with the detachable hood is a mechanically slightly changed model, see the video above at 3:54 for how it is detached and 0:04 for the respective label on the box. Mine has the fixed one too, and it looks like being an integral part of the lens barrel assembly.

My 16mm Rokinon/Samyang 16mm has a very easily removable hood. How to remove it is obvious. But the Bower/Samyang 8mm is nothing like that. Hood might be integral as you say.

[northcoastgreg]

. The Samyang renders very contrasty, so I often need to 'tame down' the pictures a bit, but when I do, I find the rendering really nice. Flare control, as in avoiding excessive flare, is absolutely superb - as shown in this thread several times. Sometimes, starbursts can be rendered a little unpleasantly wide though.

Qualities like sharpness, contrast, rendering, flare control are all relative; a lens is judged by how it compares to other lenses. When I first purchased the K-1, my intention was to buy the Rokinon version of the Samyang 12mm FE. I own a couple of Samyang lenses (the 7.5mm m43 FE and the 10mm/2.8), and I appreciate the sharpness that these lenses provide at a relatively low cost. Furthermore, the Rokinon12mm FE is, like my 10mm/2.8, one of only three Samyang derived lenses that feature nano coating, and I do suspect that this helps a little in terms of color and contrast. As nice as these Samyang lenses undoubtedly are, I would not grade them high when it comes to the quality of the sharpness and the rendering the edges of objects against a focused background. The Samyang 7.5mm is the flatest rendering lens I've ever used, and the 10mm/2.8 isn't significantly better in this regard. I've looked at a number of high resolution images taken with the Samyang 12, and I find the rendering very similar to my 10mm. On the other hand, the F 17-28 is the best rendering zoom lens I've ever used. It renders like a limited prime --- which, I suppose, is not entirely surprising given that it was designed by Jun Hirakawa, who was also responsible for the 40, 43, and 77 limiteds. The tradeoff is the lens is not as good at resolving fine detail as the Samyang 12. The F 17-28 could be regarded as an "art" lens in the true sense of the word (i.e., not in the sense used by Sigma), whereas the Samyang 12 is more of a high performing lens.

Another shot from the F 17-28:

[tokyoscape]

... I suppose, is not entirely surprising given that it was designed by Jun Hirakawa, who was also responsible for the 40, 43, and 77 limiteds.

Somebody mention Jun Hirakawa!?
This image taken by another lens design by Jun Hirakawa, DA10-17 at around 17. I whish it is a WR lens and had a better looking starburst.

[JensE]

Qualities like sharpness, contrast, rendering, flare control are all relative; a lens is judged by how it compares to other lenses.

It looks like I may be able to do this soon side-by-side :-)

Here is another one from the Samyang 12mm FE. It's maybe noteworthy that this got a little post-processing: I do not like to de-fish my pictures, because the ultra-wide nature requires composing pictures according to their projection. The below was taken with the camera tilted slightly upwards (Exif says Roll Angle: -1.5, Pitch Angle: 14.5 - didn't notice the roll angle at first and will re-process it for printing), resulting in a curved horizon. Looking back, I don't like that too much. In order to straighten it, I used Hugin, which basically projects the stereographic FE rendering onto a sphere when loading the image, and then re-projected it again using a stereographic projection, but this time dragging the water line into the center, so it stays straight. For slight angles, this doesn't require a big crop and roughly retains the proportions and resolution of the original image. In this sense, it remains a fish-eye picture. I finally cropped the bottom a bit.

The one thing, which I always struggle with in the forum, is the default bright background. For night-shots like this, it requires a rather bright processing, too bright even for the almost full moon if viewed with one of the dark profiles ....

[northcoastgreg]

In order to straighten it, I used Hugin, which basically projects the stereographic FE rendering onto a sphere when loading the image, and then re-projected it again using a stereographic projection, but this time dragging the water line into the center, so it stays straight. For slight angles, this doesn't require a big crop and roughly retains the proportions and resolution of the original image.

Of course, the reason you can do this with the Samyang 12mm because the lens itself features stereographic projection --- which is actually, IMO, one of the strengths of the lens. This would not work with the F 17-28 at 17mm because the distortion is much greater than with the Samyang and defishing leads to too much stretching of the image.

[JensE]

This would not work with the F 17-28 at 17mm because the distortion is much greater than with the Samyang and defishing leads to too much stretching of the image.

To rephrase: This is not de-fished, the distortion is just slightly deformed, so that very little stretching happens. With a traditional FE, 14.5 degrees may be stretching it :-), but the concept does equally work.

[brightseal]

F 17-28

[jcdoss]

Roof Rider
K-1 mII, K17f4 Fisheye