[Digitalis]

I find its useful to look at reviews at several sites

+1 I agree, reading one test and basing your choices based on it is a bit daft. There is more than one way to test a lens.

[Na Horuk]

I think that reviews by websites and magazines might be interesting to look at to get a general impression, but usually you want to look at reviews done by actual users. For example, someone who has been shooting Pentax for a couple years, has used many different Pentax and third party lenses on Pentax cameras will give you a much better review of a lens than some dude in a laboratory who got a lens for one week to write a review and has five more lenses that he has to review by the end of the month. Not to mention that "pro reviewers" can be biased or even bought. And btw, "getting diametrically opposite results" isn't even limited to photography - its the same in many other industries. All tests, even standardized tests, have weaknesses, failures, and simplify complex results into a couple simple numbers
When it comes to lenses, I suggest you look at the lens review database on these forums and read some reviews, some good ones, some bad ones, look at the sample photos. They tell you so much more than some numbers.

[Kerrowdown]

must remember not to attempt humour at this hour

Eh?, I must of missed the post completely.

[dms]

I already have Revuenon 50mm 1.4 and Tamron 90mm Marco. Do you think that the Samyang would make a sensible addition?

No!

At this point if you want to invest (money), as opposed to simply taking more varied pictures with what you have, invest in different types of lenses and get more experience using them. Chasing after the "best" lens of a particular type is seldom meaningful. In fact I would argue reviews that compare one similar lens to another are often finding differences that are not observed in real world photo's. Not for us mortals anyway.

[Docrwm]

Two things:

To answer your original question and to add to the valid responses already received, keep in mind sample variation: photozone could have gotten a worse-than-average copy, and/or DxO could have gotten a better-than-average copy.

As to whether you should buy it: I have a copy of the lens. It's sharp wide-open for sure, creates wonderful bokeh, and focuses smoothly (albeit slightly tighter than most). It's a great lens and a terrific value. However, I also have a 90mm macro (Tokina 90/2.5), and I find the weight/size of the Samyang keeps me from bringing it along much anymore. I may grab it if I'm packing for a portrait-only photo outing, but otherwise my bag size and shoulder comfort dissuade including the 85 in my kit.

My 2c.

Those are my thoughts on the issue as well, although I have a Pentax 100 instead of a 90mm lens as a comparison. For portraits I have not used a lens that is better than the Samyang 85mm (although I have not used a Pentax 85, just to be fair). Bokeh is outstanding as is overall sharpness. My favorite portraits have been taken with my Vivitar variant of the Samyang 85.

[Giklab]

edited:

must remember not to attempt humour at this hour

Now I really really want to know what you wrote

[Winder]

Why is it that lens reviews arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions? Consider for instance the Samyang 85mm 1.4. According to DxOMark, this is one of the finest lenses around, whereas photozone is pooh-poohing the same lens. Both DxOMark and photozone claim to be relying on state of the art methods of measuring the quality of a lens...then why do they reach conclusions at odds with one another?

What are the dates of the tests? Companies make unannounced improvements to products and manufacturing standards overtime.

It is also possible Photozone got a sub-standard copy and DxOMark received an excellent copy. If DxO requested a lens from Samyang then they would have received a unit that had been tested by Samyang prior to being sent out.

Photozone often buys off the shelf or has lenses from users that they borrow for test purposes.

[bossa]

Exactly, I have some extensive lens resolution test data of the lenses I commonly use for Nikon,Canon,Pentax and Leica cameras - the only thing preventing me from publicly releasing it is because of the storm of negativity that would abound. I don't need, or want to deal with that..



Like any other reviewer, I always take their results with a pinch of salt - which is problematic for those who have high blood pressure ( I don't thankfully). I think the healthy thing to do is go out and take pictures with the lens that you enjoy using.

Personally I think DxO has a bone to pick with pentax - especially when it comes to lenses. I get the impression there is an agenda behind their scores. For instance they haven't reviewed the Pentax FA77 - which is a lens that would practically flatten the Canon EF85mm f/1.8 in a fair comparison.

Aren't Dx0 in cahoots with DPR which is 'owned' by whom exactly?

There's no doubt in my mind their results are somewhat biased and/or crazy.

[jeffshaddix]

Maybe it is worth pointing out that the Tokina 90/2.5 weighs 530g while the Samyang weighs 513g.

I can see why one would still take the Tokina as the more versatile lens, but from a purely weight perspective, there is not much between those two.

Touché, though I don't often carry the 1:1 adapter (not sure if that's included in your weight). Regardless you're right, they are close, but for a general outing I will only bring one or the other, and I tend to reach for the 90mm in most cases.

[Class A]

There's no doubt in my mind their results are somewhat biased and/or crazy.

How does that gel with the fact that Pentax regularly comes out very well in sensor tests and that they don't pan Pentax for applying noise reduction at the RAW level?

I fully trust their sensor reviews and just think their lens testing is a bit odd; however not particularly geared against Pentax.

[bossa]

How does that gel with the fact that Pentax regularly comes out very well in sensor tests and that they don't pan Pentax for applying noise reduction at the RAW level?

I fully trust their sensor reviews and just think their lens testing is a bit odd; however not particularly geared against Pentax.

I should have qualified my response as I was really talking about the lens reviews.

They say things like "best at" and quite often quote the maximum aperture for the lens when the best quality for me is usually at f/5.6 to f/8. Some lenses like the Nikon 70-200 VRII are 'best' at f/4-f/5.6 but they quote f/2.8 as "best at" for that lens. They appear to take into account transmission values and weight value toward that end rather than actual image quality.

My Zeiss 21 f/2.8 is an amazing lens that gets a score of 22 on their ratings chart (13MP on a 21mp D3x) and yet I can count every blade of grass it records on my D800E and it's almost as sharp at f/2.8 as it is at f/5.6 etc... I try not to pay much attention to their scores these days and prefer to make my own judgments from test shots where possible.

I'd rather read Lenstip and SLR Gear reviews as well as some of the field test reviews out there where they post pictures instead of MTF values.

[Digitalis]

My Zeiss 21 f/2.8 is an amazing lens that gets a score of 22 on their ratings chart (13MP on a 21mp D3x) and yet I can count every blade of grass it records on my D800E and it's almost as sharp at f/2.8 as it is at f/5.6

I use the same lens on my D800E - and I do agree, DxO put a great deal of weighting for lens performance at wider apertures, which I find to be a bit odd because from my years of experience even prime lenses on SLRs benefit greatly from being stopped down two stops from their maximum aperture. Despite all the fast glass I use, I seldom use it at the widest aperture unless I simply have no other choice. The great benefit of the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 lens is being able to produce truly excellent results at f/2 - most f/1.4 lenses simply cannot compete...though the catch is that most 50mm f/1.4 lenses perform better at f/5.6 than the Noctilux 50mmm f/0.95 does.