Samyang 35mm f1.4 photos

Pentaxor · 09-17-2010, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Rory

+1 Rep.

You got my point exactly. There are now a finite amount of FA35. It has a perfect balance of what the others have, and some of what the other don't (unless you combine their features).

FA35 ugly and heavy? Ugly is subjective, but I'd hardly call it heavy.

I dont know if I can call it ugly exactly, unless they say it because it's plastic. but having said such term would also include a lot of plastic F/FA lenses which are built the same. maybe it's ugly in build if it is compared against the build of the FA31. it was even referred to as the stepsister of the FA31. for me, it's just fine but not ugly. as to weight, I can say that people that had said that is is heavy, had no experience with the lens and would be surprised how light it is. I can hold without any additional pressure using only my 2 fingers.

Rory · 09-17-2010, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I dont know if I can call it ugly exactly, unless they say it because it's plastic. but having said such term would also include a lot of plastic F/FA lenses which are built the same. maybe it's ugly in build if it is compared against the build of the FA31. it was even referred to as the stepsister of the FA31. for me, it's just fine but not ugly. as to weight, I can say that people that had said that is is heavy, had no experience with the lens and would be surprised how light it is. I can hold without any additional pressure using only my 2 fingers.

I personally like the look of the FA primes. They're no F.

Pentaxor · 09-17-2010, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Rory

I personally like the look of the FA primes. They're no F.

I was referring to F lenses in general that are almost identical in build with the FA. not necessarily equivalent particular lens like the FA35 which has no F version.

Rory · 09-17-2010, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I was referring to F lenses in general that are almost identical in build with the FA. not necessarily equivalent particular lens like the FA35 which has no F version.

Right. Sorry, I was referring to looks, not weight. F lenses have....uh.......what do they say about girls sometimes.........a great personality?

urje · 09-18-2010, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

We won't know for sure unless we see how the two new lenses perform. the defining factor would definitely be IQ performance is worth the cost (bang for the buck).

true, of course. All this speculative discussion is rather silly before we know how the new lenses perform. I'll quit after this post!

Originally posted by Pentaxor

at the moment, the FA35's price is dictated by it's discontinued status and high demand due to it's new found fame. remember, this lens cost less than $300 bucks til people started discovering how great this lens really is and for a 1/3 of the cost of the FA31. so people might want to ask themselves this question of why prefer the FA35 over FA43 (is it focal length?), DA35 (is it speed?), and DA40 (is it focal length and speed?).

I believe there is a certain specific characteristic of the FA35 that makes it appealing for users. if the new 35mm lenses could provide such IQ rendering, then it could affect the price of the FA35. otherwise, the price of the FA35 would remain constant or even increase.

Yes, I know a lot of people like the rendering of the FA35. I have to admit I never used one, so I can only take their word for it. But I have never had the impression that there's a larger (or better) group of FA35 'followers' than there are people calling their DA35, FA43, or DA40 their favourite lens. Also, I don't think the FA35 is more expensive on the used market than the other lenses you mention, except maybe the DA40. Of course, I could be wrong. I mostly check dutch websites and german ebay, and not fanatically I might add.

Point is, sure there are people who really appreciate the FA35, fine. But I think that there are also people who just like an 'affordable' 35mm prime, and now have no other option than the FA35. I'm sure this is at least part of the market fighting over the finite number of available FA35s. With them moving to cheaper, faster, and/or newer lenses, the shortage might as well decline. I'm not denying that the mechanism you describe is real, I just don't think you all should assume this is the only mechanism working here.

In Rory's post talking about 'astronomical heights' I read some anger that I believe is ungrounded at the moment. Who knows what happens? Maybe you're going to end up enjoying the DAL35 for half the current price of the FA35!

Originally posted by Rory

You got my point exactly. There are now a finite amount of FA35. It has a perfect balance of what the others have, and some of what the other don't (unless you combine their features).

FA35 ugly and heavy? Ugly is subjective, but I'd hardly call it heavy.

I didn't say heavy, I said heavier. There is some speculation on the DAL possibly being the same optical formula, either stopped down a little, or more accurately named because some found their FA35 to be slightly dark for a 'real' f/2. Of course I don't know it's true, but if so, you might get the FA35 formula in a lighter and differently styled package. I for one like the new 'limited-ish' styling better than the FA one, maybe some of the people fighting over the few FA35s on ebay as well? Also, maybe others prefer a different 'balance' of specs than you do, so maybe it'll be easier for you to obtain an FA35 when you're ready to get one.

jibbonpoint · 09-28-2010, 04:52 AM

I'd be happy with manual focus. It would replace my M 28mm 2.8 which is becoming attached to my K10D by molecular attraction.

ltdstar · 09-28-2010, 04:54 PM

I got the 85mm and 14mm this looks like a good focal length in between those two. so this Samyang will be 35mm f1.2 in CanonEF mount? Any samples from the lens?

ilya80 · 11-01-2010, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by ltdstar

I got the 85mm and 14mm this looks like a good focal length in between those two. so this Samyang will be 35mm f1.2 in CanonEF mount? Any samples from the lens?

35 1.2 ?

Now thats curious.

Rory · 11-01-2010, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by ilya80

35 1.2 ?

Now thats curious.

Canon has a larger opening, to, oddly enough (on crop) a smaller sensor.

Zebooka · 11-01-2010, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Rory

Canon has a larger opening, to, oddly enough (on crop) a smaller sensor.

So what? This is not connected with lens speed.

Rory · 11-01-2010, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Zebooka

So what? This is not connected with lens speed.

The explanation I read states that a larger, hole, for lack of a better term, allows for a larger rear element, which intern makes it easier and cheaper to make a faster lens. So, yes, it is connected to lens speed.

thibs · 11-01-2010, 09:12 AM

No, not connected to sensor size but to lens mount.

Rory · 11-01-2010, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by thibs

No, not connected to sensor size but to lens mount.

Right. Which I called an "opening" and a "hole". Maybe my terms were too technical.

sjwaldron · 11-02-2010, 01:08 AM

Interesting lens... although at well over 500 euros it doesn't sound too appealing to me personally. I'd rather spend the extra for a 31 ltd. If it comes out at say 300 usd, then yeah for sure I'd like one for that 1.4 aperture.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Samyang lenses	Laurentiu Cristofor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	08-13-2010 09:01 AM
Samyang lenses	alehel	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-04-2010 05:25 AM
DA 35mm LTD f/2.8 - First day photos	dopeytree	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	02-11-2009 12:10 PM
~35mm Lens for Group Photos: What Aperture?	k100d	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-06-2008 11:52 AM
anyone have photos of the 35mm macro on a kX00d?	stinkpot	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-18-2008 07:07 PM

09-17-2010, 05:26 PM	#61
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Rory +1 Rep. You got my point exactly. There are now a finite amount of FA35. It has a perfect balance of what the others have, and some of what the other don't (unless you combine their features). FA35 ugly and heavy? Ugly is subjective, but I'd hardly call it heavy. I dont know if I can call it ugly exactly, unless they say it because it's plastic. but having said such term would also include a lot of plastic F/FA lenses which are built the same. maybe it's ugly in build if it is compared against the build of the FA31. it was even referred to as the stepsister of the FA31. for me, it's just fine but not ugly. as to weight, I can say that people that had said that is is heavy, had no experience with the lens and would be surprised how light it is. I can hold without any additional pressure using only my 2 fingers.

09-17-2010, 06:10 PM	#62
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by Pentaxor I dont know if I can call it ugly exactly, unless they say it because it's plastic. but having said such term would also include a lot of plastic F/FA lenses which are built the same. maybe it's ugly in build if it is compared against the build of the FA31. it was even referred to as the stepsister of the FA31. for me, it's just fine but not ugly. as to weight, I can say that people that had said that is is heavy, had no experience with the lens and would be surprised how light it is. I can hold without any additional pressure using only my 2 fingers. I personally like the look of the FA primes. They're no F.

09-17-2010, 06:33 PM	#63
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Rory I personally like the look of the FA primes. They're no F. I was referring to F lenses in general that are almost identical in build with the FA. not necessarily equivalent particular lens like the FA35 which has no F version.

09-17-2010, 06:43 PM	#64
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by Pentaxor I was referring to F lenses in general that are almost identical in build with the FA. not necessarily equivalent particular lens like the FA35 which has no F version. Right. Sorry, I was referring to looks, not weight. F lenses have....uh.......what do they say about girls sometimes.........a great personality?

09-18-2010, 05:00 AM	#65
urje Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Deventer, NL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 113	Originally posted by Pentaxor We won't know for sure unless we see how the two new lenses perform. the defining factor would definitely be IQ performance is worth the cost (bang for the buck). true, of course. All this speculative discussion is rather silly before we know how the new lenses perform. I'll quit after this post! Originally posted by Pentaxor at the moment, the FA35's price is dictated by it's discontinued status and high demand due to it's new found fame. remember, this lens cost less than $300 bucks til people started discovering how great this lens really is and for a 1/3 of the cost of the FA31. so people might want to ask themselves this question of why prefer the FA35 over FA43 (is it focal length?), DA35 (is it speed?), and DA40 (is it focal length and speed?). I believe there is a certain specific characteristic of the FA35 that makes it appealing for users. if the new 35mm lenses could provide such IQ rendering, then it could affect the price of the FA35. otherwise, the price of the FA35 would remain constant or even increase. Yes, I know a lot of people like the rendering of the FA35. I have to admit I never used one, so I can only take their word for it. But I have never had the impression that there's a larger (or better) group of FA35 'followers' than there are people calling their DA35, FA43, or DA40 their favourite lens. Also, I don't think the FA35 is more expensive on the used market than the other lenses you mention, except maybe the DA40. Of course, I could be wrong. I mostly check dutch websites and german ebay, and not fanatically I might add. Point is, sure there are people who really appreciate the FA35, fine. But I think that there are also people who just like an 'affordable' 35mm prime, and now have no other option than the FA35. I'm sure this is at least part of the market fighting over the finite number of available FA35s. With them moving to cheaper, faster, and/or newer lenses, the shortage might as well decline. I'm not denying that the mechanism you describe is real, I just don't think you all should assume this is the only mechanism working here. In Rory's post talking about 'astronomical heights' I read some anger that I believe is ungrounded at the moment. Who knows what happens? Maybe you're going to end up enjoying the DAL35 for half the current price of the FA35! Originally posted by Rory You got my point exactly. There are now a finite amount of FA35. It has a perfect balance of what the others have, and some of what the other don't (unless you combine their features). FA35 ugly and heavy? Ugly is subjective, but I'd hardly call it heavy. I didn't say heavy, I said heavier. There is some speculation on the DAL possibly being the same optical formula, either stopped down a little, or more accurately named because some found their FA35 to be slightly dark for a 'real' f/2. Of course I don't know it's true, but if so, you might get the FA35 formula in a lighter and differently styled package. I for one like the new 'limited-ish' styling better than the FA one, maybe some of the people fighting over the few FA35s on ebay as well? Also, maybe others prefer a different 'balance' of specs than you do, so maybe it'll be easier for you to obtain an FA35 when you're ready to get one.

09-28-2010, 04:52 AM	#66
jibbonpoint Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 66	I'd be happy with manual focus. It would replace my M 28mm 2.8 which is becoming attached to my K10D by molecular attraction.

09-28-2010, 04:54 PM	#67
ltdstar Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: AZ Posts: 285	I got the 85mm and 14mm this looks like a good focal length in between those two. so this Samyang will be 35mm f1.2 in CanonEF mount? Any samples from the lens?

11-01-2010, 06:22 AM	#68
ilya80 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Photos: Albums Posts: 410	Originally posted by ltdstar I got the 85mm and 14mm this looks like a good focal length in between those two. so this Samyang will be 35mm f1.2 in CanonEF mount? Any samples from the lens? 35 1.2 ? Now thats curious.

11-01-2010, 07:38 AM	#69
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by ilya80 35 1.2 ? Now thats curious. Canon has a larger opening, to, oddly enough (on crop) a smaller sensor.

11-01-2010, 08:43 AM	#70
Zebooka Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Russia, Siberia, Novosibirsk Posts: 323	Originally posted by Rory Canon has a larger opening, to, oddly enough (on crop) a smaller sensor. So what? This is not connected with lens speed.

11-01-2010, 09:01 AM	#71
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by Zebooka So what? This is not connected with lens speed. The explanation I read states that a larger, hole, for lack of a better term, allows for a larger rear element, which intern makes it easier and cheaper to make a faster lens. So, yes, it is connected to lens speed.

11-01-2010, 09:12 AM	#72
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	No, not connected to sensor size but to lens mount.

11-01-2010, 09:24 AM	#73
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by thibs No, not connected to sensor size but to lens mount. Right. Which I called an "opening" and a "hole". Maybe my terms were too technical.

11-02-2010, 01:08 AM	#74
sjwaldron Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,235	Interesting lens... although at well over 500 euros it doesn't sound too appealing to me personally. I'd rather spend the extra for a 31 ltd. If it comes out at say 300 usd, then yeah for sure I'd like one for that 1.4 aperture.