New lens from Samyang 14mm f/2.8

jogiba · 09-16-2009, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

14mm on film would be aweeeesome

Too bad Sigma 15-30mm isn't produced anymore.

By the way, we actually do have a full frame 14mm, the DA 10-17 is full frame starting at 14mm, so is the Sigma 10-20

World's widest rectilinear lens @ 122°

Amazon.com: Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Pentax and Samsung SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Andi Lo · 09-16-2009, 09:40 PM

Funny I just discovered its existence earlier today... I've been looking around for a cheap copy; until I run into one the sigma 10-20mm would still be my next stop.

marcinski · 09-17-2009, 08:08 AM

More details:

Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical - Optyczne.pl

Expected price 999 zl (Polish zloty) or about 250 Euro.

Shame about the lack of filter thread and DOF markings.

Marcin

nanok · 09-17-2009, 03:24 PM

no dof scale is a big mistake for such a lens, if they are smart, they should actually include a dual one (aps-c and "ff").

i am not sure we are clear on the fact this is a rectilinear. if it is, to be honest, especially at that price, i am not holding my breath for any miracles.

i still believe that the smart move in this day and age is to go for a fisheye design, and include (already available opensource) software for defishing. a fisheye design (spherical projection) is much cheaper to r&d and build i think, it is (potentially) smaller, and is something doable for a reasonable price. if you could also add some software in camera, to provide a decent preview jpg (defish/no-defish, on request), that would be great (that can only work if 1. pentax grabs this idea and makes such lens under their brand and/or 2. the firmware will be opensource -- still waiting for that one

). make it sharp, make it rugged, make it manual focus, smc-a, and make it weathersealed, oh, and include a second accessory sunhood for aps-c

, and pentax landscape shooters will snatch them in pairs, and the dealers will have to hire bodyguards to fend the inpatient customers off. the old zenitar already (or still) does some of the above: it is small & compact, light, simple and solid, sharp, and it would also be as good as weathersealed if it had a mount o-ring (the lens itself would be nice to have ws, but it's not that critical, i guess, but a mount sealing is mandatory at least, for outdoors shooters), and it's pretty damn sharp. it's not smc-a though, and it's not pentax, but after using it for a year, you'd have to work hard to convince me to bother with a "clunky" rectilinear ultrawide zoom and leave my little zenitar at home.

there's a niche, and it's waiting for somebody to fill it. just my two cents worth..

ghelary · 09-18-2009, 12:49 AM

@ Nanok,

There is no difference of depth of field between APSC and FF at the same focal length, only a difference of field of view.

Regards,
Guillaume

opiszon · 09-18-2009, 04:33 AM

full size samples from Canon 20d
http://optyczne.pl/2238-nowość-Falcon_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_Asph._IF_-_zdjęcia_przykładowe.html

NEF samples from Full Frame Nikon d3x Samyang.pl download

wlachan · 09-18-2009, 06:10 AM

Those 20D samples look pretty good. The corners maybe even better than DA14. The FF samples aren't bad either.

Last edited by wlachan; 09-18-2009 at 06:21 AM.

**StephenMerola** · 09-18-2009, 11:55 AM

I thought the 20D samples looked soft.

nanok · 09-18-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by ghelary

@ Nanok,

There is no difference of depth of field between APSC and FF at the same focal length, only a difference of field of view.

Regards,
Guillaume

yes, there is. the format (the imaging area: sensor, film frame, etc) affects the dof calculations: shortly: you will have less dof with the same lens at the same aperture on aps-c than on "full frame" (35mm film frame). if you want to talk about field of view: you will have more dof on aps-c at the same aperture for the same field of view than on ff (ex: 18mm/8 on aps-c will have more dof than 28mm/8 on ff).

it's been discussed to death, and it's really quite simple, so i will not go into it any further (again). let me know if it's still nto clear, and i will try to explain and/or point to relevant references which explain it.

wlachan · 09-18-2009, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by nanok

yes, there is. the format (the imaging area: sensor, film frame, etc) affects the dof calculations: shortly: you will have less dof with the same lens at the same aperture on aps-c than on "full frame" (35mm film frame). if you want to talk about field of view: you will have more dof on aps-c at the same aperture for the same field of view than on ff (ex: 18mm/8 on aps-c will have more dof than 28mm/8 on ff).

Just crop any photo taken with 135 film, then you have something similar to a shot taken with APS-C. Now you have narrower FOV, but you cannot change the DOF. So I think Guillaume is right.

er1kksen · 09-18-2009, 02:16 PM

That's what makes sense to me too, but then there's this other crap about the APS-C image needing to be enlarged more relative to the sensor format which increases apparent dof and a bunch of other junk I don't really get...

I find it far more satisfying to just go out and take pictures than worry about it. I can crank my 85mm to 1.8 and get giant, soft bokeh and that's all I need to know about dof.

Blue · 09-18-2009, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

14mm on film would be aweeeesome

Too bad Sigma 15-30mm isn't produced anymore.

By the way, we actually do have a full frame 14mm, the DA 10-17 is full frame starting at 14mm, so is the Sigma 10-20

Someone on ebay has had a new (N.O.S.) listed for a while. Mine is on the MZ-3 at the moment.

jct us101 · 09-18-2009, 06:20 PM

How much will it be in USD?

lithos · 09-18-2009, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

Two observations:

1) That front lens looks very strange to me. Is the picture cropped? You can't just have a lens element that is cut like that!

2) Again the front element. It is very protruding! More extreme even than most fish eyes. Won't be easy to protect from either scratch or flare!

I'm assuming you're taking the piss, but the white and coloured bits are the lens elements, not the grey stuff...

nanok · 09-19-2009, 01:05 AM

dof:

sigh: Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it's one thing if you don't care about it, fine. however it doesn't justify stating it wrong. the way i see it, if you don't care about it, don't talk about it, if you do, make sure you get it right when stating something about it. one reason is that some poeple might care about it and could be confused about conflicting and fuzzy statements, when trying to understand it

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 review - pretty impressive	marcinski	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	02-10-2014 04:48 AM
New Samyang 14mm f/2.8 Lens for Pentax	Biro	Pentax News and Rumors	48	11-01-2011 11:19 PM
Budget Ultra-wide Samyang 2.8/14mm ED AS IF UMC	ovim	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	10-29-2011 08:04 AM
Samyang 14mm F2.8	Lowell Goudge	Ask B&H Photo!	3	08-03-2010 08:22 AM
Samyang 14mm F2.8	jeff1101	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	09-18-2009 07:23 PM

09-16-2009, 06:06 PM	#16
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by Andi Lo 14mm on film would be aweeeesome Too bad Sigma 15-30mm isn't produced anymore. By the way, we actually do have a full frame 14mm, the DA 10-17 is full frame starting at 14mm, so is the Sigma 10-20 World's widest rectilinear lens @ 122° Amazon.com: Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG IF HSM Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Pentax and Samsung SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

09-16-2009, 09:40 PM	#17
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Funny I just discovered its existence earlier today... I've been looking around for a cheap copy; until I run into one the sigma 10-20mm would still be my next stop.

09-17-2009, 08:08 AM	#18
marcinski Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 95 Original Poster	More details: Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical - Optyczne.pl Expected price 999 zl (Polish zloty) or about 250 Euro. Shame about the lack of filter thread and DOF markings. Marcin

09-17-2009, 03:24 PM	#19
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	no dof scale is a big mistake for such a lens, if they are smart, they should actually include a dual one (aps-c and "ff"). i am not sure we are clear on the fact this is a rectilinear. if it is, to be honest, especially at that price, i am not holding my breath for any miracles. i still believe that the smart move in this day and age is to go for a fisheye design, and include (already available opensource) software for defishing. a fisheye design (spherical projection) is much cheaper to r&d and build i think, it is (potentially) smaller, and is something doable for a reasonable price. if you could also add some software in camera, to provide a decent preview jpg (defish/no-defish, on request), that would be great (that can only work if 1. pentax grabs this idea and makes such lens under their brand and/or 2. the firmware will be opensource -- still waiting for that one ). make it sharp, make it rugged, make it manual focus, smc-a, and make it weathersealed, oh, and include a second accessory sunhood for aps-c , and pentax landscape shooters will snatch them in pairs, and the dealers will have to hire bodyguards to fend the inpatient customers off. the old zenitar already (or still) does some of the above: it is small & compact, light, simple and solid, sharp, and it would also be as good as weathersealed if it had a mount o-ring (the lens itself would be nice to have ws, but it's not that critical, i guess, but a mount sealing is mandatory at least, for outdoors shooters), and it's pretty damn sharp. it's not smc-a though, and it's not pentax, but after using it for a year, you'd have to work hard to convince me to bother with a "clunky" rectilinear ultrawide zoom and leave my little zenitar at home. there's a niche, and it's waiting for somebody to fill it. just my two cents worth..

09-18-2009, 12:49 AM	#20
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	@ Nanok, There is no difference of depth of field between APSC and FF at the same focal length, only a difference of field of view. Regards, Guillaume

09-18-2009, 04:33 AM	#21
opiszon Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Poznań, miasto doznań Posts: 80	full size samples from Canon 20d http://optyczne.pl/2238-nowość-Falcon_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_Asph._IF_-_zdjęcia_przykładowe.html NEF samples from Full Frame Nikon d3x Samyang.pl download

09-18-2009, 06:10 AM	#22
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Those 20D samples look pretty good. The corners maybe even better than DA14. The FF samples aren't bad either. Last edited by wlachan; 09-18-2009 at 06:21 AM.

09-18-2009, 11:55 AM	#23
StephenMerola Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 423	I thought the 20D samples looked soft.

09-18-2009, 01:55 PM	#24
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	Originally posted by ghelary @ Nanok, There is no difference of depth of field between APSC and FF at the same focal length, only a difference of field of view. Regards, Guillaume yes, there is. the format (the imaging area: sensor, film frame, etc) affects the dof calculations: shortly: you will have less dof with the same lens at the same aperture on aps-c than on "full frame" (35mm film frame). if you want to talk about field of view: you will have more dof on aps-c at the same aperture for the same field of view than on ff (ex: 18mm/8 on aps-c will have more dof than 28mm/8 on ff). it's been discussed to death, and it's really quite simple, so i will not go into it any further (again). let me know if it's still nto clear, and i will try to explain and/or point to relevant references which explain it.

09-18-2009, 02:08 PM	#25
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by nanok yes, there is. the format (the imaging area: sensor, film frame, etc) affects the dof calculations: shortly: you will have less dof with the same lens at the same aperture on aps-c than on "full frame" (35mm film frame). if you want to talk about field of view: you will have more dof on aps-c at the same aperture for the same field of view than on ff (ex: 18mm/8 on aps-c will have more dof than 28mm/8 on ff). Just crop any photo taken with 135 film, then you have something similar to a shot taken with APS-C. Now you have narrower FOV, but you cannot change the DOF. So I think Guillaume is right.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-18-2009, 02:16 PM	#26
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	That's what makes sense to me too, but then there's this other crap about the APS-C image needing to be enlarged more relative to the sensor format which increases apparent dof and a bunch of other junk I don't really get... I find it far more satisfying to just go out and take pictures than worry about it. I can crank my 85mm to 1.8 and get giant, soft bokeh and that's all I need to know about dof.

09-18-2009, 02:59 PM	#27
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Andi Lo 14mm on film would be aweeeesome Too bad Sigma 15-30mm isn't produced anymore. By the way, we actually do have a full frame 14mm, the DA 10-17 is full frame starting at 14mm, so is the Sigma 10-20 Someone on ebay has had a new (N.O.S.) listed for a while. Mine is on the MZ-3 at the moment.

09-18-2009, 06:20 PM	#28
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	How much will it be in USD?

09-18-2009, 11:00 PM	#29
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Two observations: 1) That front lens looks very strange to me. Is the picture cropped? You can't just have a lens element that is cut like that! 2) Again the front element. It is very protruding! More extreme even than most fish eyes. Won't be easy to protect from either scratch or flare! I'm assuming you're taking the piss, but the white and coloured bits are the lens elements, not the grey stuff...

09-19-2009, 01:05 AM	#30
nanok Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	dof: sigh: Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it's one thing if you don't care about it, fine. however it doesn't justify stating it wrong. the way i see it, if you don't care about it, don't talk about it, if you do, make sure you get it right when stating something about it. one reason is that some poeple might care about it and could be confused about conflicting and fuzzy statements, when trying to understand it