| Author: | | Junior Member Registered: August, 2009 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 30
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 9, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Cheap, high-quality, fisheye | | Cons: | Removable hood is fragile | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Sony NEX-7, A7II
| |
I have the Opteka-branded version, which says "6.5mm CS" but is really Samyang's "8mm CSII." Yes, it really was $150 new... the Opteka version is inexplicably cheaper from some vendors than all the other brandings, which is why I don't mind the inaccurate labeling. 
On APS-C, this lens easily resolves well enough for 24MP when stopped down a little. On FF, I remove the hood and mount it on a Lens Turbo focal reducer to get a full circular image with over 180 degrees... without the focal reducer, you get a top/bottom clipped circle. IQ is excellent until the (fisheye typical) blue edge. The removable hood that allows the full circles is unfortunately held on by an incredibly tiny bayonet, which feels very fragile and doesn't really go on/off easily; I'm 3D printing a custom lens cover that can pop on/off when the hood is detached....
Flare resistance is quite good, although certainly not perfect. Tends to get one bright spot rather than a complex flare pattern or fogging....
There really isn't just one fisheye projection, but what this lens uses is a little odd. It is nearly, but not quite, stereographic. For the most part, it's a good odd, showing less distortion than you'd expect from a fisheye despite the ultrawide view. However, the projection formula isn't quite a match for any standard fisheye model, so projection changes (e.g., defishing) can be a little more trouble than for some lenses. The projection error when defished is still less than most rectilinear ultrawides can deliver without correction.
Overall, really an excellent and highly versatile fisheye.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2013 Location: Kansas City, KS Posts: 1,612
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 31, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $240.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, color, DoF, ease of use | | Cons: | Large, heavy | |
I have had an incredible, joyous month using the Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 Fish Eye for the Single in January 2015 challenge via PentaxForums. I was terrified to start because I felt kind of held back by preconceived lens positives that the fish eye is the opposite of: distortion 4eva; bokeh not allowed; subject isolation, schmubject schmisolation. HOWEVER, after spending a full month with the lens, I don't really "see" the distortion as much and now I'm terrified to lose the perspective that the fish eye gives me....
Physically, the lens is BIG. It's heavy because of the glass, but the body of the lens is plastic and that really saves it. I have old lenses that are heavier with less glass (because of metal construction). The front element is hugely bulbous and protuberant; I had to be careful and mind the distortion or I would easily touch subjects with the front glass, not knowing I was so close. This hasn't been a big problem for me because I've been using the lens for scenic shots, mostly. The lens comes with a bayonet-mount petal-style hood that I've never removed. The lens cap is a deep plastic saucer that pinches on to the hood and it's very solid and protective, which is important for that front glass. Handling is excellent, well-dampened focus, responsive aperture ring (though I kept it on the A-setting for the month).
It is surprisingly soft at f/3.5 and below 5.6, really. However, because of the nature of the images it produces (180 degree field of vision, distorted in a healthy way), it really didn't draw much critique from me, even when the images were slightly soft or out-of-focus. It was more about the bizarre distortion the lens could produce. The coatings produce excellent color and contrast. The EASIEST way to use the lens was to set it at f/8, focus to infinity (because the depth of field is MAAASSSSIIIVVVVE) and just fire away, Av mode-style. Shake reduction is very effective, and coupled with the very short focal length of the lens, I took shots at 1/4s that I considered tolerable, if not ideal.
There is a slight amount of chromatic aberration/fringing, particularly at the edges of the frame. Ticking a box in Lightroom eliminates this defect from the images.
In post-processing, I did boost the saturation almost every time and almost always pulled the contrast back. Because the lens captures a HUGE scene (180 degrees, remember!), you're going to challenge your dynamic range savior skills in post. You're going to either have the sun, or you're going to have shadows. Often times, both. It was a challenge to create a natural-looking image without that flattened, overdone HDR look. (I didn't actually make any multiple exposure HDR images - all images were one exposure.) I ended up having to get more creative with using masks/brushes on certain areas. I found it best to underexpose the image generally, then compensate for shadows during processing.
The on-body flash is unusable because of shadows, but I did play around with bouncing a flash and it worked alright. It should be noted, my flash skills are still in swaddling clothes, and that's being generous.
Composing the scene properly is imperative. Any line that crosses the center will be straight, and that's a good place to start. I've also found it's better to get either low, or square to the subject, but this is mostly because you want to keep your toes (and coat sleeve cuffs, and elbows, and long hair) out of the frame.
All-in-all, I'm really glad I challenged myself with this lens. You can create images that are so dramatic and exciting, and you can't made them with any other lens. This is a lens that is probably always going to be in my bag, no matter what else is on my camera. It just does things that no other lens can do. I'm a zealous fanatic!
Check out my Flickr album with images from this lens! | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2009 Location: Rome (Italy) Posts: 16 | | Review Date: June 21, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | very nice projection, sharp, good CA control | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K5II
| |
This is my first fish-eye lens and I am very happy with it ! 
I wanted to try this Samyang MF lens and I have to say that it's a big value for the money, very high quality/price ratio.
The 8mm focal length is really nice and funny, but also very useful and effective in terms of photographic composition and it gives you great opportunity in architectural and landscape photography.
This lens has a very good performance in terms of sharpness, even wide open, and a good control of flares and CA.
I personally compared this lens with Pentax 10-17mm fisheye and I must say that I prefer the Samyang by far, expecially for it very well controlled purple fringing !
look at this shot with the sun in it !
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/174-pentax-k-3-photo-contest/262189-archi...truvianus.html
(it needed just a little post processing correction for a flare and little purple fringing at extreme borders)
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2009 Location: USA - Delaware Posts: 435 | | Review Date: October 22, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Super wide, very fun, sharp, price | | Cons: | flare, manual focus | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I have the Rokinon verson of the lens. I really like it. It is very sharp in center wide open and the corners are sharp starting around F5.6. Super fun to play around with. Tends to flare if you are not careful, thought I think thats pretty natural with round front element. Very good quality build.
What I love about it is that it is one of the few modern lens which are IR compatible with no hot spots. I have converted K10D and this baby produces some stellar results. 2 things to be aware of. Flare is 10 times more prominent in IR (which is not necessarily bad). Sometimes it creates really interesting results in photos. Also, almost all lens are optimized for the visible spectrum so they perform poorly in the corners when shooting in IR. This is no exception. The easiest way to get around this problem is to shoot with full frame designed lens. The 14mm Rokinon would probably be better wide angle for that purpose. Otherwise, really fun lens!  | | | | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2010 Posts: 11 | | Review Date: April 12, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $299.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Exceptional lens | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I have this lens almost for three years now and I just love it. Works wonderful on Pentax cameras. Very sharp from corner to corner. The field of view is amazing!
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2016 Location: London Posts: 1,079 | | Review Date: February 22, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $135.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Well built and works pretty well | | Cons: | Lens cap isn't good. No way to fit filters | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
I just got one of these second-hand for my Nikon; it's a variant model aimed primarily at video work and has T-stops and focus and aperture rings geared for mechanical operation, but works pretty well on a still camera. So far I've only been able to test it on a fairly dull day, the results were reasonable but not as good as some I've seen here. I want to take it somewhere that really stretches its capabilities, and I may update this when I do.
I can't say I noticed any significant problems with it - it works, it's not unreasonably heavy or awkward, and it didn't give me any unpleasant surprises apart from the stupid lens cap design. It's a shame that there's no way to fit filters, such as a rear filter similar to those used on some mirror lenses, but I can live without.
Recommended.
Another 50 shots here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/150868539@N02/albums/72157691969641701 | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2016 Location: Montreal Posts: 4
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 18, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | cheap, quality | | Cons: | hood, heavy (for the size) | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: Pentax K-7
| |
Very good lens. Lof of fun and creative pictures. For the price, it's really the best fisheye lens on the market.
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Posts: 12,285
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 6, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $225.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, Good IQ, Very Solid Build, A setting | | Cons: | Doesn't take filters | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-5iis & K-01
| |
This review is on the Bower older version with the non-removeable "hood".
After trying out the 03 Fisheye on my Q and really enjoying it I decided to try a fisheye for my main camera. After looking and knowing that it would be an occasional use lens and therefore not something I wanted to sink a lot of money into I decided on the Samyang 8mm. Found a good sale at Buydig and got the Bower branded version (they're all the same).
Wow, this lens has the build feel of the older SMC lenses in the M and Tak lines. Solid feel, well dampened throw, clean markings for the aperture ring and the focus ring, definite feel to each click of the aperture ring, just solid mechanically all around.
Depth of field makes focus relatively easy on this 8mm lens. Colors and saturation are excellent. Its got a 360 view but because it has a near stereographic projection distorts less at the edges thereby giving a more recognizable image IMHO.
I'm not convinced that it's as soft as the comparison review indicates but for the price its a very solid addition to a kit if you want to try out fisheye photos.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2012 Location: Melbourne Posts: 432 | | Review Date: December 13, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Too much to mention.. | | Cons: | Cheap front cap, non removable hood. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
The 8mm fisheye from Samyang is a smashing little lens, despite its massive angle of view it handles flare well, produces nice sharp images and the shape of the distortion is even desirable. Great lens.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2012 Location: Milan Posts: 339 | | Review Date: September 8, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $281.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | flare, wide, build | | Cons: | filters | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Very nice lens.
From the first day I bought this lens, I appreciate every time its results.
No flare at all, strong construction, super wide fov.
It's really a nice lens.
Negative side: you can't add filters. -edit- you can, but you have to buy its own filter carrier
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: May, 2010 Posts: 48
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 28, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Stereographic projection, crazy wide FOV | | Cons: | Lens cap, close focusing | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
I had the DA10-17 fisheye awhile ago and sold it for a Pentax DA15, which I later sold it for a Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5. I found fisheye photos less practical than a rectilinear UWA, but deep inside me, I really missed the quirkiness of the fisheye lens.
I wanted something wider than my 10-24, and Samyang fit the bill. Reading the reviews of it's stereographic projection made it even more desirable for me!
Here's what I found from my experience with the Samyang vs the DA10-17.
Pros:
1. Stereographic projections made photos less squished at the sides, especially photos of people looked more natural
2. It's hard to believe the field of view of this lens! It's wider than any lens I've ever used, and more than the DA10-17 at 10mm!
3. It's well built and built to last
4. It's KA mount. One of the best things about the Pentax mount is that it supports full metering.
5. Better CA control than the DA10-17.
6. Value for money. No fisheye come close to this quality and price ratio
Cons:
1. Lens cap is not well designed and is not easy to put on. there are no 3rd party replacement cap at the moment (not even on fleabay). I would love to have a felt padded lens cap like the DA10-17
2. Close up. Compared to DA10-17 which can focus ridiculously close (0.1m), the Samyang only focuses at about 0.3m. That means, you can't take photos of objects up close and give it a crazy distorted feel.
Neutral:
1. No AF, but MF is easy enough. Set it at f5.6 and focus at 0.6m or f8.0 and focus at 0.4m. Almost everything will be in focus
2. No zoom. But for me, even when I had the DA10-17, i would mostly use it at 10mm. some folks may say that 15-17mm works like a rectilinear UWA, but I prefer to get a dedicated rectilinear for that kind of shots.
I would say that the Samyang 8mm is not as "fun" as the DA10-17 due to it's less aggressive distortions and not-so-close minimal focusing range (i.e. photos of your dog with a huge nose effect), but the novelty of these pictures wear off very quickly. Instead, the Samyang is a solid all rounder, which would work very well with landscapes and cityscapes.
Fisheye lenses are itself not very easy to use, due to the enormous canvas it captures. Here are some shots I took using the Samyang (they were taken with RAW, and post processed using LR to up the contrast, saturation, clarity). All in all, I highly recommend this lens to any fisheye and wide angle lovers!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: February, 2008 Location: Hawkesbury Posts: 1,899 | | Review Date: April 7, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Unique optics, sharp, good colour reproduction, great price | | Cons: | Poor lens cap and bag | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| |
Having heard such wonderful things about this lens and seen some nice examples of images, I had somewhat built up my expectations. Now that I have the "Bell+Howell" branded version in my hands, I am a little disappointed but still satisfied with the lens over all.
In almost all respects, the optics of this lens are unique and of good quality. Sharpness is very good across the frame. Colour reproduction is also generally very good and contrast is high. Unfortunately, my copy produces strong purple/green fringing on areas with extreme contrast. I know that LCA is a problem on many fish-eye lenses, but other reviewers have made a point of saying how well controlled these were on this lens. Maybe my copy is worse? I'm going to have to improve my processing to deal with this, as it can be overly distracting in what are otherwise eye catching, brain twisting photographs.
My copy seems to be quite resistant to flare. I only see obvious flare artefacts when a strong light source is just out of the frame or in a corner. Contrast remains good even when shooting into the sun.
The other area that the lens fails is in the method used to cap the lens. The 22 mm thick lens cap can only grip the lens hood if applied at exactly the right angle. What is more, the lens cap has a poor fit and additional gaps at the grips all of which does a poor job of keeping the lens face free of dust (particularly given the fluffy lens bag supplied). The cap needs to be designed tighter and could have a curved face like the hood to help users align it and help it slip into a pocket while the lens is in use.
Otherwise the lens handling is pretty good. The focus throw is about right (about 100°) and everything feels sturdy enough. The lens is much more compact than I expected.
Many photographers have commented that focusing is unimportant with this lens given its huge depth of field at most settings. I find it can make a bit of a difference due to how sharp the lens is for well focused objects, particularly when shooting in low light, however achieving the optimum focus can be difficult. I am unable to see any loss of infinity focus by setting the lens wide open and focusing at the 1m mark rather than at the infinity mark.
I particularly like the close focus ability. You could probably get a recognisable image of an insect on the lens face when it is stopped right down.
I'm sure I'm going to enjoy using this lens and will post some examples here when I have made more use of it. My rating of a 9 might be a little generous, but I can't help but smile every time I use it!
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 19, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $239.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Proportional projection, edge sharpness, build & assembly, flare resistance | | Cons: | Stop-down aperture shift (confirmed) | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 9
| |
First and foremost, this is a near-stereographic projection lens, appropriately termed as a proportional projection lens. As such, spheres are round as they should be nearly from edge to edge (not fat at the edges as in severe rectilinear distortion, or a bending oblong present on conventional fisheyes). Simply put, if you wanted to take a picture of 75 people in a living room, this lens will outperform in terms of portrayal accuracy compared to any other ultra-wide lens currently in production - and by a very large margin.
Its build and assembly quality are on a level with a typical A-series prime (which it somewhat resembles). Its CA/PF is like most ultra-wides and fisheye, but more easily cleaned up than most (currently I have a Tokina 12-24 - which is much worse, a Zenitar 16mm - about the same); flare resistance is better than anything else I've seen in the ultra-wide category - even shooting with the sun in the frame. I rated bokeh as about average simply because it really isn't a factor in this lens. (Any shallow depth of field you might want to introduce would have to be shot at f/3.5 - and this is just too soft a setting compared to the much-improved sharpness at f/5.6.)
Some creative testing confirms that the lens is not assembled by monkeys. In fact, every one of these lenses shot at f/3.5 will be most sharp at infinity when set to 0.7 meters - this is intentional due to a design flaw. As it works out, if you shoot the lens at f/11 it will be sharpest at infinity (focus scale is correct). Based on my testing, here's another way to look at it: the closest marked focus is 12 inches: at f/3.5 the lens focuses sharpest at 14 inches; at f/11 the lens close focuses sharpest at 12 inches; and at f/22 close focus is sharpest at 9-10 inches (and is far out of focus at 14 inches where it was sharp when wide open). Something had to give in designing such an exotic lens at a low cost, and this variable focal-point phenomenon is the culprit. Not much of a challenge to correct once you are aware of the problem. Whatever you do, it is a mistake to recalibrate the focus barrel. You will not be able to focus at infinity stopped down if you calibrate only at the wide open aperture setting (which is optically the weakest setting).
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: October, 2009 Posts: 137
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 22, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $240.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | a gem; great value for money | | Cons: | none | |
this 8mm samyang is a gem! indeed with distance set at 1 meter it is sharp and exciting! specially with street phtography at events like this Flower Park in the Netherlands....
Great colours and nice handling
1 click on pic to enlarge
2 click on pic to enlarge
3
4
5
6
 | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2009 Location: Malvern, PA Posts: 5
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 3, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $229.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Build quality, image quality, price | | Cons: | Cheap lens cap | |
Pros:
Excellent quality, even by professional standards. Solid overall build quality - metal construction, smooth focus ring. This certainly does not have the look and feel of a budget lens. Image quality is excellent and I don't just mean excellent "for the price"...it's a great lens by any standard.
Cons:
The front lens cap does what is designed to do, but the cheap plastic material and reverse clip design leave much to be desired. The large curved front element causes some flare in direct sunlight however, the level of flare is equivalent to most of the current lens offerings in this focal range - typical for ultra-wide optics.
Rating Details:
Sharpness (8)
---Center- Acceptable wide open (F3.5). Excellent stopped down (F5.6+)
---Corners-typical of fisheye lense, corners are relatively soft compare to center, although sharper than expected compared to other fisheye lense on the market.
Aberrations/Vignetting (8)
---Lens distorts perspective, as expected. Large curved front element causes flare in direct sunlight.
Bokeh (N/A)
---Depth of field at 8mm, even wide open, does not produce much out of focus area to critique. Fisheye lenses, in general, are not for bokeh connoisseurs.
Autofocus (N/A)
---This is a manual focus lens.
Handling (10)
---Build quality if superb. Focus ring is smooth throughout range. Slightly heavy due to metal construction, but compact in design.
Value (10)
---This lens is a serious contender for highest quality/price ratio on the market today.
Additional notes:
This lens is sold under various brand names (i.e. Rokinon, Bower, Samyang, Vivitar Series 1, etc.). All are the same lens manufactured by Samyang Optics of Korea. The Vivitar Series 1 version of this lens (labeled as a 7mm) comes with a redesigned exterior at the cost of around $100 more than all other rebranded versions of this lens.
| | |
;)
;)
