Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo
- - - - -

Local Pond

e-pm1 samyang fisheye

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 willl

willl

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 647 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:38

Just a few test shots from last Friday at a local park with my new Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye (in m4/3 mount on an Olympus e-pm1).

Tranquil.
PC071734.jpg

Ducks.
PC071775.jpg

And a de-fished sample (using Lightroom distortion correction set to the Nikon 10.5).

Feeding time.
PC071817.jpg

Comments and criticism is certainly welcome. As well as any tips you may have. This is my first fisheye lens.


The one thing that annoys me with this fisheye is the focus distance markers. It goes from 0.25m to infinity as the next marker. Which kinda sucks when trying to take a quick snapshot of people closer than about 2m. Closest focus, 0.09m (yes, that's 9cm!)

This is what I mean:
Posted Image

#2 Fons Baerken

Fons Baerken

    Advanced Member

  • POTW Committee
  • 8,935 posts
  • LocationNederland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 15 December 2012 - 21:38

i think they are nice William

#3 willl

willl

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 647 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:16

i think they are nice William


Thanks Fons :)

#4 armando_m

armando_m

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 3,196 posts
  • LocationGuadalajara

Posted 16 December 2012 - 15:08

Interesting lens !

Regards,
Armando 
 


#5 crowecg

crowecg

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 825 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:07

Karkarook park???

I enjoy a wander around there myself occasionally.

#6 willl

willl

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 647 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:50

Karkarook park???

I enjoy a wander around there myself occasionally.


Yep! That's the one. I pass there on my way home most days. Quite a nice spot.

#7 Alan7140

Alan7140

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 5,621 posts
  • LocationTasmania, Australia
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:15

Nice shots.

I was about guess that this lens is similar to my recently acquired Samyang 8mm/2.8 in Fuji-X mount, but as well as the f/3.5 max aperture the lens is also a completely different animal to what I have here. My lens shade is longer (less squared off), the lens focus markings are different, next from infinity is 6ft/2m, 3'/1m, 0.7m, 2', 0.5m, 1.5', 0.4m, 1.2', 1', 0.3m in that order. Nowhere near the 0.09m close focus of yours, but a greater spread of focusing distances in between. The front element is also higher set than yours (further forward from the back element). Interesting that the differences are so great - I wouldn't have thought such a huge difference between MFT & APS-C fisheyes would be the case.

Whatever, the results you're getting here have the same "look" about them as results I'm getting from my Samyang, which are visually different than those I got from either my 10.5mm or my 16mm f/2.8 fisheyes.

#8 willl

willl

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 647 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 18 December 2012 - 01:01

I was about guess that this lens is similar to my recently acquired Samyang 8mm/2.8 in Fuji-X mount, but as well as the f/3.5 max aperture the lens is also a completely different animal to what I have here. My lens shade is longer (less squared off), the lens focus markings are different, next from infinity is 6ft/2m, 3'/1m, 0.7m, 2', 0.5m, 1.5', 0.4m, 1.2', 1', 0.3m in that order. Nowhere near the 0.09m close focus of yours, but a greater spread of focusing distances in between. The front element is also higher set than yours (further forward from the back element). Interesting that the differences are so great - I wouldn't have thought such a huge difference between MFT & APS-C fisheyes would be the case.


Yeah, I was surprised by that as well. The overall look and feel of the lenses look quite similar from what I saw on the Samyang website (which is different to how the DSLR fisheyes look).

I might end up putting my own 1m and 2m markings on the lens as this reviewer has done - http://m43photo.blog...ens-review.html

Whatever, the results you're getting here have the same "look" about them as results I'm getting from my Samyang, which are visually different than those I got from either my 10.5mm or my 16mm f/2.8 fisheyes.


Yeah, I'm quite enjoying the fisheye. My only complaint, thus far, is with the distance markers.

I can see why you like your Samyang fisheye Fred.

Looking at the specs, another difference is the lens construction.

The Sony/Samsung/Fujifilm version is: 10 elements/8 groups (1 Aspherical, 2 ED)
And the micro 4/3 mount version is: 9 elements/7 groups

Not that that really matters. I'm sure their goal was a consistent design/results as much as possible between all the different mounts.

#9 Alan7140

Alan7140

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 5,621 posts
  • LocationTasmania, Australia
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:10

Agree to all that, but I'm still surprised at the apparently huge design differences between the two lenses. I guess it points to the possibility that Samyang is taking its assault on the third-party lens market very seriously indeed. Sigma, Tamson Tokina etc might want to check their rear view mirrors more often.

As an aside, I received my Nikon-mount Samyang 14mm f/2.8 today, being at least a temporary substitute for the Fuji 14/2.8 which has failed to appear on the market now through two promised deadlines.

Whilst the lens shows some promise when used via adapter on the X-Pro1, I've had my eyebrows raised by the adapters I have. The newer, much more expensive (x3 times more) Kipon adapter focuses the lens at infinity at the 2m/7' mark. This being so far removed from reality I tried the cheap Pixco adapter and it focuses the lens only minutely before the infinity mark. Odd thing is that they both focus my AI-s lenses on infinity at the infinity stop on the lens. Something very strange going on here, as the D3s focuses it at infinity, on infinity.

The lens also has a rather disconcertingly long focus throw, ~270ยบ between infinity and 0.28m. I'm not sure of their reasoning on this, being the sort of throw you'd expect on a super tele, not an uber-wide. Other impressions are that it is incredibly sharp in the centre wide open, and all over between f/8 & f/16. It vignettes like a pig on FX format, however, but that is all but gone by f/5.6. Still, at $417 delivered in 6 days for a 14mm ultrawide, I can't grumble too much. It'll give me an idea if this 21mm equiv AOV will be one I use often enough to justify nearly one grand for the Fuji version if & when it ever makes it onto the shelves, or if I settle for speed and just get the 23 & 56 f/1.4 lenses when they arrive, and use the 14mm & 8mm Samyangs for the wide to really wide stuff.

Edited by Fred Nirque, 18 December 2012 - 04:34 .


#10 willl

willl

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 647 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 19 December 2012 - 00:15

Agree to all that, but I'm still surprised at the apparently huge design differences between the two lenses. I guess it points to the possibility that Samyang is taking its assault on the third-party lens market very seriously indeed. Sigma, Tamson Tokina etc might want to check their rear view mirrors more often.


Indeed. I guess being a late comer to the third-party game, they want to do whatever they can to gain marketshare. I'd say, the only advantage to Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are that their lenses have AF. So they would capture most of that crowd. Without AF, Samyang competes on price and reputation (which they are gaining).


#11 Alan7140

Alan7140

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 5,621 posts
  • LocationTasmania, Australia
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:37

AF will be next up, is my guess. They're avoiding it no doubt because of the different systems for the various cameras their lenses fit, adding the various AF systems would make them less competitive on price, granted.

It's about time people learned to focus again, anyhow - from what I've seen on forums over the past few years the principle gripe with new camera models has almost invariably been at least something to do with AF; not fast enough, not accurate enough, not consistent enough... etc. I still reckon those complaints would be a lot thinner on the ground if people actually knew how to focus first instead of blindly relying on the machine. I'm on my sixth AF Nikon model, second Fuji model, and there was a Panasonic thrown in there as well, and I've never had one problem with AF other than my worn-out 80-200 in the later part of its life. Perhaps the two decades shooting with only manual focus cameras prior to that had something to do with it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.