Carl Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 vs Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4 comparison test pictures

joebat · Nov 9, 2014

why is the lack of auto-focus very limiting for some kinds of photography? I think that by the years there are more photo's taken with MF then with AF;

If you want a MF lens is a modern dslr, buy a Katzeye split-screen.

WindwardHaole · Nov 9, 2014

Rick -

Impressive overall performance from the Samyang. Higher contrast lighting would likely have shown the Zeiss to have better control of color aberrations, but these images show that the Samyang to be a huge price bargain. Slightly changing the subject, but adding to your comments on the Voigtlander, I agree that the Nokton is an excellent, versatile lens. As you say, "Useful at f/1.4, sharp by f/2". IQ, build, size and feel make the lens a pleasure to use. I shoot D700 and D300S and on the dx body the Nokton is an excellent 85'ish portrait lens. Aloha.

Stujomo · Nov 9, 2014

I like my Samyang 85mm f1.4.

Here are a couple I shot back in the summer.

Mine is an F mount lens but I use it with n adapter on a Sony A7 due to easier manual focus.

--
Stuart...

http://sjmphotography.carbonmade.com/

SJM Photography

A blog for my personal photography

sjmphotography.wordpress.com

Tomasg71 · Nov 9, 2014

wide open

I am not a big fan of overly sharpened images, prefer the more "natural" look.

scrane · Nov 9, 2014

Krishna Festival, Boise, Idaho, 2010.

Nikon d700 Samyang 85/1.4 @ f4

mlewan · Nov 10, 2014

joebat said:
why is the lack of auto-focus very limiting for some kinds of photography? I think that by the years there are more photo's taken with MF then with AF;

http://blog.1000memories.com/94-number-of-photos-ever-taken-digital-and-analog-in-shoebox

Number Of Photos Taken In 2014 Will Approach 1 Trillion Thanks To Selfie Explosion - BGR

2013 was the year of the selfie, according to the Oxford English Dictionary — but self-snaps aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Everybody is taking selfies,…

bgr.com

33 Pictures Taken At The Right Time

We Bored Pandas are huge fans of perfectly timed photos that capture perfect (and usually funny or unexpected) moments that come and go with a blink of the eye. The internet is abound with images shared by people who have captured images at just the right moment or from just the right...

www.boredpanda.com

Some examples of situations when autofocus often gives you a higher percentage of successful photos than manual focus:

Sport
Playing children
Dances
Parties
Running animals
Flying birds
Selfies
...

The Big One · Nov 11, 2014

joebat said:
why is the lack of auto-focus very limiting for some kinds of photography? I think that by the years there are more photo's taken with MF then with AF;

Sure, by years there are more taken MF (AF has only been around since the late 20th century); but by number of pictures there will be way more taken with AF (or even just with digital, ignoring all film AF). I forget the exact stat, but there are billions of pictures taken each year these days, most of which are from phones (with AF). Even if you limit your selection to SLRs or some other 'advanced' camera specification, the number of pictures recently outstrips everything else with MF... even on a single portrait session I can take more pictures that I shot in my entire life using film.

Cheers

joebat · Nov 11, 2014

You have a point, but MF feels more like real fotography, and AF is more like point and shoot, not entirely true but I think you know what I mean ;-)

J.

The Big One · Nov 11, 2014

joebat said:
You have a point, but MF feels more like real fotography, and AF is more like point and shoot, not entirely true but I think you know what I mean ;-)

J.

Oh, I won't argue with that! I really love the feel of MF... I don't do it enough, though. :-( Trying to catch my kids with MF doesn't work very well.

Cheers

BasiliskPhoto · Nov 12, 2014

Have to say the Samyang seems a bit of a no-brainer for shallow DOF junkies on a budget. If you don't use it at f1.4, then there are other MF portrait options that are worth considering (like the Nikkor 105 f2.5 AI or AIS), but as one of the cheapest f1.4 lenses out there that really delivers centre sharpness wide open, it is hard to argue with.

PSCL1 · Nov 12, 2014

Again, "Zeiss" is selling way overpriced lenses with obsolete MF with PR smoke and mirrors. The mere observation that some posters are thinking the OP has mislabeled the samples demonstrates this!. Whether there are untested corner differences between the lenses or the OP has inadvertently mislabeled the samples, I don't see $4000 difference between these lenses. Only Donald Trump is going to pay $1000 per corner for this Zeiss. Who do they think they are? Leica? :-D

Tomasg71 · Nov 12, 2014

I am absolutely sure i didn t mislabeled them. On both the series, the bench one and the hand held one (http://www.pbase.com/tomasg_71/otus__samyang) the brightness of the pics is consistent. The Samyang is a bit brighter wide open, at smaller apertures the Otus is brighter. I didn t post the hand held ones because i didn t DOT TUNE the Otus (as i did with the Samyang) and as you can see it s slightly back focused in the hand held series.

http://www.pbase.com/tomasg_71/otus__samyang

Tomas

scrane · Nov 12, 2014

PSCL1 said:
Again, "Zeiss" is selling way overpriced lenses with obsolete MF with PR smoke and mirrors. The mere observation that some posters are thinking the OP has mislabeled the samples demonstrates this!. Whether there are untested corner differences between the lenses or the OP has inadvertently mislabeled the samples, I don't see $4000 difference between these lenses. Only Donald Trump is going to pay $1000 per corner for this Zeiss. Who do they think they are? Leica? :-D

I dunno, I have four "Zeiss" lenses, and I'm quite happy with them. I don't pay $4,000. for a lens because that's not on my horizon. I also don't pay $2,000. for a Nikon Zoom. I did just pay $3,300 for a d810 because I know I can make full use of the "Zeiss" lens' resolution. Plus I get all that special Zeissyness.

The Big One · Nov 12, 2014

scrane said:
PSCL1 said:

Again, "Zeiss" is selling way overpriced lenses with obsolete MF with PR smoke and mirrors. The mere observation that some posters are thinking the OP has mislabeled the samples demonstrates this!. Whether there are untested corner differences between the lenses or the OP has inadvertently mislabeled the samples, I don't see $4000 difference between these lenses. Only Donald Trump is going to pay $1000 per corner for this Zeiss. Who do they think they are? Leica? :-D

Click to expand...

I dunno, I have four "Zeiss" lenses, and I'm quite happy with them. I don't pay $4,000. for a lens because that's not on my horizon. I also don't pay $2,000. for a Nikon Zoom. I did just pay $3,300 for a d810 because I know I can make full use of the "Zeiss" lens' resolution. Plus I get all that special Zeissyness.

I guess what people are asking is what constitutes 'Zeissyness', and whether it can actually be determined in a proper (double blind?) experiment. The OP, while not performing a proper double blind test, did provide some careful samples, and I for one would not be able to reliably pick which picture was taken with which lens based on rendering, sharpness, etc. (The only giveaway in this case would be the difference in metering / light transmission).

Anyway, a proper experiment would be very interesting to see, but I don't see it happening any time soon... it would take a fair bit of work, and many people with access to Zeiss lenses would not be interested in doing it, as the results may diminish the perceived value of their expensive lenses so why spend the time.

Cheers

scrane · Nov 13, 2014

The Big One said:
scrane said:

PSCL1 said:

Again, "Zeiss" is selling way overpriced lenses with obsolete MF with PR smoke and mirrors. The mere observation that some posters are thinking the OP has mislabeled the samples demonstrates this!. Whether there are untested corner differences between the lenses or the OP has inadvertently mislabeled the samples, I don't see $4000 difference between these lenses. Only Donald Trump is going to pay $1000 per corner for this Zeiss. Who do they think they are? Leica? :-D

Click to expand...

I dunno, I have four "Zeiss" lenses, and I'm quite happy with them. I don't pay $4,000. for a lens because that's not on my horizon. I also don't pay $2,000. for a Nikon Zoom. I did just pay $3,300 for a d810 because I know I can make full use of the "Zeiss" lens' resolution. Plus I get all that special Zeissyness.

Click to expand...

I guess what people are asking is what constitutes 'Zeissyness', and whether it can actually be determined in a proper (double blind?) experiment. The OP, while not performing a proper double blind test, did provide some careful samples, and I for one would not be able to reliably pick which picture was taken with which lens based on rendering, sharpness, etc. (The only giveaway in this case would be the difference in metering / light transmission).

Anyway, a proper experiment would be very interesting to see, but I don't see it happening any time soon... it would take a fair bit of work, and many people with access to Zeiss lenses would not be interested in doing it, as the results may diminish the perceived value of their expensive lenses so why spend the time.

Cheers

If you go over to the FM forums there are many images from "Zeiss" glass. If you are really interested in what constitutes the "Zeiss" look why don't you go on over and see for yourself?

Rick_Hunter · Nov 13, 2014

PSCL1 said:
Again, "Zeiss" is selling way overpriced lenses with obsolete MF with PR smoke and mirrors. The mere observation that some posters are thinking the OP has mislabeled the samples demonstrates this!. Whether there are untested corner differences between the lenses or the OP has inadvertently mislabeled the samples, I don't see $4000 difference between these lenses. Only Donald Trump is going to pay $1000 per corner for this Zeiss. Who do they think they are? Leica? :-D

Try to disassemble a Samyang and look how and with what it's made, then do the same thing with a Zeiss... You'll be amazed at the difference.

And by the way: yes, the Zeiss look exists. As another poster has suggested, head over to FM forums and check for yourself what it looks like.

66GTO · Nov 13, 2014

For the price of the Otus, I could buy a used cream machine 85 1.4D and the newer Nikkor 85 1.4G and be much happier with the way that I spent the money.

Carl Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 vs Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4 comparison test pictures

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Attachments

Leading Member

Attachments

Senior Member

mlewan

Guest

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts