Samyang 85mm f/1.8 for APS-C

Just in case you did not see this.

At 344 grams, this lens is a good example that being made for APS-C does not result in a smaller lens (for focal lengths above 24mm-ish). The FE 85 f/1.8 is 371 grams, just 27 grams heavier but including an AF motor.

Both are, however, smaller than an "equivalent" FF 135mm f/2.8 lens (Batis 135/2.8 is 600 grams, although its worth pointing out that the Batis 85/1.8 is heavy at 475 grams).

At $399 its going to have a tough fight against the Sony FE lens at $598.

But at present its the longest focal length prime lens made explicitly for APS-C Sony E mount.

I agree, this lens makes no sense for me - not materially lighter, the FE 85/1.8 is optically excellent on APS-C, and AF is particularly useful for a wide aperture short tele / portrait lens.

The more lenses the merrier

JohnNEX said:

Just in case you did not see this.

At 344 grams, this lens is a good example that being made for APS-C does not result in a smaller lens (for focal lengths above 24mm-ish). The FE 85 f/1.8 is 371 grams, just 27 grams heavier but including an AF motor.

At $399 its going to have a tough fight against the Sony FE lens at $598.

Click to expand...

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399. So far I've only seen one real professional review, but it looks like a great little, light, inexpensive lens. I don't remember ever seeing an MFT chart that looks that good, especially the center/edge sharpness.

I thought my Sigma 30 EX DN was sharp from center to edge, but the Samyang looks even better. I may have to give it a try someday and compare it to my Sig30.

snapa said:

JohnNEX said:

Just in case you did not see this.

At 344 grams, this lens is a good example that being made for APS-C does not result in a smaller lens (for focal lengths above 24mm-ish). The FE 85 f/1.8 is 371 grams, just 27 grams heavier but including an AF motor.

At $399 its going to have a tough fight against the Sony FE lens at $598.

Click to expand...

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399. So far I've only seen one real professional review, but it looks like a great little, light, inexpensive lens. I don't remember ever seeing an MFT chart that looks that good, especially the center/edge sharpness.

I thought my Sigma 30 EX DN was sharp from center to edge, but the Samyang looks even better. I may have to give it a try someday and compare it to my Sig30.

Click to expand...

See the first not-so-great review of that lens marketed under the Rokinon label. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...rATsk5IHh0l8mw9BCG6BmFMX1BoCSfsQAvD_BwE&smp=y

snapa said:

JohnNEX said:

Just in case you did not see this.

At 344 grams, this lens is a good example that being made for APS-C does not result in a smaller lens (for focal lengths above 24mm-ish). The FE 85 f/1.8 is 371 grams, just 27 grams heavier but including an AF motor.

At $399 its going to have a tough fight against the Sony FE lens at $598.

Click to expand...

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399. So far I've only seen one real professional review, but it looks like a great little, light, inexpensive lens. I don't remember ever seeing an MFT chart that looks that good, especially the center/edge sharpness.

I thought my Sigma 30 EX DN was sharp from center to edge, but the Samyang looks even better. I may have to give it a try someday and compare it to my Sig30.

Click to expand...

There is a YouTube review of it here and while it looks good, it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras, see here

Holden75 said:

snapa said:

JohnNEX said:

Just in case you did not see this.

At 344 grams, this lens is a good example that being made for APS-C does not result in a smaller lens (for focal lengths above 24mm-ish). The FE 85 f/1.8 is 371 grams, just 27 grams heavier but including an AF motor.

At $399 its going to have a tough fight against the Sony FE lens at $598.

Click to expand...

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399. So far I've only seen one real professional review, but it looks like a great little, light, inexpensive lens. I don't remember ever seeing an MFT chart that looks that good, especially the center/edge sharpness.

I thought my Sigma 30 EX DN was sharp from center to edge, but the Samyang looks even better. I may have to give it a try someday and compare it to my Sig30.

Click to expand...

There is a YouTube review of it here

and while it looks good, it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras, see here

Click to expand...

When you say "it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras" do you have any proof of that? Have you seen any professional reviews of the Samyang 24 f2.8 tested with MFT results on any APS-C cameras? I have not, therefore I think that lens will do very well on the a6x00 cameras, at least as good (or better) than the Zony 24 f1.8 lens. It's also half the weight, size and less than half the cost.

Did you know that it is much easier for a 24mp APS-C camera to resolve high IQ pictures than a 42mp FF camera? The more MP's you try to resolve on a lens, the harder it is for that lense to resolve all of them. Most of the native lenses Sony made for the original NEX cameras that were 14-16mp's, and they did pretty well. But, when Sony went to 24mp's, those lenses were not designed for the 24mp's cameras sensors, therefore they really did produce THAT much sharper or better IQ.

This is a brand new lens vs very old 4-5 lenses designed for 14-16mp sensors. I think it should do very well, if or when it is ever tested on any of the newer 24mp sensors. We shall see I quess.

snapa said:

Holden75 said:

snapa said:

JohnNEX said:

Just in case you did not see this.

At 344 grams, this lens is a good example that being made for APS-C does not result in a smaller lens (for focal lengths above 24mm-ish). The FE 85 f/1.8 is 371 grams, just 27 grams heavier but including an AF motor.

At $399 its going to have a tough fight against the Sony FE lens at $598.

Click to expand...

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399. So far I've only seen one real professional review, but it looks like a great little, light, inexpensive lens. I don't remember ever seeing an MFT chart that looks that good, especially the center/edge sharpness.

I thought my Sigma 30 EX DN was sharp from center to edge, but the Samyang looks even better. I may have to give it a try someday and compare it to my Sig30.

Click to expand...

There is a YouTube review of it here

and while it looks good, it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras, see here

Click to expand...

When you say "it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras" do you have any proof of that? Have you seen any professional reviews of the Samyang 24 f2.8 tested with MFT results on any APS-C cameras? I have not, therefore I think that lens will do very well on the a6x00 cameras, at least as good (or better) than the Zony 24 f1.8 lens. It's also half the weight, size and less than half the cost.

Did you know that it is much easier for a 24mp APS-C camera to resolve high IQ pictures than a 42mp FF camera? The more MP's you try to resolve on a lens, the harder it is for that lense to resolve all of them. Most of the native lenses Sony made for the original NEX cameras that were 14-16mp's, and they did pretty well. But, when Sony went to 24mp's, those lenses were not designed for the 24mp's cameras sensors, therefore they really did produce THAT much sharper or better IQ.

This is a brand new lens vs very old 4-5 lenses designed for 14-16mp sensors. I think it should do very well, if or when it is ever tested on any of the newer 24mp sensors. We shall see I quess.

Click to expand...

I was going on the advice and evidence provided in the video I posted a link of. He knows more than I do

Good news for aps-c user, especially Canadian Sony user. We can still shoot cropped sensors due to the out of stock of a7iii.

Holden75 said:

snapa said:

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399.

Click to expand...

... while it looks good, it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras, see here

...

I was going on the advice and evidence provided in the video I posted a link of. He knows more than I do

Click to expand...

You mean Northrup? He does know a lot ... but the idea that full frame lenses 'suffer' at all is hogwash. If he's really saying that, it's seemingly based on DxOMark data without a full understanding of the meaning behind that data. (People can be excused for misunderstanding something that is so poorly documented to begin with as the DxOMark PMpix rating is ... but in that case they probably should not be making videos about the subject.) If he wanted to make any kind of observation based on that data, it should have been that the APS-C format 'suffers' in comparison to full frame.

sybersitizen said:

Holden75 said:

snapa said:

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399.

Click to expand...

... while it looks good, it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras, see here

...

I was going on the advice and evidence provided in the video I posted a link of. He knows more than I do

Click to expand...

You mean Northrup? He does know a lot ... but the idea that full frame lenses 'suffer' at all is hogwash. If he's really saying that, it's seemingly based on DxOMark data without a full understanding of the meaning behind that data. (People can be excused for misunderstanding something that is so poorly documented to begin with as the DxOMark PMpix rating is ... but in that case they probably should not be making videos about the subject.) If he wanted to make any kind of observation based on that data, it should have been that the APS-C format 'suffers' in comparison to full frame.

Click to expand...

Maybe that is what he was saying? I just meant that he says that using ff lenses on crop bodies (as he calls them) means you don't get as good a lens as using a lens designed for the system you are using. I don't know if that is correct? I mainly use the fe28 on my a6000 and I think it is amazing but he might say otherwise? He says any imperfections in a lens is multiplied by the crop factor so any problems with the samyang 24 will be worse on an apsc than a ff camera. Again I don't know if that is true but that review video which compares the ff and apsc shows it being not as good on an apsc body than the ff one, so maybe he is on to something? I have read a number of posts/threads on here which say similar things with different lenses. Anyway, I watched it and it has me thinking about this but I can't say I know much about the technical details. I would be interested to see some more tests/comparisons

There's a $100 full-frame, manual 85m F1.8 SLR that has been available for a while under multiple brands including Vivitar who also sold a version of the old Samyang 85mm F1.4. Lavikka compared these on YouTube
I have the tiny Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM and a small Minolta MD 85mm F2. I also have the quite small Minolta AF 135mm F2.8. The FE lenses are not the smallest options.

I wouldn't be surprised if this Samyang has considerable better image quality than these older full-frame designs. Most including the FE have a lot of axial chromatic aberration which is magnified by cropping.

Holden75 said:

sybersitizen said:

Holden75 said:

snapa said:

To me the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE seems like a much more interesting lens at $399.

Click to expand...

... while it looks good, it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras, see here

...

I was going on the advice and evidence provided in the video I posted a link of. He knows more than I do

Click to expand...

You mean Northrup? He does know a lot ... but the idea that full frame lenses 'suffer' at all is hogwash. If he's really saying that, it's seemingly based on DxOMark data without a full understanding of the meaning behind that data. (People can be excused for misunderstanding something that is so poorly documented to begin with as the DxOMark PMpix rating is ... but in that case they probably should not be making videos about the subject.) If he wanted to make any kind of observation based on that data, it should have been that the APS-C format 'suffers' in comparison to full frame.

Click to expand...

Maybe that is what he was saying? I just meant that he says that using ff lenses on crop bodies (as he calls them) means you don't get as good a lens as using a lens designed for the system you are using. I don't know if that is correct?

Click to expand...

It depends on the lens! It's incorrect to paint all full frame lenses - or all APS-C lenses - with the same brush in terms of sharpness or how well they retain detail. In other words, there are certainly many full frame lenses that will provide better results on an APS-C body than many APS-C lenses.

Holden75 said:

I mainly use the fe28 on my a6000 and I think it is amazing but he might say otherwise? He says any imperfections in a lens is multiplied by the crop factor so any problems with the samyang 24 will be worse on an apsc than a ff camera. Again I don't know if that is true but that review video which compares the ff and apsc shows it being not as good on an apsc body than the ff one, so maybe he is on to something?

Click to expand...

You're talking about the text he displays showing those DxOMark PMpix scores, aren't you? Those scores - which are already problematic to begin with because the exact method of arriving at them is not known - should not be used in the way you (and many others) are tempted to use them for comparing across different formats.

Holden75 said:

I have read a number of posts/threads on here which say similar things with different lenses.

Click to expand...

There's a lot that can be said about the subject. However, what I have objected to in your comment is this phrase: ... 'while it looks good, it seems to suffer from the same problem all ff lenses suffer from on apsc cameras.'

If particular full frame lenses are incapable of resolving sufficient detail on an APS-C camera with much higher pixel density, that could be a problem for someone ... but the lenses are not suffering.

Holden75 said:

Anyway, I watched it and it has me thinking about this but I can't say I know much about the technical details. I would be interested to see some more tests/comparisons

Click to expand...

Here's a quick comparison ...

These were shot on a 24mp APS-C camera, the Sony A77. One was with a 1987 Minolta 100mm full frame lens, and the other with a 2010 Sony 85mm APS-C lens. Apertures were at f/5.6. The camera position was moved a few feet between shots to retain similar compositions.





When I compare them at full resolution, I see some apparent difference in DOF (naturally). And possibly also a difference in field flatness, but that's harder to quantify.

What I don't see is any 'suffering' exhibited by the full frame lens compared to the APS-C lens. Do you? Look at the rendering of the window screen where I focused, and the other surrounding details. Would you kick that lens out of bed or be happy with it?

I don't think it has anything to do with the lens, but with the pixel density and pixel area of the sensor.

Even compared to the A7RIII, the A6500 has a greater pixel density and smaller pixel area.

https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_alpha-a6500/

https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_alpha-a7r-iii/

Hopefully, Sony is designing its new Full Frame lenses to resolve to the density (I'm probably mixing metrics here) of the 6500. Based on my experience with the FE 70-300, I'd say a resounding YES!

I think the "suffering" image quality is only really relevant when comparing to full frame at the same final output size.

Here's the way I look at it.. a full frame sensor is 36x24mm, right? Let's say you took a photo with a full frame sensor and printed it out at 36x24 inches. APS-C is 23.6x15.6mm, so lets say you used the same lens and took a photo with an APS-C sensor, and printed it at 23.6x15.6 inches. If both sensors had enough pixels to achieve the same DPI at those print sizes, both prints would have roughly the same image quality (ignoring low-light/noise characteristics). Obviously composition, DoF, FoV, etc. won't be the same, but the image quality would be pretty close. There is no "APS-C penalty" for the lens in this example.

However, lets say you wanted to use your APS-C camera to print at 36x24 inches. Lets also assume that camera had the right number of pixels to match the full frame sensor's DPI at that print size. In theory, the image quality of the APS-C print would be worse that the full frame sensor's print, because you're stretching a smaller portion of the lens's image circle over a greater output area. I'd wager that DxO is taking this into account for its scores.

Newbie Phewbie said:

I don't think it has anything to do with the lens, but with the pixel density and pixel area of the sensor.

Even compared to the A7RIII, the A6500 has a greater pixel density and smaller pixel area.

https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_alpha-a6500/

https://www.digicamdb.com/specs/sony_alpha-a7r-iii/

Hopefully, Sony is designing its new Full Frame lenses to resolve to the density (I'm probably mixing metrics here) of the 6500. Based on my experience with the FE 70-300, I'd say a resounding YES!

Click to expand...

Do you mean there isn't any difference between using the 70-300 on an ff or apsc camera? I have always been interested in this lens and that would be an interesting comparison

No, that's not what I said. I don't have a FF camera, so can't tell you how it fares there.

But, on the A6500 (APS-C), it is very sharp even though it is an FE lens.

Hope that clears things up.

Davep76 said:

I think the "suffering" image quality is only really relevant when comparing to full frame at the same final output size.

Here's the way I look at it.. a full frame sensor is 36x24mm, right? Let's say you took a photo with a full frame sensor and printed it out at 36x24 inches. APS-C is 23.6x15.6mm, so lets say you used the same lens and took a photo with an APS-C sensor, and printed it at 23.6x15.6 inches. If both sensors had enough pixels to achieve the same DPI at those print sizes, both prints would have roughly the same image quality (ignoring low-light/noise characteristics). Obviously composition, DoF, FoV, etc. won't be the same, but the image quality would be pretty close. There is no "APS-C penalty" for the lens in this example.

Click to expand...

The important bit here is where you "took a photo". Is it the exactly same photo?

Sharpness tests are done with a test chart. If you use a 85mm lens for a test chart on a FF camera, and then swap to an APS-C camera then you need to move the camera back take the photo from further away so the test chart fits in the frame.

If you don't back up and just take the (cropped) shot with the APS-C camera then you may well end up with a similar sharpness score as for the FF camera (assuming that the cameras have the same pixel density etc), but testing does not work that way (at least as I understand it) and because you are further away for the test shot the APS-C resolution is lower.

None of this is good, bad or indifferent. You just need to understand what the testing actually is doing. APS-C camera sharpness scores will be lower for the same lens simply because you need to be further away to take the same photo compared to a FF camera. I don't think its any more complex than that.

JohnNEX said:

Davep76 said:

I think the "suffering" image quality is only really relevant when comparing to full frame at the same final output size.

Here's the way I look at it.. a full frame sensor is 36x24mm, right? Let's say you took a photo with a full frame sensor and printed it out at 36x24 inches. APS-C is 23.6x15.6mm, so lets say you used the same lens and took a photo with an APS-C sensor, and printed it at 23.6x15.6 inches. If both sensors had enough pixels to achieve the same DPI at those print sizes, both prints would have roughly the same image quality (ignoring low-light/noise characteristics). Obviously composition, DoF, FoV, etc. won't be the same, but the image quality would be pretty close. There is no "APS-C penalty" for the lens in this example.

Click to expand...

The important bit here is where you "took a photo". Is it the exactly same photo?

Sharpness tests are done with a test chart. If you use a 85mm lens for a test chart on a FF camera, and then swap to an APS-C camera then you need to move the camera back take the photo from further away so the test chart fits in the frame.

If you don't back up and just take the (cropped) shot with the APS-C camera then you may well end up with a similar sharpness score as for the FF camera (assuming that the cameras have the same pixel density etc), but testing does not work that way (at least as I understand it) and because you are further away for the test shot the APS-C resolution is lower.

None of this is good, bad or indifferent. You just need to understand what the testing actually is doing. APS-C camera sharpness scores will be lower for the same lens simply because you need to be further away to take the same photo compared to a FF camera. I don't think its any more complex than that.

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming to know much about this but that wasn't my understanding of Northrup's argument. I think he says apsc sensor size is smaller and the pixel density is greater and so when using a ff lens the issues with the lens are exaggerated on the smaller and more pixel dense sensor. So where you see softness at the edges on a ff lens on a ff camera you see more softness on the same lens on an apsc camera.

Just released review from Chris Frost