Rank the lenses available for Samsung NX!

Hello!  I'm new to the NX line of cameras, having just bought an NX300 not long ago.  As of now, I have the 30mm pancake, the 16-50pz, and the Rokinon 10mm wide angle lenses.  I had the 20-50 to start, but the 16-50 focuses lightning quick in comparison, so the 20-50 is getting sold.

Just for a little bit of fun and to gain a bit of knowledge... which lenses do you have for your NX camera, and can you rank them according to how much you enjoy the IQ you can coax from them?

Thanks!

The 45mm is the best I own...  Do you think the 16-50mm PZ is that much better then the 20-50mm?   I was considering making this upgrade as well, if not for anything but the wider zoom.

How do they compare optically?

I wouldn't say that optical quality would be enough of a reason to go through the process of upgrading, but both the 4mm extra on the wide end and the upgrade in focus speed are definitely worth it if either is important to you.

What makes the 45 the best for you?

Thanks!

rman18 wrote:

The 45mm is the best I own... Do you think the 16-50mm PZ is that much better then the 20-50mm? I was considering making this upgrade as well, if not for anything but the wider zoom.

How do they compare optically?

I love the Samsung 12-24mm and 60mm Macro!

I'd avoid Samsung 20mm, 18-55mm and 18-200mm.

The 20-50mm has the better IQ, but the 16-50mm PZ is more useful overall (smaller, OIS, 16mm wideangle, faster AF).

I have some detailed tests on my blog.

Matt Everglade wrote:

I love the Samsung 12-24mm and 60mm Macro!

I'd avoid Samsung 20mm, 18-55mm and 18-200mm.

The 20-50mm has the better IQ, but the 16-50mm PZ is more useful overall (smaller, OIS, 16mm wideangle, faster AF).

I have some detailed tests on my blog.

You may want to investigate that the OIS on the NX 50-200mm ED version III lens does not, with certainty, work in video mode on the NX1 (and likely the NX500).

Ranking the lenses I have purely by IQ (and not, say, focussing speed):

30mm

60mm

16mm / 12-24mm

18-55mm

....

18-200mm (I was unhappy with this one)

From what I can tell from this forum, the general consensus is that the 45mm is up there with the 30mm, the 20mm is not as good as the other primes, and the 20-50 and 16-50 PZ are both better than the 18-55.

I'm thinking about getting the 45mm, as it's reputed to be very fast to focus (the 30mm and 60mm are both quite slow), but then I'm wondering if I should just save for the 16-50 S instead....

The 45 is fast to focus and is the sharpest lens I currently own.

I need something wider, that is why I considered replacing the 20-50 but maybe I'll get the 12-24 or 16 prime.

When you guys say the 45mm 1.8 are you referring to the 2d/3d version or the standard 45mm 1.8?

Got the samsung nx 50-200 III and im really surprised with the quality and price. For me the best starting set (cheap) will be like:

30mm

16mm

50-200mm

the 85 and 60 latter with more money xD

SelinCali wrote:

When you guys say the 45mm 1.8 are you referring to the 2d/3d version or the standard 45mm 1.8?

I was referring to the standard version. I believe the 3d version is just as sharp, but more expensive and I don't really have any need for 3d...

Important to consider is that some of the lenses have been made in multiple versions. The difference can be great and I believe Samsung new this and marked the lenses with their version number. It would be most helpful if someone that had a lens they did not like to state what version it was. That being said. I like my;

Samsung 18-55 version 3 over my Samsung 20-50 version 2. Optically they are both great but I like the internal focus and IS of the 18-55 v3. The 20-50- v2 has a rotating front element and makes more noise during focus. The extra reach of the 18-55 is good for me also.

The 45 1.8 is a gem. No version on my copy. It is sharp, contrasty and has great bokeh. It is about the same size as the 20-50 but is internally focusing and very quiet and smooth while focusing.

My copy of the 30 f2 is very sharp, contrasty but less than the 45. It makes some noise focusing. It is very small pancake about 18mm shorter than the 20-50 when the latter is in closed position.

The 12-24 That I have is a really sharp contrasty wide angle zoom. Considering that it is dx format it is quite small compared to my Tokina v1 for Nikon and weighs much less. I have never tested the 2 against each other but feel my Samsung is a quality lens. It produces sharp contrasty images but like all wide angle lens flare can be a problem. While I have not looked for it distortion does not seem to be worse than other lens of this type ie wide angle zoom. My copy seems sharper at 12 than 24. I wish this lens were IS and hope to get the 16-50 at some point for that reason.

These observations are anecdotal and the way I believe my lenses perform and not the result of shooting test charts nailed to a wall.

My list (averaging iq, usability, price/performance, af speed).

45

16-50s

50-150s

30

16-50pz

85

60

12-24

10

The others

By IQ, my impression of my lenses from the photos, rather than measured:

30mm

45mm

18-55mm OIS III

50-200mm OIS III

By my frequency of use:

50-200mm OIS III (by a large margin)

45mm

30mm

18-55mm OIS III

The 18-55 used to get more use on the wide end, but now my Samyang 14mm mostly takes that roll.  If I can only take two lenses and I'm shooting outdoors, then it would be the two zooms though.  If indoors it would be the two primes, unless I need some more reach in which case my Samyang 85mm is an option as long as my subjects can feasibly be manual focused on.  The 50-200 gets so much use for birds.

I find 18-55mm III useful only on bright days or with a good flash. When it's wide open, it's a soft lens.

Do all of you think that the difference between 16-50 PZ and 18-55 III is worth an "upgrade"? I mean, 18-55 is a hard to sell piece of glass and PZ will cost to me no less than US$ 230 (here in Brazil, there are some ebay sellers from korea selling it for US$180). Also, there is no lens hood to this lens, how it behaves on sunny days?

Thanks for the reply!  Both of the lenses you love are on my short list.  I have the 10mm Rokinon but I'm going to trade that in for either the 12mm Rokinon or the 12-24mm Samsung. It's just a size issue and not one of auto focus.  At wide angle I'm happy to use the focus assist.

Matt Everglade wrote:

I love the Samsung 12-24mm and 60mm Macro!

I'd avoid Samsung 20mm, 18-55mm and 18-200mm.

The 20-50mm has the better IQ, but the 16-50mm PZ is more useful overall (smaller, OIS, 16mm wideangle, faster AF).

I have some detailed tests on my blog.

Thanks for the reply!  I'm already loving my 30mm as well.  And the 45mm is definitely on my short list.

jonathanj wrote:

Ranking the lenses I have purely by IQ (and not, say, focussing speed):

30mm

60mm

16mm / 12-24mm

18-55mm

....

18-200mm (I was unhappy with this one)

From what I can tell from this forum, the general consensus is that the 45mm is up there with the 30mm, the 20mm is not as good as the other primes, and the 20-50 and 16-50 PZ are both better than the 18-55.

I'm thinking about getting the 45mm, as it's reputed to be very fast to focus (the 30mm and 60mm are both quite slow), but then I'm wondering if I should just save for the 16-50 S instead....

Thanks for the in depth reply!  The decision between the 20-50 and the 16-50 was more difficult for me than I though... the output on the 20-50 is really quite good for a kit lens.  The extra reach on the wide end plus the faster focus sealed the deal on that one.

A few more comments about the 45mm and my wallet is going to be a little lighter.  lol

I really like the looks of the 12-24mm... just not sure if the extra light gathering abilities of the Rokinon 12mm would be worth losing the zoom.  And I'm glad to hear that Samsung concentrated on the image quality at 12mm.

dezinerd wrote:

Important to consider is that some of the lenses have been made in multiple versions. The difference can be great and I believe Samsung new this and marked the lenses with their version number. It would be most helpful if someone that had a lens they did not like to state what version it was. That being said. I like my;

Samsung 18-55 version 3 over my Samsung 20-50 version 2. Optically they are both great but I like the internal focus and IS of the 18-55 v3. The 20-50- v2 has a rotating front element and makes more noise during focus. The extra reach of the 18-55 is good for me also.

The 45 1.8 is a gem. No version on my copy. It is sharp, contrasty and has great bokeh. It is about the same size as the 20-50 but is internally focusing and very quiet and smooth while focusing.

My copy of the 30 f2 is very sharp, contrasty but less than the 45. It makes some noise focusing. It is very small pancake about 18mm shorter than the 20-50 when the latter is in closed position.

The 12-24 That I have is a really sharp contrasty wide angle zoom. Considering that it is dx format it is quite small compared to my Tokina v1 for Nikon and weighs much less. I have never tested the 2 against each other but feel my Samsung is a quality lens. It produces sharp contrasty images but like all wide angle lens flare can be a problem. While I have not looked for it distortion does not seem to be worse than other lens of this type ie wide angle zoom. My copy seems sharper at 12 than 24. I wish this lens were IS and hope to get the 16-50 at some point for that reason.

These observations are anecdotal and the way I believe my lenses perform and not the result of shooting test charts nailed to a wall.