plonker!!

How about using focus peaking and a slight rack of the focus firing at 8-10 FPS on the a7iii? I have tried it a few times with a loxia and 1 out of 8-10 images are sharp, then delete the rest.

Heck sometimes even with an AF lens a small burst is not a bad idea to avoid an eye blink. Maybe it is different with a fast lens, is so my bad.

I recently purchased a manual focus prime lens for my Fujifilm X-T10 and really enjoy shooting with it. It is very cathartic, a tonic for the jaded, and refreshing. Using a MF prime forces you to be creative and to think ahead any action. With some practice you can focus pretty fast and with focus peaking it is spot-on.

AF is not just "an automated process", it gives an important advantage in capturing spontaneous and fleeting images.

use tripod, and you won't need IBIS and/or 1/60s+ shutter speeds and/or high ISO settings at all

hahaha, if it takes you 1 minute to handle your camera, you better use all the automatic assists your camera offers! on all my fujis, I have zoom focus and need seconds to find the right focus.

and yes, a 60th of a second will hardly be enough in every situation. use a tripod or shorten the exposure time, as you would do anyway when photographing people with a long lens in real life.

Iam amazed that there are photographers who demand to shot longer than 1/60 s with lenses like this. Technology really has spoiled a bunch of people.

nah.. pin on the eye but got the nose reality.

It's effectively a 135mm F2.8. Which has it's uses but is not super-interesting I agree.

Richard Murdey

135/2.8 in terms of FL and DoF, but not in terms of lens speed. The effective lens speed is still 1.8.

Yep, it is definitely f1.8 -- but however you juggle the semantics f1.8 is pretty unexceptional for a fast prime on aps-c. And that's why I am yawning ...

@eugene

f/1.8 APSC has the light gathering efficiency of f/2.8 on FF, so equivalent is equivalent full stop.

That's my solution actually. But i don't think we were talking about speed boosters and since the Samyang is an aps-c native lens there is no option to improve this len's paltry performance with a focal reducer.

> concept of aperture is to compare light gathering

An aperture is an obstruction to the optical path. Its opening is typically measured in mm diameter or square millimetre area. You are thinking of f-stop, which is a dimensionless measure which facilitates exposure calculations.

> f/4 will producs the same amount of light on a 1" sensor or a MF sensor.

Same amount of light per square millimetre. But a larger sensor has more square millimetres and so f/4 on a larger sensor will collect more light per unit of time.

Think about this. A 1,8 lens on APC and FF are equally as bright on the actual sensor, agree. But the FF sensor is almost twice as large as the APS-C sensor so if we were to shrink that image down to APS-C size it would have less DOF a wider angle but also be brighter. The equivalent 135mm 2.5 (rough estimate) on a FF would look dimmer but have the same field of view and DOF but if we shrunk that down to APS-C size it would be identical in every way to the 85mm 1.8 image. Thats equivalence. Same field of view and DOF exact same number of photons for a given exposure no matter what the sensor size.

Crop sensor (CS) does not mean only APS-C. Crop means a crop of a FF image, which includes MFT, and since it’s for sure coming to MFT, why title the article apsc? That was his point, the article suggests it’s an apsc lens. It’s not, it’s for MFT too.

crop also could mean aps-h (sigma). it is unknown if the image circle would cover the larger format.

In fact they have 7:
https://lens-db.com/?s=%22samyang+af%22

Tamron, Sigma, Tokina have more drops in they bucket. How many do you need?

You went from saying something wrong to being corrected and now you're doubling down, just admit it, your statement was complete nonsense.

In fact, it's not just Samyang who have AF lenses, it's Sigma, they havs, what is it, 20 native Sony E mount AF lenses, not counting the other bramds/mounts.

Plenty of third party AF lenses about, some really great ones too.

Also, with Sony anyway, they don't reverse engineer, they purchase the rights to access and use the necessary algorithms to make sure everything works silly smooth and reliably.

“ silly smooth ” - love it, typo or not :-)

I can't speak about other brands but no-one including Sigma has been able to reverse engineer Fuji's data signals to make third party lenses AF on Fuji cameras. Even if they did, they'd have to constantly upgrade them because Fuji has regularly upgraded the FW to deliver better AF. Fortunately, I'm not AF-dependent and there are some very fine lenses from the independents and legacy stock.

Perhaps it would be better to respond to what I actually wrote...... I made no mention of the proportion of third party lenses that are MF versus AF. I responded only to your comment asking why companies companies including Sigma don't reverse engineer AF and only in relation to AF for Fuji cameras. Nor am I 'trying to act like' anything.

From the final paragraph: "The lens is constructed of nine optical elements in seven groups, which includes an Ultra Multi Coating (UMC) to reduce ghosting and chromatic aberration. ... and features a nine-blade aperture diaphragm." Nothing (in this short article) about special glass.

According to Samyang:
The Samyang MF 85mm F1.8 ED UMC CS is designed with 9 lens elements in 7 groups and it delivers high resolution from the centre to the corners of the image. A high-refractive and an extra-low dispersion element, along with Ultra Multi-Coating (UMC) help minimise chromatic aberrations and deliver clear, vibrant images.

It would increase the price enough to sway most buyers. Yes.

It's not about DoF. It's about the amount of light. And, yes, this is an 85F1.8, regardless of format. I never said that it is anything else. But it is equivalent to 135F2.8 on FF. Get over it, or go preach your ignorant crap elsewhere. Because I know what I'm talking about.

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain

If I take out my trusty Weston Master exposure meter and set the camera base ISO as the film speed then it would tell me the shutter speed I would have to set with this 85mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 is say 1/250sec. For the same ISO on your 135mm f/2.8 at f/2.8 on full frame you would have to set a shutter speed of 1/100 sec to achieve the same image brightness.

@mwyyc: Why would we stop talking about equivalence when that is what it is equivalent to on full-frame? It is NOT equivalent to an 85mm f/1.8 on a full-frame camera. Otherwise, there would be zero reason to go full frame and get an 85mm f/1.8 for that.

It is equivalent to 85mm F1.8 on aps-c

@David Rosser: I am not sure what you want to demonstrate, but to get the same result on full frame you would have to raise your ISO by roughly one stop. You would then get the same shutter speed.

@David Rosser
FF 135F2.8 at F2.8|1/250sec|ISO400 is equivalent to APS-C 85F1.8 at F1.8|1/250sec|ISO160
Don't you know that the exposure, the aperture, the image brightness and the amount of light are all different things?
aperture = the light intensity
exposure = aperture (intensity) * time (shutter speed)
amount of light = exposure * area (sensor size)
Image brightness in digital can vary, depending on the interpretation (like ISO) of the gathered data.
Equivalence only tells you the configuration on a different format systems that would allow to reproduce the same image. Basically, a single 70-200F2.8 on FF can reproduce any image taken on APS-C and a bunch of F1.8 primes from 45mm to 130mm. Equivalence is meant for comparing different camera formats, that's all. Getting the right exposure in 2018 is not a problem, but the same ISO numbers on different format cameras won't get you the same amount of noise.

Of course ... why worry about equivalence -- it is a 85mm f1.8 aps-c lens that happens to have the same DOF, angle of view and noise characteristics as a 127mm, f2.5 full frame lens. See ... didn't use the e-word!

When you have different image sensor formats then it makes sense to have common base to measere and compare to, isn't it? The most common from the film days is 135 or 35mm full frame format, that's why people calculate equivalent parameters to that format.

Of course if you only use one sensor size system and never buy anything but native lenses then you don't care. But since we are on technical site which announces lenses for all kinds of systems people want to compare the product between each other. Then you can come to conclusion that slightly larger sensor with much slower lens doesn't give you better results (for example Fuji's GFX 50S).

Also don't forget that ISO isn't same on different sensor sizes. You will get much more noise from ISO 400 on your phone than on your DSLR, precisely because there's much less total light gathered. And since we want the reulsting image to have comparable quality we use equivalence to find comparable levels of noise.

omg not again...

@rationalist: "I am not sure what you want to demonstrate, but to get the same result on full frame you would have to raise your ISO by roughly one stop. You would then get the same shutter speed."
But why should I want to do that? I am just trying to demonstrate that worrying about equivalence is a total waste of time except for old codgers like me who still automatically choose lens focal lengths based on what they learnt 50 years ago and that if the correct exposure at iso 125 is 1/125 at f/16 (sunny f/16 rule) that is true whatever the sensor size and whatever the lens focal length.

David Rosser: Why would you want to do that? Well if you just want to get your exposure right, then you wouldn‘t. If you however, care about the other technical aspects of photography (FOV, DOF, noise level), then you would want to know which settings on your Fuji APSC give you exactly the same results as on a full frame system. And this means to divide focal length, f-stop and ISO by the crop factor. For the sunny f/16 rule: Keep in mind that the aperture diameter at the same f-stop is lower (by the crop-factor) than on a full frame camera. This leads to a decrease in sharpness due to diffraction. So just make it a f/11 rule.

@David Rosser
The only people who worry about the equivalence are those who don't understand it and deny it.
One more thing to learn is the image quality. You must understand what it is, before you make any conclusions about print sizes and camera format differences. Technically, it is possible to make decent A2 prints from APS-C, sometimes, when the image was shot in great lighting conditions while using good glass. FF is much more flexible in that regard and you can print A1 or A0 with it. The point is that FF image quality at ISO 6400 is comparable to APS-C ISO 2500, which itself defines the limits of the quality print size. You may not be able to make A3 quality prints when you are forced to use high ISOs on your APS-C camera. Unlike FF.
Quality = information (data). Larger sensor gathers more light, produces more data out of it and therefore makes better quality. Which allows for larger print sizes. FF is never too much, because you can use higher ISOs and slower/smaller lenses.

No, there is no equivalence, and if there were, one would have to factor in the number of megapixels and the generation of sensor, since both influence the light sensitivity and detail rendering of the sensor at different ISO levels. It's an 85mm f/1.8, period.

The noise comparisons are not exact, but close enough. If you require something more exact -- go to DXOMark and look at different sensors or look at noise comparison on DPReview. If you do, you'll see that APS-C sensors lag roughly one stop behind comparable full frame sensors in noise performance. By the way, equivalence is a incredibly useful concept even when referring to a single body/sensor. I use it all the time to ascertain the impact of focal reducers, cropping, etc. I am not sure why this basic imaging concept engenders so much confusion and even anger. LOL

@Tom_A
What's stopping you from taking (let's say) a 45mp FF image and downsampling it to the same resolution of the crop sensor you want compare it to. Too simple? :)

@meta4one
Yes, equivalence is extremely useful for all kinds of calculations.

@zakk9 I think you mix something up here. The thing where people discuss if it exists is called Yeti, something like a mountain troll in the Himalaya. Equivalence is a mathematical concept and therefore exists since it has been invented.

IN THE END... If you are ONLY worried about exposure per identical area (not noise levels) and you print your cropped photos at smaller sizes that exactly replicate the ratio between full frame and crop sensor size, then yes, a 85mm f/1.8 is an 85mm f/1.8, no matter if full-frame or cropped. BUT... If you care at all about total light gathered (not light per area, which would only equal total light if both sensor areas were the same), bokeh, and field of view, with FF and crop photos shown on the SAME SIZE SCREEN or printed out onto the SAME SIZE PAPER (not smaller to match the cropped sensor size), then an 85mm f/1.8 for crop sensor cameras is NOT an 85mm f/1.8 for full-frame cameras.

@zakk9
So, you don't use FF (digital), on purpose, just to make a point? :)
"Sensor quality" does not either increase or reduce the amount of light your images are going to be made of. Sensor size does. Even 50 years from now, when imaging technology evolves well above what we have today, the difference between FF and APS-C will be exactly the same. Same 2.35 times more light for FF. You can make the pixel density as same as you like, in Photoshop, by downsampling the higher resolution images. Which itself increases pixel level image quality and reduces the noise. Unlike cropping, which is what a crop sensor does actually. Just tr it.
Everything makes perfect sense, until you start throwing all kinds of unrelated problems into the mix. Lens imperfections do not affect sensor performance and nothing becomes meaningless because of it. Buying a crappy lens just to make everything irrelevant and brag about not seeing any differences, because it all looks like crap, is very stupid really.

Here's a test for you.
Grab a camera. It doesn't matter which one or what sensor size. Take a nice sharp picture of something with a narrow aperture (let's say F11), preferably RAW and using a tripod (ISO doesn't really matter, could be 400 could be 800, you pick). Then zoom-in 1.5x times or change the lens to a 1.5x times longer one, like 85mm and 135mm (you don't have to be precise) and take another picture of the same thing from the same distance at the same ISO, same shutter speed, same aperture. Then crop the first image in Photoshop to match the second image. Now you have two very similar but different resolution images shot with the same exact pixel density. Take the second image and convert it (properly) to the same exact resolution of the first image crop. Then compare the results. The resized (second) image represents FF, the cropped (first) one represents APS-C.

Another test.
Grab a camera with an F1.8 or faster lens (doesn't matter what focal length). Put it on a tripod. Set ISO160|F1.8|whatever shutter speed. Take a picture of something 3 meters away. Then move the tripod one meter closer to the subject. Set ISO400|F2.8|same shutter speed. Take a picture of the same thing (using the same camera and lens, of course). Then crop the first image to match the second one and downsample the second image to match the resolution of the first image crop. Now compare the results. Does the ISO160|F1.8 of the crop look much different from the ISO400|F2.8 of the "full frame"? Or are they nearly identical?

Contrary to 126mm which is an even focal length (so is 128mm btw).

In fact this lens will "have" effective focal length of 130 mm on Fuji X-series cameras (85 x 1.53 crop factor)

It's a 85mm focal length, with a 127mm equivalent (to 35mm format) field of view.

I'll happily repeat it if anyone once to hear it once more... ;-)

But have to engineer a different AF system for each mount {would be more costly than just the different physical mounts}.

If Yongnuo can do it then Samyang/Rokinon definitely can.

I just don't see the point of lenses like this, even with size as a factor. The market for people who want low priced, manual focus, crop only modern primes is tiny.

I don't think this lens is for photographers. These lenses mainly target new videographers that want the experience of a cine lens without the cost. I don't know how true that is necessarily but that's what I have noticed talking to kids in film school.

i guess you never used manual focus lenses?
tactility is very different and, frankly, more enjoyable than letting your camera do the focusing for you. it's a different route in photography.
I can see why you would want autofocus. can you see why I wan to focus manually?

Yes, I am well aware it's a film camera. I've owned it for 41 years.

If I wanted manual focus I'd use a manual focus lens.

Sure, but it's also nearly twice the price and nearly a stop slower.

Sony has FE 85mm f1.8 for $550
m4/3 has 75mm for $500 used.

Really? Sony 85mm f/1.8 is faster, silent, smaller, cheaper and lightweight compared to Fuji 90mm f/2.

yeah, only downside is that you have to use the sony on a sony body :D

The Samyang fisheyes for mirrorless cameras are universally lauded for their extraordinarily good optical quality, especially considering their price.

Did the postman drop your lens, by chance?

The author of this site is not given to superlatives, and it's rare to find higher scores for any lens...

http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/714-samyang7535?start=2

For my43 I own both the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye and the Olympus 8mm Pro. Both lenses are very sharp, but the Samyang is much better in terms of flare control and starbursts.

I don't see the problem for a $400 lens.
people here are crazy about the $3500+ "pro"camera bodies...

No AE, cause the lens has a manual focus???
You have a strange camera-body...

Also automatic diaphragm is almost irrelevant... usally have it turned off.

And it not "only" covers APS-C - it is made for APS-C ... Samyang also has a FF-alternative... I did not count - but Samyang meanwhile could have more dedicated APS-C primes, than Canon or Nikon.

No, I wrote APSC, implying APSC-sized and APSC-priced.

you should look again, the Sony is only 30g heavier, same size plus it'll AF and you get an extra Fn button, not to mention exif data and lens profiles
https://i.imgur.com/1sDjt7Q.png

I doubt that the optical design for an 85mm lens is different for APS-C than it wold be for 35mm; it is just the lens mounts are "APS-C" ones. A focal length that high will naturally produce an image circle bigger than 43mm diameter, which is then "cropped" to varying degree in either format.