August 29, 2015, 09:20:22 AM

Author Topic: Three Way Shootout against the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS + EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II  (Read 3671 times)

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1946
    • dustinabbott.net
The Samyang 14 is as durable as any other modern consumer grade (ie, not Big Whites) lens.

I think so - so long as it is a good copy to begin with.  There are a few quirks with the lens (primarily centered around the focus ring and distance scale).
6D x 2 | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Zeiss 50 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L ---VINTAGE-- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Tak 35mm f/3.5, SMC Tak 55mm f/1.8, SMC Tak 50mm f/1.4 | Helios 44-2

canon rumors FORUM


mnclayshooter

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
  • I love shooting - clay pigeons and photos!
What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm? [edit: - with regard to the notes in Roger Cicala's decentering articles about ultra-wide lenses giving false-positives on star charts etc]

 I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy.  I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens.   Maybe I need to use different search terms.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 03:35:33 PM by mnclayshooter »
Pull!... click... crap!

bereninga

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 179
What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm?  I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy.  I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens.   Maybe I need to use different search terms.

You can just about take any sort of landscape shot (I'd try f/4 or higher) and look at the sharpness along the edges. If one entire edge is very soft compared to the other side, you probably have a decentered lens. My first copy was decentered, and I sent it in to Rokinon (same company as Samyang and Bower). The seller confirmed the issue and replaced it w/ a new copy and no issues now. The customer service was pretty quick and responsive and easy.

YellowJersey

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
Hi Dustin,

 Thanks for this amazing resource. I've currently got the 17-40mm f/4. It's been a very good and loyal friend to me for about 6 years, but I'm thinking it might be time for our dalliance to end as the 16-35mm f/4 is winking flirtatiously at me from behind its fan of $100 bills.

The options I'm looking at are:
Canon 16-35mm f/4 vs my current Canon 17-40mm f/4
Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 vs Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

My questions for you, since you've used all of these lenses, are:

1) Landscapes: if I usually shoot stopped down to between f/8 and f/11, will I notice a significant difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in terms of image quality? Landscapes in this range take up 95% of my shots, which is why I'm keen on getting the "best" lens I can, but I don't see the point in upgrading if, stopped down, the 16-35 wouldn't be sufficiently better to justify the cost. The Tamron and the Samyang aren't really an option here because I rely heavily on GND and circ pol filters, and the filter options for the bulbous lenses are too big and cumbersome for my style of shooting.

2) Starscapes: I was all set to go with the Samyang before I saw your review of the Tamron. The Samyang is still very attractive, but I'm concerned about its durability. I do a lot of hiking and cycling trips with my gear, so it needs to be able to hold up to demanding conditions. I'm fairly confident the Tamron would hold up, but not so sure about the Samyang. But, as this would be used primarily for the stars, I hesitate to go with the Tamron due to its cost. Do you think the Samyang would hold up to, say, being in my cycling panniers in a padded lens case while riding fast down a very bumpy road? 

 What are your thoughts? I'm not asking for you to make this decision for me, but just some advice and perspective from someone who has used all these lenses and has a good understanding of how they all perform.

I do think the 16-35 f/4L IS is a significant upgrade over the 17-40L in a number of ways (just about all of them).  It's not just resolution stopped down, but in the additional width on the focal length, increased contrast and color fidelity, etc...  I do think it is a worthy upgrade.

I have no real questions over the Samyang's durability - just make sure you get a good, centered copy to begin with.  Also check to see if it has a reasonably calibrated focus ring.

Sounds good to me. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Thanks!

 As for the Samyang, it's certainly back on the table now that they've added a focus confirm chip to the newest version. It sounds like it'll make up for the quirks that comes with having an otherwise all manual lens. Hopefully, they've also improved the QC to deal with the decentering problem. Maybe it would make sense to go with the Samyang and view the Tamron as a potentially longer-term acquisition.
 
 Thanks for your reply. I follow you on youtube. Keep the good stuff coming!

mnclayshooter

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
  • I love shooting - clay pigeons and photos!
What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm?  I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy.  I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens.   Maybe I need to use different search terms.

You can just about take any sort of landscape shot (I'd try f/4 or higher) and look at the sharpness along the edges. If one entire edge is very soft compared to the other side, you probably have a decentered lens. My first copy was decentered, and I sent it in to Rokinon (same company as Samyang and Bower). The seller confirmed the issue and replaced it w/ a new copy and no issues now. The customer service was pretty quick and responsive and easy.

OK, that's what I've done on one other lens after (gasp) dropping it down a mountain-side trail.  I was more referring to the false-positives and how to rule them out or rather, what's a good way to test and retest to detect a false positive or a decentered wide-angle lens?
Pull!... click... crap!

Hjalmarg1

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 662
  • Photo Hobbyist
In fact a great article. Many thanks Dustin!
Body: Canon 5DIII, Sony a6000. Primes: Canon 15mm f2.8, 100mm f2.8L IS, 35mm f2 IS and 50mm f1.8 STM; Sony Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 OSS, Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS.
Zoom Lenses: Canon 16-35mm f4L IS, 24-105mm STM and 70-200mm f2.8L IS II; Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS. Others: Flash 580EX II & 270EX II

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1946
    • dustinabbott.net
In fact a great article. Many thanks Dustin!

Thank you.
6D x 2 | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Zeiss 50 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L ---VINTAGE-- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Tak 35mm f/3.5, SMC Tak 55mm f/1.8, SMC Tak 50mm f/1.4 | Helios 44-2

canon rumors FORUM


TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1946
    • dustinabbott.net
Hi Dustin,

 Thanks for this amazing resource. I've currently got the 17-40mm f/4. It's been a very good and loyal friend to me for about 6 years, but I'm thinking it might be time for our dalliance to end as the 16-35mm f/4 is winking flirtatiously at me from behind its fan of $100 bills.

The options I'm looking at are:
Canon 16-35mm f/4 vs my current Canon 17-40mm f/4
Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 vs Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

My questions for you, since you've used all of these lenses, are:

1) Landscapes: if I usually shoot stopped down to between f/8 and f/11, will I notice a significant difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in terms of image quality? Landscapes in this range take up 95% of my shots, which is why I'm keen on getting the "best" lens I can, but I don't see the point in upgrading if, stopped down, the 16-35 wouldn't be sufficiently better to justify the cost. The Tamron and the Samyang aren't really an option here because I rely heavily on GND and circ pol filters, and the filter options for the bulbous lenses are too big and cumbersome for my style of shooting.

2) Starscapes: I was all set to go with the Samyang before I saw your review of the Tamron. The Samyang is still very attractive, but I'm concerned about its durability. I do a lot of hiking and cycling trips with my gear, so it needs to be able to hold up to demanding conditions. I'm fairly confident the Tamron would hold up, but not so sure about the Samyang. But, as this would be used primarily for the stars, I hesitate to go with the Tamron due to its cost. Do you think the Samyang would hold up to, say, being in my cycling panniers in a padded lens case while riding fast down a very bumpy road? 

 What are your thoughts? I'm not asking for you to make this decision for me, but just some advice and perspective from someone who has used all these lenses and has a good understanding of how they all perform.

I do think the 16-35 f/4L IS is a significant upgrade over the 17-40L in a number of ways (just about all of them).  It's not just resolution stopped down, but in the additional width on the focal length, increased contrast and color fidelity, etc...  I do think it is a worthy upgrade.

I have no real questions over the Samyang's durability - just make sure you get a good, centered copy to begin with.  Also check to see if it has a reasonably calibrated focus ring.

Sounds good to me. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Thanks!

 As for the Samyang, it's certainly back on the table now that they've added a focus confirm chip to the newest version. It sounds like it'll make up for the quirks that comes with having an otherwise all manual lens. Hopefully, they've also improved the QC to deal with the decentering problem. Maybe it would make sense to go with the Samyang and view the Tamron as a potentially longer-term acquisition.
 
 Thanks for your reply. I follow you on youtube. Keep the good stuff coming!

That sounds like a plan.  I plan to work through a number of the Samyang lenses with the new aperture and focus confirm.  If they could perform a little more like a Zeiss lens they would be much more interesting!
6D x 2 | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Zeiss 50 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L ---VINTAGE-- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Tak 35mm f/3.5, SMC Tak 55mm f/1.8, SMC Tak 50mm f/1.4 | Helios 44-2

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1946
    • dustinabbott.net
What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm?  I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy.  I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens.   Maybe I need to use different search terms.

You can just about take any sort of landscape shot (I'd try f/4 or higher) and look at the sharpness along the edges. If one entire edge is very soft compared to the other side, you probably have a decentered lens. My first copy was decentered, and I sent it in to Rokinon (same company as Samyang and Bower). The seller confirmed the issue and replaced it w/ a new copy and no issues now. The customer service was pretty quick and responsive and easy.

OK, that's what I've done on one other lens after (gasp) dropping it down a mountain-side trail.  I was more referring to the false-positives and how to rule them out or rather, what's a good way to test and retest to detect a false positive or a decentered wide-angle lens?

I think you've been given the best advice.  Try this out in a few difference scenarios to make sure that you don't just have a scene that favors one side.  If you isolate a "bad side", trying shooting a scene in portrait orientation and see if the softness transfers to the appropriate area.
6D x 2 | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Zeiss 50 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L ---VINTAGE-- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Tak 35mm f/3.5, SMC Tak 55mm f/1.8, SMC Tak 50mm f/1.4 | Helios 44-2

mnclayshooter

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
  • I love shooting - clay pigeons and photos!
What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm?  I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy.  I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens.   Maybe I need to use different search terms.

You can just about take any sort of landscape shot (I'd try f/4 or higher) and look at the sharpness along the edges. If one entire edge is very soft compared to the other side, you probably have a decentered lens. My first copy was decentered, and I sent it in to Rokinon (same company as Samyang and Bower). The seller confirmed the issue and replaced it w/ a new copy and no issues now. The customer service was pretty quick and responsive and easy.

OK, that's what I've done on one other lens after (gasp) dropping it down a mountain-side trail.  I was more referring to the false-positives and how to rule them out or rather, what's a good way to test and retest to detect a false positive or a decentered wide-angle lens?

I think you've been given the best advice.  Try this out in a few difference scenarios to make sure that you don't just have a scene that favors one side.  If you isolate a "bad side", trying shooting a scene in portrait orientation and see if the softness transfers to the appropriate area.

Gotcha, thanks.  Wondered if there was some recommended chart etc to use that shows the distortion.  Roger recommended a star chart or a much cheaper - black paper with some white notebook reinforcing rings spread out in a grid.  Seems pretty straight forward.  I'll give it a shot.  Can't hurt. 
Pull!... click... crap!

jeffa4444

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 550
Been using my EF16-35mm f4L IS USM lens now for six weeks and Im really happy with its performance in my case much better than my EF17-40mm f4L. The shots are consistantly sharper across the frame and the lens compliments the EF24-105 f4L really well (my copy of this lens is v.good the first copy was average at best).

The only downside that extra 1mm makes itself known using polarising filters.
Canon 6D, 16-35 f4L IS, 17-40 f4L, 28 f2.8, 24-105 f4L, 100mm f2.8L, 70-200 f4L IS, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM, 50 f1.8 STM
Canon 7D, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 15-85 f3.5-5.6

Monchoon

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
Is there any filter solution in the the works for the Tamron?

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4073
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
Is there any filter solution in the the works for the Tamron?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26157.0

Just choose the drop down tab for the lens. I have the Wonderpana for the 17TS-E and it is a high quality piece of kit. https://www.fotodioxpro.com/wonderpana-66-freearc-essentials-nd-kit.html
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM


Monchoon

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
Thanks I must have missed that post

canon rumors FORUM