what utter crap this is.... samyang 24mm TS

[RLPhoto]

Wow, and at one time I was going to pre-order one. That samyang is garbage.

 

[noisejammer]

I think people are always upset when their expectations aren't met. Samyang has released several lenses that are optically very good, and at a bargain price. This lens appears to be neither.

Samyang doesn't provide IS or autofocus in their lenses but the competing Canon model doesn't have IS or autofocus either. Samyang had to provide for essentially the same mechanical operation but wanted to supply the lens at half the price... so where else were savings going to be made?

Sure... it's not up to their earlier optical standards but it is still half the price. Say it was 80% of the Canon and performed similarly... then everyone would be bleating that it was too expensive. The hard truth is that an optic costs what an optic costs. Either you buy it or you don't.

 

[tron]

Let me get this right.
A $1k lens is not as sharp as a $2k lens... and you're spitting mad? Have you never thought that (usually) you pay for what you get? Quite often, you pay a lot more.

I think people are always upset when their expectations aren't met. Samyang has released several lenses that are optically very good, and at a bargain price. This lens appears to be neither.

+1. Before it was released, a lot of people were hoping that it would approach the TS-E 24L II in performance. Now it seems like the discussion is turning to comparing how it does versus TS-E 24L (version I), which is similar in price used...

Exactly:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=347&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=841&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


The $1K 24mm TS Samyang lens is worse than ... the $1K 24mm TS Canon lens!

 

[insanitybeard]

Samyang doesn't provide IS or autofocus in their lenses but the competing Canon model doesn't have IS or autofocus either. Samyang had to provide for essentially the same mechanical operation but wanted to supply the lens at half the price... so where else were savings going to be made?

Sure... it's not up to their earlier optical standards but it is still half the price. Say it was 80% of the Canon and performed similarly... then everyone would be bleating that it was too expensive. The hard truth is that an optic costs what an optic costs. Either you buy it or you don't.

OK, but as an example look at the Samyang 14mm 2.8, FAR, FAR cheaper than the Canon 14mm 2.8L but optically as good as if not better in most areas of performance, and here in the UK is only 20% of the cost of the Canon L! The Samyang tilt shift by comparison is 60% of the cost of the Canon 24mm tilt shift in the UK at present and optically inferior by some margin, so subjective value is much lower with this lens than Samyang's 14mm.

 

[Harley]

If you're cash strapped, it's fairly easy to find 35 /2.8 FD mount TS lenses and Mika offers a conversion kit. Going this route will usually cost less than $1k.

I agree, this seems to be the way to go. My Edmika converted 35 /2.8 FD mount TS lens is much sharper than the Samyang TS 24 example shots from that review. It is also sharper than the Canon 45mm TS that I ended up selling after getting the FD.

+1 I have the EdMika 35mm f/2.8 TS and it's fantastic! You can't beat the compact, all-metal build of the old FD lenses either. Ed's conversion kit is really easy to install and it's entirely reversible if you want to take the lens back to original.

 

[noisejammer]

OK, but as an example look at the Samyang 14mm 2.8, FAR, FAR cheaper than the Canon 14mm 2.8L but optically as good as if not better in most areas of performance, and here in the UK is only 20% of the cost of the Canon L! The Samyang tilt shift by comparison is 60% of the cost of the Canon 24mm tilt shift in the UK at present and optically inferior by some margin, so subjective value is much lower with this lens than Samyang's 14mm.

IMO, that's not really a sensible comparison - you're comparing the Samyang offering with Canon's most overpriced lens! Besides, the Samyang does have some strange distortions that the Canon doesn't. Yes, I know these can be corrected...

It might be better to compare the 35L and the Samyang 35/1.4 where the Samyang is about 40% of the Canon price ($550 vs $1330). In this case though, the 35L is quite weak and is also overpriced. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The difference between the Samyang and Sigma is quite obvious - both in performance and price $550 vs $900. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

My point is simply this - if people don't like what's on offer they should vote with their wallets. The price will drop, or it won't but they get to decide whether it's worth the asking price to them. At some point, some people will be prepared to accept the trade off. This is inevitably true - ask yourself... if it was a dollar, would I pay for it? Ten dollars? A hundred dollars? Three hundred dollars?

 

[insanitybeard]

My example was merely to give some justification as to why a majority of people are dissapointed in the performance of this lens relative to cost compared to some of Samyang's previous offerings.