In Stock: Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 at B&H Photo

[Canon Rumors Guy]

B&H Photo has stock of the brand new Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 lens</p>
<p><strong>Product Highlights</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EF Mount/Full-Frame Format</li>
<li>Aperture Range: f/1.4 to 22</li>
<li>One Hybrid and One Aspherical Element</li>
<li>Ultra Multi-Coating Lens Coat</li>
<li>Manual Focus & Aperture Lens</li>
<li>Internal Focus Design</li>
<li>Bright Distance & Depth of Field Scales</li>
<li>Minimum Focus Distance: 17.7″</li>
<li>Filter Thread Diameter: 77mm</li>
<li>Removable Petal Style Lens Hood</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089939-REG/rokinon_50m_c_50mm_f_1_4_lens_for.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC at B&H Photo $399</a></strong></p>
<p>B&H also has a “Deal Zone” deal on a Lowepro Rover 35L AW Backpack at $79 (Reg $299), it’s only available in blue.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893432-REG/Lowepro_lp36447_pww_Rover_Pro_35L_AW.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Lowepro Rover 35L AW Backpack $79</a> (Reg $299) </strong>this deal ends soon</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[jdramirez]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

 

[brianleighty]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

Yeah, that was my thought too. The 14mm 2.8 seems to be a pretty good value and at 14 2.8 AF isn't such a big deal but both this 50 and the 135 both are a lot harder to justify. I'd rather spend twice the price and get the Sigma 50 ART.

 

[bholliman]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

+1 I don't get it. Unless the IQ is head and shoulders better than the Canon 50/1.4 why pay more for this MF lens? I don't have anything against Rokinon, I owned their 14/2.8 USM and enjoyed it, but don't see why this lens is worth paying more for than decent AF lenses.

 

[jefflinde]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

+1 I don't get it. Unless the IQ is head and shoulders better than the Canon 50/1.4 why pay more for this MF lens? I don't have anything against Rokinon, I owned their 14/2.8 USM and enjoyed it, but don't see why this lens is worth paying more for than decent AF lenses.

I think they are going after lenses like the Zeiss MF lenses. People pay 6+ times more for the Otus because they feel it is worth it. I am not saying that the Rokinon is on par with the Zeiss but neither is the price. I like that Rokinon is expanding their offering. I hope some day they are able to add AF. i will be checking this one out.

 

[MintChocs]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

+1 I don't get it. Unless the IQ is head and shoulders better than the Canon 50/1.4 why pay more for this MF lens? I don't have anything against Rokinon, I owned their 14/2.8 USM and enjoyed it, but don't see why this lens is worth paying more for than decent AF lenses.

I think this lens is a spinoff from the one aimed at people who would want it for video. Plus a MF lens is easier to focus manually than an AF lens in manual.

 

[Skirball]

Plus a MF lens is easier to focus manually than an AF lens in manual.

How's that?

 

[bholliman]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

+1 I don't get it. Unless the IQ is head and shoulders better than the Canon 50/1.4 why pay more for this MF lens? I don't have anything against Rokinon, I owned their 14/2.8 USM and enjoyed it, but don't see why this lens is worth paying more for than decent AF lenses.

I think they are going after lenses like the Zeiss MF lenses. People pay 6+ times more for the Otus because they feel it is worth it. I am not saying that the Rokinon is on par with the Zeiss but neither is the price. I like that Rokinon is expanding their offering. I hope some day they are able to add AF. i will be checking this one out.

If this lenses IQ is much better than Canon's 50/1.4 (maybe close to the Sigma Art in quality) I would consider it. A slight IQ improvement isn't worth giving up AF for.

 

[bkpr100]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

+1 I don't get it. Unless the IQ is head and shoulders better than the Canon 50/1.4 why pay more for this MF lens? I don't have anything against Rokinon, I owned their 14/2.8 USM and enjoyed it, but don't see why this lens is worth paying more for than decent AF lenses.

I think they are going after lenses like the Zeiss MF lenses. People pay 6+ times more for the Otus because they feel it is worth it. I am not saying that the Rokinon is on par with the Zeiss but neither is the price. I like that Rokinon is expanding their offering. I hope some day they are able to add AF. i will be checking this one out.

If you're a video shooter (like myself), and serious about taking the 4K plunge thanks to the new lineup of 4K cameras from the likes of Sony (A7S), Samsung (NX-1), and Panasonic (GH4), but don't want to commit to their line of lenses... then going the route of a fairly reputable company with a respected lineup of really affordable, regular and cine lenses with manual aperture (as opposed to electronic), is the most obvious option. Not sure if that's Rokinon's game plan, but I do know that I've talked to 3 people in the last several weeks that have mentioned Rokinon as the only real option they're looking at right now. For indie video shooters going in this new direction of camera bodies, manual aperture lenses are more important now than ever.

 

[mpphoto]

Plus a MF lens is easier to focus manually than an AF lens in manual.

How's that?

MF lens has longer throw of the focus ring. Easier to make fine adjustments of focus.

 

[sgs8r]

Plus a MF lens is easier to focus manually than an AF lens in manual.

How's that?

Autofocus lenses generally have a very short "throw", i.e. the total angular turn from min to max focus distance. This generally make autofocus perform better/faster but makes manual focus difficult as the slightest turn can significantly change the focus point---a major concern when the DOF is very shallow.

Manual and cine lenses have a much greater throw to simplify manual focusing (or focus pulling with video).

 

[Hjalmarg1]

MF lens has longer throw of the focus ring. Easier to make fine adjustments of focus.

It helps with large apertures and shallow DOF

 

[Etienne]

Plus a MF lens is easier to focus manually than an AF lens in manual.

How's that?

Because the focus action on these is extremely smooth, and the travel is long. I have the cinema version of the 85, 85 T1.5, and it is a pleasure to focus manually. Extremely smooth and precise.

 

[Skirball]

Plus a MF lens is easier to focus manually than an AF lens in manual.

How's that?

Autofocus lenses generally have a very short "throw", i.e. the total angular turn from min to max focus distance. This generally make autofocus perform better/faster but makes manual focus difficult as the slightest turn can significantly change the focus point---a major concern when the DOF is very shallow.

Manual and cine lenses have a much greater throw to simplify manual focusing (or focus pulling with video).

Hmm, ok. I wish I could blame missing focus in Manual on my throw, and not my eyes.

 

[brianleighty]

I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm.

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? If not, then is the build quality better? If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

+1 I don't get it. Unless the IQ is head and shoulders better than the Canon 50/1.4 why pay more for this MF lens? I don't have anything against Rokinon, I owned their 14/2.8 USM and enjoyed it, but don't see why this lens is worth paying more for than decent AF lenses.

I think this lens is a spinoff from the one aimed at people who would want it for video. Plus a MF lens is easier to focus manually than an AF lens in manual.

Good point. I hadn't thought about the video market. I would agree, I think that would have to be the main attraction for this lens. Has anybody ever had a repair done on a Rokinon? I think I read something a while ago by Roger at LenRentals that basically said they're throw away lenses as you can't get support for them. Curious if that's still the fact. If that is the case, then I'd still pay more to have that assurance of a real company supporting the products I'm buying.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I got a 50mm ART as soon as it was released, but crazy-enough, when Rokinon announced their own 50mm I considered selling the Art to pick up the rokinon. I do video, and as others have mentioned, manual apertures make adapting glass so much easier. I've had issues with the Metabones adapters in the past (mostly with Sony cameras. The GH4 has worked great so far) and I don't like having to rely on them (not to mention how expensive they are!!!). Regardless, I've kept the 50mm Art and have been extremely happy.

Also, the performance of this guy seems to be pretty good. From what I've seen, definitely better than Canon's 50 1.4. I have Rokinon's 14mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, and 85 1.4, and I have zero qualms about shooting them all wide open. The only one that has been somewhat disappointing is the 24mm. Though at the time the only other 1.4 option was Canon's, which for the price doesn't justify the slight performance increase (and worse coma). Thinking about selling the Rokinon to get the new Art 24mm now.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

If it helps those that may be interested in this lens, both the new 50 and the new 135 are on their way to me for review right now. I'm fitting these in before tackling the Sigma 150-600 Sport.