Samyang Teases New Lenses

[vscd]

That's because they are VDSLR lenses and therefore made so you can pull the aperture as well as the focus.

I don't speak about the aperture-ring, of course they have one. I just speak about composing the picture at the full open aperture, but the aperture is closing automatically on taking the shot. This is controlled electronically with a chip in the lens.

And they're not all VDSLR-Lenses, mostly exist two variants... for exaple one for still cameras (35mm f1.4) and the video one (35mm t1.5)

 

[ecka]

That's because they are VDSLR lenses and therefore made so you can pull the aperture as well as the focus.

I don't speak about the aperture-ring, of course they have one. I just speak about composing the picture at the full open aperture, but the aperture is closing automatically on taking the shot. This is controlled electronically with a chip in the lens.

And they're not all VDSLR-Lenses, mostly exist two variants... for exaple one for still cameras (35mm f1.4) and the video one (35mm t1.5)

Actually Samyang did update their 35/1.4 with electronic aperture (the Canon AE version). Let's hope that all the new lenses will come with AE by default.

 

[moreorless]

I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF . My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason . I'm not that guy.

For some an F/2 50mm that can do good but not fully macro is a multi use lens, I own the Zeiss partly because it allowed to me replace a standard 50mm AND a stanardish macro. Price there though is probably an issue for a lot of people, I managed to get the Zeiss fairly cheap used but no way would I pay full wack for it.

 

[Khufu]

I'm interested in seeing some of these current third party manufacturers put out some short-flange, fast primes for the a7 series which don't break the bank for most FF enthusiasts... It can only do wonders for sales of both lenses and a7/R/S units if/when it happens...

Compact 50mm f/1.4 Samyang on an A7? That would be super

 

[preppyak]

Its been confirmed a bunch of places as 50mm f/1.2, so, that at least saves them the embarrassment of a lens that wont sell. Now, we'll see what the price is.

 

[ecka]

I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF . My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason . I'm not that guy.

For some an F/2 50mm that can do good but not fully macro is a multi use lens, I own the Zeiss partly because it allowed to me replace a standard 50mm AND a stanardish macro. Price there though is probably an issue for a lot of people, I managed to get the Zeiss fairly cheap used but no way would I pay full wack for it.

And by cheap you mean $1000 (give or take) ?
I'm sure that Makro-Planar 50/2 is a nice lens (and possibly a dream lens for videography ), but, like you, I really can't justify buying $1300 manual focus lens, which won't even be my primary tool for macro. Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 is $600 more and still needs a tube for 1:1 macro. I doubt that anything can beat my Sigma 150/2.8 at the moment.

 

[moreorless]

I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF . My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason . I'm not that guy.

For some an F/2 50mm that can do good but not fully macro is a multi use lens, I own the Zeiss partly because it allowed to me replace a standard 50mm AND a stanardish macro. Price there though is probably an issue for a lot of people, I managed to get the Zeiss fairly cheap used but no way would I pay full wack for it.

And by cheap you mean $1000 (give or take) ?
I'm sure that Makro-Planar 50/2 is a nice lens (and possibly a dream lens for videography ), but, like you, I really can't justify buying $1300 manual focus lens, which won't even be my primary tool for macro. Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 is $600 more and still needs a tube for 1:1 macro. I doubt that anything can beat my Sigma 150/2.8 at the moment.

It was £450 used for an original zf version(I moved to the darkside for FF a couple of years ago) and as you say I couldnt afford to pay full price. Definitely not a lens for serious insect macro but generally I tend to shoot plants/fungi more in the closeup range so 1:2 is good enough for me and its both sharper, contrastier and has much better bokeh than my old Nikon 50mm 1.8 G.

I wonder whether Canon will ever upgrade the old 50mm 2.5 macro? a 50mm f/2 IS with 1:2 macro with Zeiss like performance would likely be popular.

 

[ecka]

I'm not sure, 50mm is kind of a standard do-it-all prime, and I would like it to have AF . My 40mm pancake with some extension tubes can do macro as well. The 1:2 mag. would require a tube too, but its working distance is unusable for hunting insects. The AF 50/2 Macro would be great though, I would trade my 40 for that.


EDIT: I know some people have like 8 different 50(ish)mm lenses in their bags for whatever reason . I'm not that guy.

For some an F/2 50mm that can do good but not fully macro is a multi use lens, I own the Zeiss partly because it allowed to me replace a standard 50mm AND a stanardish macro. Price there though is probably an issue for a lot of people, I managed to get the Zeiss fairly cheap used but no way would I pay full wack for it.

And by cheap you mean $1000 (give or take) ?
I'm sure that Makro-Planar 50/2 is a nice lens (and possibly a dream lens for videography ), but, like you, I really can't justify buying $1300 manual focus lens, which won't even be my primary tool for macro. Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 is $600 more and still needs a tube for 1:1 macro. I doubt that anything can beat my Sigma 150/2.8 at the moment.

It was £450 used for an original zf version(I moved to the darkside for FF a couple of years ago) and as you say I couldnt afford to pay full price. Definitely not a lens for serious insect macro but generally I tend to shoot plants/fungi more in the closeup range so 1:2 is good enough for me and its both sharper, contrastier and has much better bokeh than my old Nikon 50mm 1.8 G.

I wonder whether Canon will ever upgrade the old 50mm 2.5 macro? a 50mm f/2 IS with 1:2 macro with Zeiss like performance would likely be popular.

EF 50/2.5 Macro has very decent optics. They could only update it with STM motor and leave the old price tag really ($299) . 50/2 IS USM Macro would cost more than 35/2 IS, maybe $100-$150 less than the 100L Macro ($899?).

P.S.: The EF-S 60/2.8 USM Macro with extension tube works on FF too. Just saying

 

[vscd]

There is no such thing as a "macro" if its below 1:1 Shame on Zeiss.

 

[ecka]

There is no such thing as a "macro" if its below 1:1 Shame on Zeiss.

1:1 ratio is a subjective value. You get more magnification with 1:1 macro on crop, than with 1:1 macro on FF.
Something like A7R (36mp sensor) allows you to crop a lot and get the same magnification of a 16mp crop sensor. So, technically, 1:2 macro on 20mp crop provides similar magnification to 1:1 macro on 12mp FF.

 

[mrsfotografie]

There is no such thing as a "macro" if its below 1:1 Shame on Zeiss.

1:1 ratio is a subjective value. You get more magnification with 1:1 macro on crop, than with 1:1 macro on FF.
Something like A7R (36mp sensor) allows you to crop a lot and get the same magnification of a 16mp crop sensor. So, technically, 1:2 macro on 20mp crop provides similar magnification to 1:1 macro on 12mp FF.

1:1 has nothing to do with megapixels; it is entirely governed by optics and means the physical size of the projected image equals that of the subject, ie a 1cm tall object results in a 1cm tall projected image.

Due to the cropping factor of an aps-c sensor though, you are effectively blowing up the projected image. So this means that for a crop factor of 1.5, a 50 mm lens will become 75 mm equivalent, and at 1:2 magnification becomes 3/4 magnification.

 

[ecka]

There is no such thing as a "macro" if its below 1:1 Shame on Zeiss.

1:1 ratio is a subjective value. You get more magnification with 1:1 macro on crop, than with 1:1 macro on FF.
Something like A7R (36mp sensor) allows you to crop a lot and get the same magnification of a 16mp crop sensor. So, technically, 1:2 macro on 20mp crop provides similar magnification to 1:1 macro on 12mp FF.

1:1 has nothing to do with megapixels; it is entirely governed by optics and means the physical size of the projected image equals that of the subject, ie a 1cm tall object results in a 1cm tall projected image.

Due to the cropping factor of an aps-c sensor though, you are effectively blowing up the projected image. So this means that for a crop factor of 1.5, a 50 mm lens will become 75 mm equivalent, and at 1:2 magnification becomes 3/4 magnification.

Well, lens magnification has nothing to do with megapixels, but the amount of information you get from it depends on the number of pixels you put on each millimeter of the projection. I may be using wrong terminology here, I'm sorry for my bad english. IMHO, on different sensor sizes (FF, APSC, m4/3) 1:1 ratio has different values, as well as with different resolutions of the same sensor size, because, when it comes to the final (real macro) image, everything matters. At those magnifications I mostly care about the information I can capture with the final image in mind (on big display or print), not how big it looks on my camera LCD or in a smartphone snapshot gallery.

 

[PicaPica]

http://vimeo.com/104693016

 

[mrsfotografie]

http://vimeo.com/104693016

That's a nice teaser; aiming at the videographer obviously. I don't yet see a major advantage vs let's say the Sigma 1.4 EX.

 

[Vgramatikov]

Samy need AF or they will go only for video.

But that is not the case...we`ll see...

For work i prefer af 1.8 not 1.4 mf..... on the field you need fast and accurate af and that why we pay all that money for complex af systems.

If not...deam i will stay with 5d original and 3-4 samy`s

 

[mrsfotografie]

Samy need AF or they will go only for video.

But that is not the case...we`ll see...

For work i prefer af 1.8 not 1.4 mf..... on the field you need fast and accurate af and that why we pay all that money for complex af systems.

If not...deam i will stay with 5d original and 3-4 samy`s

The MkII also pairs very nicely with MF, or even AF primes, one reason it stays in my kit

 

[vscd]

I heard the Canon 5D Mark 3 has no interchangeable screens anymore? Would be a shame for manual users like me ;( Can anyone confirm this?

 

[mrsfotografie]

I heard the Canon 5D Mark 3 has no interchangeable screens anymore? Would be a shame for manual users like me ;( Can anyone confirm this?

Confirmed.