Im curious to see how these two play against each other...Samyang vs Loxia

[f/otographer]

Samyang is releasing a new manual 50mm 1.4 soon for the Sony E mount. I am very curious how this will compare to the new Loxia 50 from Zeiss. Anyone else interested in how these two similar but different lenses work in their respective cost bracket?

Samyang has been coming out with some interesting lenses recently. Here's hoping they have a winner on their hands.

 

[iiiNelson]

Hopefully the Samyang with have electronic contacts to communicate metadata.

 

[Chuck Jones]

If you're talking about the Samyang 50mm T1.5 Cine Lens for Sony E-Mount, I guess from your post below it is hit or miss on the chip until some actual photos of the rear mount start showing up. Almost a guarantee it will cost 25% of what the Zeiss costs, and while a great value for the money, won't deliver what the Zeiss does.

The last 10% performance improvement costs the big bucks in everything camera related. What we all have to decide is what is good enough?

 

[iiiNelson]

I have the E-Mount 14 and it doesn't have electronic contacts for Metadata. That's why I made the comment.

 

[Chuck Jones]

I have the E-Mount 14 and it doesn't have electronic contacts for Metadata. That's why I made the comment.

Dang, wonder what is up with that? The Rokinon 14mm for Nikon does have a chip, so I mistakenly assumed they would carry that over to the other mounts as well. Looking at photos off B&H, the Canon EOS version 14mm doesn't appear to have a chip either.

So I would guess until we actually see a photo of the rear mount to determine if it is chipped, we can't count on it.

 

[iiiNelson]

Dang, wonder what is up with that? The Rokinon 14mm for Nikon does have a chip, so I mistakenly assumed they would carry that over to the other mounts as well. Looking at photos off B&H, the Canon EOS version 14mm doesn't appear to have a chip either.

So I would guess until we actually see a photo of the rear mount to determine if it is chipped, we can't count on it.

Yup I have the Rokinon E-Mount version. It was actually my first native FF E-mount lens and it's really good for the price I paid during an Amazon Golbox Special.

 

[f/otographer]

Samyang 50mm f/1.4 AS UMC

That is the lens I am talking about. Different from the 1.5 cine I believe. I dont think there will be any electrical contacts on this one, although that would be nice.

Samyang is raising their game recently so I really want to see how this compares the the Japanese Cosina made Zeiss Loxia. I understand that the last 10% of performance is always expensive, but I am curious just how much of that last little bit is just Name recognition instead of actual performance.

 

[hiepphotog]

Samyang is raising their game recently so I really want to see how this compares the the Japanese Cosina made Zeiss Loxia. I understand that the last 10% of performance is always expensive, but I am curious just how much of that last little bit is just Name recognition instead of actual performance.

I don't know if you have used any of these Samyang before but I know I would never get one again. It's not all about optical performance either. Admittedly, I think the Samyang is closer to 95-98% of the optical performance of a very good Zeiss (e.g. Samyang 14 vs. Zeiss 15). Sometimes they are even better (e.g. Samyang 35/85 vs. regular Zeiss 35/85) in term of sheer performance. However, Samyang has the following major drawbacks:
- Huge QC issue, de-centering, mis-aligned focus ring, non-uniform aperture blade. It's quite a lottery to get a good copy, which might involve multiple exchange.
- Poor construction: plastic construction that might not keep the optimal/original spec over extensive use. If you don't mind re-buying the same lens in a couple years, this might not be that big of an issue. A Samyang costs about 5 times less than a Zeiss on average.
- Forget about fixing your "in-spec" lens, most likely you will get another copy and a new lottery cycle begins.

I personally have tried 5 different copies of the 14/2.8 and all of them had various degrees of decentering. All of them had mis-aligned focus ring.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Seems like bringing a knife to a gun fight to me

Btw, my Nikon F mount Rockinon 21 on Sony isn't bad at all.

 

[Chuck Jones]

Samyang 50mm f/1.4 AS UMC

That is the lens I am talking about. Different from the 1.5 cine I believe. I dont think there will be any electrical contacts on this one, although that would be nice.

Samyang is raising their game recently so I really want to see how this compares the the Japanese Cosina made Zeiss Loxia. I understand that the last 10% of performance is always expensive, but I am curious just how much of that last little bit is just Name recognition instead of actual performance.

Your probably right, they are different lenses. This is one company who's products are really tough to keep sorted out. They use several different brand names depending upon God only knows what. Phoenix vs Opteka vs Samyang vs Rokinon vs Bower - they are all the same! :talk028:

As has already been stated, they are not very expensive to begin with, so I can not imagine there is a whole lot of quality control that goes into doing final calibration inspections, and if there was it would force the cost of the lenses to rise.

I'd also kind of doubt that there is much if any adjustment possible in lenses this inexpensive. These are the kinds of lenses you use and when they wear out you just toss them in the round circular file and go buy another.

There is no question the Zeiss lenses will be several times the price of the Samyang. I'd guess there is equally no question the Zeiss lenses (even the Japanese fabricated ones) are much better built, and have gone thru a serious QC before packaging so should be on the money alignment wise. The Zeiss at least can be adjusted too if you happen to knock it out of alignment a couple years down the road... of course after the warranty expires. :thumbup:

 

[GrahamWelland]

With respect to Zeiss vs Rockinon/Samyung, it also depends upon the intended use.

In my case I got the 21/24 Rockinon lenses for their astro imaging capabilities since they are relatively simple lenses as far as correction is concerned and thus lack of edge field correction attributes. For general use the Zeiss alternatives simply wipe the floor with the Zeiss 21/25 equivalents.

 

[iiiNelson]

Well this is one of the first more extensive shootouts with the 50 Loxia. In short it's a winner (as I expected being a huge fan of the ZM 50/2 Planar.) Got me thinking a bit more about it even though I still have my M mount one because it's simply my favorite M mount lens in existence.

http://www.dearsusan.net/2014/10/10...eica-summicron-50-great-normal-lens-shootout/

 

[ZoranC]

Well this is one of the first more extensive shootouts with the 50 Loxia. In short it's a winner (as I expected being a huge fan of the ZM 50/2 Planar.) Got me thinking a bit more about it even though I still have my M mount one because it's simply my favorite M mount lens in existence.

#285. Zeiss Loxia 50/2, Sony FE55/1.8 and Leica Summicron 50/2, the Great Normal Lens Shootout | DearSusan

I would like to see more controlled test before I would be making any statements about winners because as I am looking at samples in this "extensive shootout" I am having an impression focus point was not kept same, at least not in samples of locks.

 

[iiiNelson]

I would like to see more controlled test before I would be making any statements about winners because as I am looking at samples in this "extensive shootout" I am having an impression focus point was not kept same, at least not in samples of locks.

Well I have no reservation that if Zeiss truly did optimize the Loxia's for the A7 series that it's a winner. The ZM 50/2 was already a winner without being a native. It's possible that the lens won't please pixel peepers but for photography purposes it's hard to image wanting much more.

That being said more opinions from other reviewers are welcome... Even the brick wall tests for those that care solely about resolving power for the next generation of sensors.

 

[ZoranC]

Well I have no reservation that if Zeiss truly did optimize the Loxia's for the A7 series that it's a winner. The ZM 50/2 was already a winner without being a native. It's possible that the lens won't please pixel peepers but for photography purposes it's hard to image wanting much more.

That being said more opinions from other reviewers are welcome... Even the brick wall tests for those that care solely about resolving power for the next generation of sensors.

Some people like to see actual dust settle before declaring winner of any shootout. Some people like to vote with emotions as (sole?) criteria and declare winner before they even saw it in person, much less before any serious amount of punches was thrown or of they were thrown on level ground. I guess different kinds of personalities even though I don't see it as rational.

 

[Barry Haines]

Well I have no reservation that if Zeiss truly did optimize the Loxia's for the A7 series that it's a winner. The ZM 50/2 was already a winner without being a native. It's possible that the lens won't please pixel peepers but for photography purposes it's hard to image wanting much more.

That being said more opinions from other reviewers are welcome... Even the brick wall tests for those that care solely about resolving power for the next generation of sensors.

Agree the ZM 50mm f2 Planar was and still is a great lens on the A7R...I only decided to let it go because the 55mm F1.8 FE is pretty exceptional IMHO...The 50mm Summilux ASPH another great lens also fell by the wayside for me as it was not so great with the A7R sensor...The 58mm f1.2 Rokkor only stayed because of it's creamy bokeh (I only ever use it at f1.2 and f2) otherwise it would have fell into forth place behind the others.
I just can't see the 50mm f2 Loxia being optically inferior to the ZM 50mm Planar...Just my 2 pence worth...More reviews would be welcome as you say.

 

[iiiNelson]

Some people like to see actual dust settle before declaring winner of any shootout. Some people like to vote with emotions as (sole?) criteria and declare winner before they even saw it in person, much less before any serious amount of punches was thrown or of they were thrown on level ground. I guess different kinds of personalities even though I don't see it as rational.

I won't argue what's rational at this point after the thousands I've put into this hobby.

What I will say is the ultimate test IS people voting with their wallets and deciding to make a purchase. I don't care how amazing someone tells me a lens is if they are not finding a way to buy it and it's within their financial reach. No it's not the be all for everyone but it speaks more to me personally than lab data/ charts, opinions, brick wall tests, or sample/ test shots.

 

[ZoranC]

I won't argue what's rational at this point after the thousands I've put into this hobby.

What I will say is the ultimate test IS people voting with their wallets and deciding to make a purchase. I don't care how amazing someone tells me a lens is if they are not finding a way to buy it and it's within their financial reach. No it's not the be all for everyone but it speaks more to me personally than lab data/ charts, opinions, brick wall tests, or sample/ test shots.

... and now you are mixing up product sales data with performance of product. Are you a photographer or Zeiss / Sony / XYZ employee responsible for sales figures? If you are later I would see why that would matter to you but if you are former I don't see how product sales figures are the "ultimate" test and how they could be relevant to anything but beans counting.

 

[biglouis]

I have a pre-order in for the Loxia 35/2 because I find the FE 35/2.8 an uninteresting lens in terms of output.

However, I just can't see a Loxia 50/2 outshining the FE 55/1.8 which is the finest 'standard' lens I have ever owned.

Just my two cents.

LouisB

 

[iiiNelson]

... and now you are mixing up product sales data with performance of product. Are you a photographer or Zeiss / Sony / XYZ employee responsible for sales figures? If you are later I would see why that would matter to you but if you are former I don't see how product sales figures are the "ultimate" test and how they could be relevant to anything but beans counting.

I am 100% a photographer by hobby. I don't work for Sony or earn any significant income from them. That's not even my line of work. I think it's a little humorous that people accuse others of being an employee due to showing some enthusiasm about life. If anything I'm happy Sony appears to be seriously supporting the FE mount with more lenses than they have bodies for a change.

I wasn't mixing product sales data. I simply read that review that tested the three lenses and made a statement based of the aforementioned tests. That is the ultimate stamp of approval - buying a lens that you are saying is "better." I personally think there is room for both the 55 and possibly the 50 in my bag as it's one of my favorite focal lengths. The purchase of what you're reviewing means more to me personally (as I stated) than any data or rating can ever say. The only thing I ever meant by my statements were - a person putting their money on the counter is a more telling sign of quality. To each their own though.

Oh and for the record (again) I actually already own a Zeiss 50/2 in M-mount from my Leica days which ended about 3 months ago. I don't know if this will be better than the 55 or not (which I also already own) but I dig mechanical focus. The Zeiss 50 Planar in M mount is plenty sharp already without being optimized so an optimized version is interesting to me personally.