Rokinon 14mm

I have heard a lot of good things about this lens, and for the price point, I have been tempted to pick one up. However, I would only use it for astrophotography. Right now, my 16-35mm is my go to lens for UWA images, along with astrophotography. So with that said, is there any point in me getting the Rokinon 14mm? I do hear the corners are sharper over the 16-35mm. But other than the corner sharpness and the extra 2mm, I can't find any other differences between the two. I was also thinking that if I did pick up the Rokinon, I could then sell the 16-35mm and pick up a 17-40mm for my UWA work.

Does anyone own both lenses? What are your thoughts?

-Nick

nburwell wrote in post #16041699
I have heard a lot of good things about this lens, and for the price point, I have been tempted to pick one up. However, I would only use it for astrophotography. Right now, my 16-35mm is my go to lens for UWA images, along with astrophotography. So with that said, is there any point in me getting the Rokinon 14mm? I do hear the corners are sharper over the 16-35mm. But other than the corner sharpness and the extra 2mm, I can't find any other differences between the two. I was also thinking that if I did pick up the Rokinon, I could then sell the 16-35mm and pick up a 17-40mm for my UWA work.

Does anyone own both lenses? What are your thoughts?

-Nick

I've owned both the 16-35L II and Rokinon 14mm. The Rokinon absolutely destroys the 16-35L II in terms of sharpness, especially in the corners. Camera companies would like you to believe you need to pay a high-price for IQ, but that isn't always true. Sure, the Rokinon might not be completely weather sealed and have some plastic pieces, but it still is a fantastic lens.
The Rokinon is so cheap pricewise, you can't go wrong. I wouldn't think twice about it, best money you'll spend.

However, I'm not sure it would be a complete replacement to your 16-35. The Rokinon 14mm isn't very good autofocus...it also isn't very good at 16mm, 17mm, 18mm....you get the idea. It has its limitations.

I picked up a 14mm to compliment my 17-40; and found that I just haven't pulled the rokinon out due to the flexibility of the zoom; sharpness be damned. UWA I find I need the flexiblity of the zoom for composition more than at longer focal lengths as I tend to be sitting at the edge of a cliff or similar.

Thanks for the replies! I may keep the 16-35mm II to compliment the 14mm. Since I love the flexibility of the zoom. Plus, I still have another lens for astophotography. Although if I find myself using the Rokinon more, I would probably end up selling the 16-35mm for the 17-40mm and just use the 17-40mm for UWA work.

-Nick

The Rokinon has been both a blessing and curse. A blessing because it's so damn sharp for so little money, and a curse because I've actually started to sacrifice compositions to justify using it over my 17-40, whose sharpness truly pales by comparison. I'd get the Rokinon ASAP, and then consider swapping your 16-35 for a cheaper 17-40 if you find yourself going down the same road I have.

Beware, however, the rather poor quality control on the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower. I had to return two copies before I got a good one the third time (but boy, is it good).

brettjrob wrote in post #16045320
The Rokinon has been both a blessing and curse. A blessing because it's so damn sharp for so little money, and a curse because I've actually started to sacrifice compositions to justify using it over my 17-40, whose sharpness truly pales by comparison.

I absolutely agree.

I had a Rokinon 14mm paired with my 17-40L for a while and I often tried to force compositions with the Rokinon because I loved it so much. Excellent combo though. Now, I'm shooting with the D800E/14-24 combo because I started to get tired of switching lenses in the field.

brettjrob wrote in post #16045320
Beware, however, the rather poor quality control on the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower. I had to return two copies before I got a good one the third time (but boy, is it good).

This is really good to know. It makes me re-think purchasing one on eBay, and just buying it from B&H where I wouldn't have an issue with returning it and getting another one. Although I would get a bit frustrated if the second copy I received was a dud as well.

I appreciate you bringing the quality control up in your post.

-Nick

SinaiTSi wrote in post #16045363
Now, I'm shooting with the D800E/14-24 combo because I started to get tired of switching lenses in the field.

The D800/14-24mm alone tempts me to sell all my Canon gear for this combination.

nburwell wrote in post #16045473
The D800/14-24mm alone tempts me to sell all my Canon gear for this combination.

You can't beat that combo...I can give you my thoughts on it if you'd like.

nburwell wrote in post #16045473
The D800/14-24mm alone tempts me to sell all my Canon gear for this combination.

I would have done precisely this a few months ago when I upgraded to FF if I had the dough. Much better low ISO + a respectable UWA zoom = crushes Canon's offerings for landscapes. Too bad the price differential, once you factor in good Nikon glass, is so large that it's not a straightforward decision. I mean, most of us still need something to cover both mid-range and telephoto, and you can't touch decent Nikkor lenses for under a grand.

nburwell wrote in post #16045469
This is really good to know. It makes me re-think purchasing one on eBay, and just buying it from B&H where I wouldn't have an issue with returning it and getting another one. Although I would get a bit frustrated if the second copy I received was a dud as well.

I appreciate you bringing the quality control up in your post.

-Nick

Here's how I came to view the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm through my month-long journey to get a good one: it's so cheap because the manufacturer essentially throws you-know-what at the wall (i.e., customers) and sees what sticks. I wouldn't be surprised, based on my experience and reading reviews, if more than half of all copies floating around are noticeably inferior to what a "good" copy looks like. But, as you already mentioned, going through a reputable retailer with a good return policy allows you to get around this issue. It just might take some frustration and time if you're unlucky. B&H might be best, as even Amazon started to balk during my second return.

What you should be looking out for is de-centering. Both my bad copies were soft on the right side to varying degrees, especially when focused at or near infinity. Oh, and by the way, the focus markings are also often rather inaccurate (even on my final copy). Using live view and/or just doing some tests when you first get it make this less of an issue.

if you have the 16-35 II then keep it and save a brand new Rokinon - from a dealer - unless you can test a used one before buying it.
Canon lenses do suffer from the "comma" aberration, althought some models more than others. Did not tried my rokinon for astrophotography, but keep in mind that you will need a lens profile correction for it - it's well known for having a barrel "mustache" distortion.

yes, 2mm do make a difference in UWA lenses world, aside of giving you a few extra seconds of exposure time, as both have the save f value.

If Canon had already announced the release of a 14-24 lens, then I would wait.

Sample taken with it (poor PP, it was saved in IPHoto):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/palenquero/9092​423150/

two samples with the Rokinon 14mm

..and two more