Rokinon 14mm

Q: Rokinon 14mm or TS-E 24mm Mark I (when shifted yields ~14mm)?

(Perhaps as it pertains to image quality/sharpness)

SinaiTSi wrote in post #16045553
You can't beat that combo...I can give you my thoughts on it if you'd like.

You're more than welcome to. Like I said, I have been VERY tempted to sell off my Canon gear for the combo.

brettjrob wrote in post #16045691
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.

I really appreciate the heads up. After reading your post, I may just toss the thought of purchasing the Rokinon out the window. I'm very impatient when it comes to photography purchases I make, and I would not want to deal with the hassle of testing the lens out, find out it's not up to par, then package it back up to exchange it for another copy which may suffer from the same issue.

It's really a shame the Canon 14mm is so expensive. I would love to pick that up, but I can't justify buying a $1,500 (used) lens that I will only use for astrophotography.

nburwell wrote in post #16048738
=It's really a shame the Canon 14mm is so expensive. I would love to pick that up, but I can't justify buying a $1,500 (used) lens that I will only use for astrophotography.

How much do you think the rumored 14-14 2.8 lens would be lol. I'm gonna say 2500 bucks

Talley wrote in post #16048754
How much do you think the rumored 14-14 2.8 lens would be lol. I'm gonna say 2500 bucks

If the rumored 16-50 f/4 IS comes out; I'd actually get that over the 14-24 f/2.8 I think (with or without IS) assuming image quality matches recent mkII lenses. That would very often be the only lens I need to carry.

Talley wrote in post #16048754
How much do you think the rumored 14-14 2.8 lens would be lol. I'm gonna say 2500 bucks

If it's that expensive, I would rather pick up the Nikon 14-24mm and get the adaptor to fit my 5DIII.

nburwell wrote in post #16051194
If it's that expensive, I would rather pick up the Nikon 14-24mm and get the adaptor to fit my 5DIII.

The Tokina 16-28 would be cheaper than both, and includes AF (Nikon with EOS adapter would be MF?). The only problem would be using filters with it.

Been thinking about the Tokina16-28, and eventually a filter housing for it.

Rafromak wrote in post #16052217
The Tokina 16-28 would be cheaper than both, and includes AF (Nikon with EOS adapter would be MF?). The only problem would be using filters with it.

Been thinking about the Tokina16-28, and eventually a filter housing for it.

Is its performance up to par with the 14-24, though?

brettjrob wrote in post #16052340
Is its performance up to par with the 14-24, though?

According to most reviews, it's supposed to be sharper edge-to-edge than both Canon and Nikon versions, and costs less than $800.00. But to adapt a filter/housing to it would be expensive unless you can come-up with some kind of generic adapter that can hold Cokin or other square-shaped 100+mm filter.

brettjrob wrote in post #16052340
Is its performance up to par with the 14-24, though?

No, it's quite sharp but is also quite subject to flare. I've been thinking about picking one up to get f2.8 and AF w/o have to spend too much but I don't think I could use more than 1 100mm filter(I'd like the option of staking a CPL and ND or 2 NDs) and don't want to upgrade to 150mm system.

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #16052425
No, it's quite sharp but is also quite subject to flare. I've been thinking about picking one up to get f2.8 and AF w/o have to spend too much but I don't think I could use more than 1 100mm filter(I'd like the option of staking a CPL and ND or 2 NDs) and don't want to upgrade to 150mm system.

I can believe it's sharper than the Canon options, since that's not saying much. I just wonder how bad the flare really is. I've read the Nikon 14-24mm is also rather flare happy, but that doesn't stop it from being the professional landscape tool of choice these days. What bothers me with flare isn't so much the actual artifact on the image, but when you lose a ton of contrast anytime a bright light (e.g., sun) is in or near the frame, which I've experienced before with third-party lenses (and never with Canon L glass).

I'm definitely going to pick up one of the 14 f2.8, but I'll probably just stick with my 17-40 for now since it's mainly used for landscape and underwater where I don't really need f2.8. I'd really like to try out the Tokina for myself sometime and might end up getting one later but i think after the Rokinon my next lens is going to be a TS-E.

ebann wrote in post #16048187
Q: Rokinon 14mm or TS-E 24mm Mark I (when shifted yields ~14mm)?

(Perhaps as it pertains to image quality/sharpness)

In the corners the 14 is better than the 24 shifted.

I gave up my Rokinon 14 (which was tack sharp) for the 24 TS-E II. I could not do without filters and wasn't willing to go through a lot of money/effort to get some solution.

It's a pity really, it's such a great lens.

For the record, my distance scale was no where near accurate. Hyperfocal distances were dialed in by trial and error.

Without the Rocki, I would have not been able to capture this:

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

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/palenquero/9092​418686/