Samyang 14mm center microcontrast

Hi,
Today I received my new samyang 14mm, I bought it especially for its corner sharpness.
When I compared it to my canon 17-40 I saw a really big advantage to the samyang and I was very happy.
But when I compare the center of the image the canon looks a bit better, it looks sharper and there is more noise, I think it has better microcontrast at the center.

Sample -

You need to have same exposure from both shots to truly compare the two...the exposure is so much brighter on the Samyang shot than the Canon shot!

Not surprising, to me anyway. My experience with third-party lenses has always been that they give better value for the money *if* you only value sharpness. But when it comes to color and microcontrast, even the sharpest and most high-end Sigma/Tamron/Samyang typically falls behind, especially outdoors when the sun is anywhere near the frame (flare issues).

I love my Samyang 14mm, but I still think my 17-40L gives better images in the type of scene you presented.

Why is the title about ceneter microcontrast? Pixel peeking edges of any UWA lens is a watse of time, IMO.

gasrocks wrote in post #16140814
Why is the title about ceneter microcontrast? Pixel peeking edges of any UWA lens is a watse of time, IMO.

This. You're not gonna make heavy crops, so there's little point in pixel level sharpness. (if you ARE going to make heavy crops, then there's little point in using an UWA)

Also, could it be that the settings for both images are not the same? The samyang looks like it's been sharpened less than the canon (but I could be wrong). Could you copy and paste the settings in lightroom so both are exactely the same?

not sure but, the samyang picture looks out of focus to me or Its really soft all over the frame. What f-stop where used ?

TheNewLegend wrote in post #16140088
But when I compare the center of the image the canon looks a bit better, it looks sharper and there is more noise, I think it has better microcontrast at the center.

A bit better?? There's a huge difference in the photo you posted.

The Samyang shot looks oof to me, it should be equally as sharp if not sharper than the Canon throughout the whole frame.

Wilt wrote in post #16140213
You need to have same exposure from both shots to truly compare the two...the exposure is so much brighter on the Samyang shot than the Canon shot!

Weird, the canon seems to exposure a little bit brighter

gasrocks wrote in post #16140814
Why is the title about ceneter microcontrast? Pixel peeking edges of any UWA lens is a watse of time, IMO.

I dont think so, at the corners of the 17-40 I can see its loss sharpness at the corners, without pixel peeping or any zooming.

jefzor wrote in post #16142050
This. You're not gonna make heavy crops, so there's little point in pixel level sharpness. (if you ARE going to make heavy crops, then there's little point in using an UWA)

Also, could it be that the settings for both images are not the same? The samyang looks like it's been sharpened less than the canon (but I could be wrong). Could you copy and paste the settings in lightroom so both are exactely the same?

The settings were the same..

tomme wrote in post #16142255
not sure but, the samyang picture looks out of focus to me or Its really soft all over the frame. What f-stop where used ?

F/4

kin2son wrote in post #16142475
A bit better?? There's a huge difference in the photo you posted.

The Samyang shot looks oof to me, it should be equally as sharp if not sharper than the Canon throughout the whole frame.

Its a bit better considering the HUGE difference at the corner sharpness between those lenses.

I did another test and now I used the same exposure, same aperture, same lightroom settings, but other scene (at the previous one I could not use a tripod)
http://img94.imageshac​k.us/img94/6178/gl5y.j​pg
(Left samyang, right canon)

Now the samyang looks better if you look at the further buildings.. thats strange

TheNewLegend wrote in post #16142603
Weird, the canon seems to exposure a little bit brighter

I downloaded your pair (one jpg) of images -- in the OP you wrote: "(samyang left, canon right)"--, then used the sampling tool of Paintshop Pro to interrogate at two locations on the wall situated to the right of the large blue/white awning and palm tree, above the palm tree at the bottom of the frame.

TheNewLegend wrote in post #16142603
Weird, the canon seems to exposure a little bit brighter


I dont think so, at the corners of the 17-40 I can see its loss sharpness at the corners, without pixel peeping or any zooming.

The settings were the same..

F/4

Its a bit better considering the HUGE difference at the corner sharpness between those lenses.

I did another test and now I used the same exposure, same aperture, same lightroom settings, but other scene (at the previous one I could not use a tripod)
http://img94.imageshac​k.us/img94/6178/gl5y.j​pg
(Left samyang, right canon)

Now the samyang looks better if you look at the further buildings.. thats strange

Looks like the samyag is perfectly sharp. Your first pic was probably slightly out of focus or something.

brettjrob wrote in post #16140424
Not surprising, to me anyway. My experience with third-party lenses has always been that they give better value for the money *if* you only value sharpness. But when it comes to color and microcontrast, even the sharpest and most high-end Sigma/Tamron/Samyang typically falls behind, especially outdoors when the sun is anywhere near the frame (flare issues).

I love my Samyang 14mm, but I still think my 17-40L gives better images in the type of scene you presented.

That depends. My Tamron 28-75 2.8 has better micro-contrast and sharpness than any 24-105L I've tried (comparing at 28mm). And my Bower (Samyang) 14mm has insane micro-contrast center frame! I've mostly shot it stopped down a ways though, but frighteningly I think it almost has better micro-contrast than any canon L zoom I've tried (including 24-70 II and 70-200 f/4 IS!).

OTOH the Sigma 120-300 I tried didn't come close to Canon 300 2.8 IS micro-contrast.

And the Tamron 70-300VC microcontrast is not as good as the Canon 70-300L micro-contrast.

TheNewLegend wrote in post #16140088
Hi,
Today I received my new samyang 14mm, I bought it especially for its corner sharpness.
When I compared it to my canon 17-40 I saw a really big advantage to the samyang and I was very happy.
But when I compare the center of the image the canon looks a bit better, it looks sharper and there is more noise, I think it has better microcontrast at the center.

Sample -

(samyang left, canon right)
Is this normal or maybe I got a bad copy?

EDIT: At smaller apertures the microcontrast is getting better, but at F4 its not that good..

In my experience, it is better to use hyperfocal focus with this lens. For a 5dMKII, at f2.8, you put the focus ring to about 2.3 meters and everything from 1.6 meters to infinity will be sharp focussed.

Miguel