Is the Red ring worth it?

bent toe wrote in post #16440176
If you need weathersealing... yes

Just because its an L doesn't mean it has weather sealing. The example given 35L vs Sigma 35, neither lens has weather sealing.

Thorrulz wrote in post #16438608
You probably should stick to stating your own reasons as to why you choose the gear to have in your bag than to worry about what someone else thinks and take it personal.

That's funny, coming from you.

ben805 wrote in post #16439614
Is BMW worth it? why buy luxury car where you can do the same with a Geo metro to go from point A to B?

How is this even relevant? Are you driving both to get the max performance you can out of them while you are trying to get from point A to point B in your example? Is just merely going from point A to B the ONLY thing you are going to do with the car? With your statement, I can say the exact same things regarding to cameras. Is a 40K medium format camera worth it? Why buy a luxury camera when you can do the same with a point n shoot to take a simple snapshot of your sleeping cat?

The reason why we buy "better" gear is because we want more performance out of it and to do creative things with it that cheaper versions may struggle with or not be able to do at all.

tagnal wrote in post #16440664
How is this even relevant? Are you driving both to get the max performance you can out of them while you are trying to get from point A to point B in your example? Is just merely going from point A to B the ONLY thing you are going to do with the car? With your statement, I can say the exact same things regarding to cameras. Is a 40K medium format camera worth it? Why buy a luxury camera when you can do the same with a point n shoot to take a simple snapshot of your sleeping cat?

The reason why we buy "better" gear is because we want more performance out of it and to do creative things with it that cheaper versions may struggle with or not be able to do at all.

Great photography is not measured solely by the performance of the camera used. It depends on the needs and style of the photographer. And certainly creativity is not correlatively codependent on the type of gear used.

If one needs expensive gear to meet his or her demands, then so be it. But if while using 'lesser gear,' someone is just as capable in regards to his or her specific needs, that's fine too.

Charlie wrote in post #16434435
Samyang 14 vs 14L.......

I really can't see how the 14L would improve my photography over the third party alternative.

Distortion...Manual focus...Disposable...F​reakish looks

sjones wrote in post #16440744
Great photography is not measured solely by the performance of the camera used. It depends on the needs and style of the photographer. And certainly creativity is not correlatively codependent on the type of gear used.

If one needs expensive gear to meet his or her demands, then so be it. But if while using 'lesser gear,' someone is just as capable in regards to his or her specific needs, that's fine too.

I don't disagree with that. I just don't agree with the example used with the cars.

Bakewell wrote in post #16440790
Distortion...Manual focus...Disposable...F​reakish looks

Distortion fix is one click away, and being so sharp, hardly takes a hit. Manual focus with such a wide lens is easy to do. You can guess distances and be fairly accurate, even wide open.

For it's intended purpose, AF doesn't matter. The only thing the 14L has going for it is auto aperture (convenience)

I like the L group and find them appealing ..

Thorrulz wrote in post #16440410
Hoggy, where have you been?

Been out making photos. You should give it a try one day...you just might like it

Charlie wrote in post #16441284
Distortion fix is one click away, and being so sharp, hardly takes a hit. Manual focus with such a wide lens is easy to do. You can guess distances and be fairly accurate, even wide open.

For it's intended purpose, AF doesn't matter. The only thing the 14L has going for it is auto aperture (convenience)

You left out probably the most important difference...being disposable...hope you don't have a major problem or into the trash it goes! You can rationalize all you want. Pick and chose to your hearts content. This is important and that isn't. BUT all are legitimate reasons for picking the 14L. Did I mention NO weather sealing, No gel filters, No exif data on the Samyang/Bower/Whatever​. My point is there are MAJOR differences.

Bakewell wrote in post #16441880
You left out probably the most important difference...being disposable...hope you don't have a major problem or into the trash it goes! You can rationalize all you want. Pick and chose to your hearts content. This is important and that isn't. BUT all are legitimate reasons for picking the 14L. Did I mention NO weather sealing, No gel filters, No exif data on the Samyang/Bower/Whatever​. My point is there are MAJOR differences.

no, the most important point is Image quality

not sure how you rank "disposable" or if it's even a legit knock against the yang 14. It's so cheap that it would cost the similar to a 14L repair! So while technically disposable, I dont see the issue. No exif isnt a terrible deal breaker either, I'm not really looking at exif when I print

For the intended purpose of a 14mm lens, all those other issues seem rather minor, except for the ability to accept gels, which is major.... but for the price, I'de get the wonderpana filter set, which is much better than gels.

Charlie wrote in post #16441920
no, the most important point is Image quality

not sure how you rank "disposable" or if it's even a legit knock against the yang 14. It's so cheap that it would cost the similar to a 14L repair! So while technically disposable, I dont see the issue. No exif isnt a terrible deal breaker either, I'm not really looking at exif when I print

For the intended purpose of a 14mm lens, all those other issues seem rather minor, except for the ability to accept gels, which is major.... but for the price, I'de get the wonderpana filter set, which is much better than gels.

I find this entire argument superfluous. The 14L has more differentiation from it's competition then virtually any other L lens. It is clearly superior in EVERY respect. The only true discussion revolves around its price. It's very expensive. Is it worth it? For you...no. For me...yes.

Bakewell wrote in post #16441880
You left out probably the most important difference...being disposable...hope you don't have a major problem or into the trash it goes! You can rationalize all you want. Pick and chose to your hearts content. This is important and that isn't. BUT all are legitimate reasons for picking the 14L. Did I mention NO weather sealing, No gel filters, No exif data on the Samyang/Bower/Whatever​. My point is there are MAJOR differences.

Wow, someone seems little cranky today. Maybe you seem upset that people seem to get same results than you with five times cheaper lens? And I mean no disrespect here. I just think you are seriously underestimating the Samyang here. There is a reason why the Samyang is so popular on these boards and the Canon is not that popular. Results speak for themselves.

Bakewell wrote in post #16440790
Distortion...Manual focus...Disposable...F​reakish looks

But ok, I bite:

Image quality: According to TDPand DxOmark the IQ is very similar. Basically both lenses are just as sharp. Not bad for five times cheaper lens, eh? Note that DxOmark actually rates Samyang higher.

Distortion: The Samyang has more distortion. True. But is so sharp it's easily one click away from beeing fixed in Lightroom/Photoshop. Not a problem.

"Disposability?" What does this even mean?

I am not even sure I would call it a win for Canon. According to Lensrentals the 14mm f/2.8L II 7th most likely lens to fail. It's surprising because the Canon is so expensive lens and Canon offers only a lousy 1 year warranty. Never liked Canon's warranty policy. It's true it is extremely unlikely that any lens will break down, but since you are the one who brought the term "Disposable" I thought this should be mentioned.

Samyang has had 1 main problem: distance scale does not match real distance. Not a big deal as it's so easy to focus. But in the same time Samyang is five times cheaper and offers 3 years of warranty. So, even if the Samyang breaks down or you get a lousy copy you are more than likely to still be covered by Samyang's warranty if it somehow magically breaks. For free. Unlike the Canon, which repairing it would probably cost just as much as a brand new Samyang. Or where I live, you'd get probably 2 Samyangs for the same price for repairing the Canon. Shocking.

Weather sealing:
Canon has weather sealing. Samyang does not. However, one should remember that no lens truly becomes weather sealed until you mount a filter to complete the sealing. And the Canon does not accept filters so it's bit misleading. I also wanted to mention that I used the Samyang in really horrible conditions (storm, rain, cold, winter, snow) and it still works like a charm.

Freakish looks: What?? I think the Samyang looks very sexy. You can always glue a red ring if that seems to turn you on

Focus: Canon has autofocus. Samyang does not. But using a UWA lens who even uses autofocus? I would never trust autofocus when making critical focus on landscapes. Even if I had autofocus in my Samyang I would never use it. Focusing this thing is so easy. Set f/8 and the whole scenery is basically in focus. It's almost as easy to focus wide open as well.

Exif: Samyang does not report EXIF. Canon does. If this bothers you, you can get a chip and glue it on the Samyang. It will cost you $10 and it will take ~5 minutes and you are done. I did it and it's not a big deal.

Price:
I just checked the cheapest prices for both lenses where I live. The Samyang is no less than 6.1 times cheaper I guess this is my main dilemma here. For the same price as the Canon you can get the wonderful Nikon 12-24mm f/2.8 or the magnificent Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 T*. I know which lens I would choose instead. But that's just me. An other interesting thing: Canon recently released a patent about Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L mark III. It seems Canon is already working on a replacement for this lens?

So the answer is no, the 14 II is not clearly superior in EVERY respect. But I'm still glad if you are happy with your investment.

Tmuussoni wrote in post #16442459
Freakish looks: You can always glue a red ring if that seems to turn you on [B]

HAHAHAHA, sorry... but this is the best comment ive heard on this thread. Not that im judging, but funny.

Tmuussoni wrote in post #16442459
Wow, someone seems little cranky today. Maybe you seem upset that people seem to get same results than you with five times cheaper lens? And I mean no disrespect here. I just think you are seriously underestimating the Samyang here. There is a reason why the Samyang is so popular on these boards and the Canon is not that popular. Results speak for themselves.

But ok, I bite:

Image quality: According to TDPand DxOmark the IQ is very similar. Basically both lenses are just as sharp. Not bad for five times cheaper lens, eh? Note that DxOmark actually rates Samyang higher.

Distortion: The Samyang has more distortion. True. But is so sharp it's easily one click away from beeing fixed in Lightroom/Photoshop. Not a problem.

"Disposability?" What does this even mean?

I am not even sure I would call it a win for Canon. According to Lensrentals the 14mm f/2.8L II 7th most likely lens to fail. It's surprising because the Canon is so expensive lens and Canon offers only a lousy 1 year warranty. Never liked Canon's warranty policy. It's true it is extremely unlikely that any lens will break down, but since you are the one who brought the term "Disposable" I thought this should be mentioned.

Samyang has had 1 main problem: distance scale does not match real distance. Not a big deal as it's so easy to focus. But in the same time Samyang is five times cheaper and offers 3 years of warranty. So, even if the Samyang breaks down or you get a lousy copy you are more than likely to still be covered by Samyang's warranty if it somehow magically breaks. For free. Unlike the Canon, which repairing it would probably cost just as much as a brand new Samyang. Or where I live, you'd get probably 2 Samyangs for the same price for repairing the Canon. Shocking.

Weather sealing:
Canon has weather sealing. Samyang does not. However, one should remember that no lens truly becomes weather sealed until you mount a filter to complete the sealing. And the Canon does not accept filters so it's bit misleading. I also wanted to mention that I used the Samyang in really horrible conditions (storm, rain, cold, winter, snow) and it still works like a charm.

Freakish looks: What?? I think the Samyang looks very sexy. You can always glue a red ring if that seems to turn you on

Focus: Canon has autofocus. Samyang does not. But using a UWA lens who even uses autofocus? I would never trust autofocus when making critical focus on landscapes. Even if I had autofocus in my Samyang I would never use it. Focusing this thing is so easy. Set f/8 and the whole scenery is basically in focus. It's almost as easy to focus wide open as well.

Exif: Samyang does not report EXIF. Canon does. If this bothers you, you can get a chip and glue it on the Samyang. It will cost you $10 and it will take ~5 minutes and you are done. I did it and it's not a big deal.

Price:
I just checked the cheapest prices for both lenses where I live. The Samyang is no less than 6.1 times cheaper I guess this is my main dilemma here. For the same price as the Canon you can get the wonderful Nikon 12-24mm f/2.8 or the magnificent Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 T*. I know which lens I would choose instead. But that's just me. An other interesting thing: Canon recently released a patent about Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L mark III. It seems Canon is already working on a replacement for this lens?

So the answer is no, the 14 II is not clearly superior in EVERY respect. But I'm still glad if you are happy with your investment.

Popularity on this and other forums is based solely on being cheap. Every review I've read states the 14L is superior. Please give me a link stating otherwise. I have to give Samyang/Bower/Whatever credit. They saw an opportunity to exploit the bottom feeders and they grabbed it. No competition at that price point. Great marketing strategy. They realized an opportunity by introducing a disposable (cannot be repaired...no service centers...not exactly eco friendly) lens to fill an empty niche. Is it worth $400...(maybe $250 used, if lucky) for an inferior lens? Probably. I hope you enjoy YOUR lens.

Bakewell wrote in post #16442525
Popularity on this and other forums is based solely on being cheap. Every review I've read states the 14L is superior. Please give me a link stating otherwise. I have to give Samyang/Bower/Whatever credit. They saw an opportunity to exploit the bottom feeders and they grabbed it. No competition at that price point. Great marketing strategy. They realized an opportunity by introducing a disposable (cannot be repaired...no service centers...not exactly eco friendly) lens to fill an empty niche. Is it worth $400...for an inferior lens? Probably. I hope you enjoy YOUR lens.

You seem to have an obsession with this disposable-thing. Both warranties work the same way. If the product breaks you send it for repairs. That's it. You get a new product or the old one is repaired. Does not matter if it's Canon or Samyang. It's just that the Samyang offers so much longer warranty it is definately an advantage if you ask me. And where I live neither Samyang nor Canon has a local service center so that's kinda silly argument. It depends where you live.

Superior in what way exactly? IQ is certainly is not the answer here if you ask me. I'm willing to bet 99 % of people are perfectly happy with their Samyang 14mm. It tells us it's a great product with fantastic image quality. Particularly great in astrophotography (it has less CA than then Canon by the way). And so what if it happens to be so cheap? It makes it even more attractive. But so what?

And in my opinion here are all the reviews you need:
https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=6249​11&page=53
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=90927​2&page=183

Both lenses make fantastic images. That's the main thing. I'm still glad if you are happy with your investment. I know I am with mine. Have a nice day