Samyang Introduces 10mm 2.8 ASPC wide angle lens!

It was announced a while ago. Glad to see there is finally a release date, now if only we knew the price!!

Talley wrote in post #16769916
If it wasn't for the expensive glass I'd move over to the Fujifilm XT1 and have this 10mm

What expensive glass? All Fujinon fast primes seem very reasonably priced to me.

speedync wrote in post #16772106
What expensive glass? All Fujinon fast primes seem very reasonably priced to me.

56mm 1.2 = 999
16-50 2.8 has not been released I expect that to be $
40-140 has not been released I expect that to be $

I think their 35mm or was it their 23mm was like 799 or something.

If I were to switch to mirrorless it would be to save alot on weight and a crap load of money. Not worth it to me if I don't save money on glass.

Talley wrote in post #16772270
56mm 1.2 = 999
16-50 2.8 has not been released I expect that to be $
40-140 has not been released I expect that to be $

I think their 35mm or was it their 23mm was like 799 or something.

If I were to switch to mirrorless it would be to save alot on weight and a crap load of money. Not worth it to me if I don't save money on glass.

You won't save a lot on either with mirrorless unless you make a big step down in quality. You can save some on weight in the body, and maybe a (very) little in weight on the glass because of the lack of a mirror and the resulting shorter back focus requirements, especially with wide lenses (not so much on the long end). You can save more on the glass if you choose a system with a smaller sensor like M4/3, but the size (and therefore weight) of the lens is driven primarily by the size of the sensor it has to illuminate.

And the cost is driven primarily by the size and quality of the lens.

Talley wrote in post #16772270
56mm 1.2 = 999
16-50 2.8 has not been released I expect that to be $
40-140 has not been released I expect that to be $

I think their 35mm or was it their 23mm was like 799 or something.

If I were to switch to mirrorless it would be to save alot on weight and a crap load of money. Not worth it to me if I don't save money on glass.

Not really a good example there Talley. The Canon equivalent of the 56 1.2 costs $2250 roughly. The 35 1.4 equivalent of the 23 costs just over $1600. I could go on. If that's not saving heaps of money, I don't know what is. I think some people are just negative and like whinging

Wasn't this thread about the soon to be released 10mm f2.8?

Here's hoping in comes in at a good price with good IQ, low distortion, and good flare control! If it does I might be selling my 11-16 soon as I usually just use the wide end.

speedync wrote in post #16773334
Not really a good example there Talley. The Canon equivalent of the 56 1.2 costs $2250 roughly. The 35 1.4 equivalent of the 23 costs just over $1600. I could go on. If that's not saving heaps of money, I don't know what is. I think some people are just negative and like whinging

I have 3rd party glass now... your comparing to L glass. The X lenses are not L lenses. There is a difference. For me to move from the 6D, 35, 85, 24-70, 70-200, 8mm, 14mm and switch to the XT1, 8mm, the new 10mm, the not released 16-50, not released 40-140, 23mm, 56mm I would be swapping the same amount of money out for the same stuff and what do I gain? a crop camera with JPEG only higher ISO. I wouldn't do it. Now if the glass wasn't so bad then I'd consider it. I need to research it some more and check the weights.

gremlin75 wrote in post #16773355
Wasn't this thread about the soon to be released 10mm f2.8?

Here's hoping in comes in at a good price with good IQ, low distortion, and good flare control! If it does I might be selling my 11-16 soon as I usually just use the wide end.

Yes the new 10mm from samyang is a nice announcment. This means on the XT1 you get a 15mm 2.8 and thats very close to my 14mm now. AND you can get the 8mm fisheye too. So those two cover my wide end very well.

Talley wrote in post #16773480
I have 3rd party glass now... your comparing to L glass. The X lenses are not L lenses. There is a difference. For me to move from the 6D, 35, 85, 24-70, 70-200, 8mm, 14mm and switch to the XT1, 8mm, the new 10mm, the not released 16-50, not released 40-140, 23mm, 56mm I would be swapping the same amount of money out for the same stuff and what do I gain? a crop camera with JPEG only higher ISO. I wouldn't do it. Now if the glass wasn't so bad then I'd consider it. I need to research it some more and check the weights.
l.

Oh, I see. It's all about the red rings, rather than the capability of the lens itself. Carry on

Talley wrote in post #16773480
I have 3rd party glass now... your comparing to L glass. The X lenses are not L lenses. There is a difference. For me to move from the 6D, 35, 85, 24-70, 70-200, 8mm, 14mm and switch to the XT1, 8mm, the new 10mm, the not released 16-50, not released 40-140, 23mm, 56mm I would be swapping the same amount of money out for the same stuff and what do I gain? a crop camera with JPEG only higher ISO. I wouldn't do it. Now if the glass wasn't so bad then I'd consider it. I need to research it some more and check the weights.

You're right, they're not the same as L lenses, in many cases they're better.

BTW, my XF 18-55mm is considerably better than my 24-105L was, don't regret the trade for a moment.

speedync wrote in post #16773530
Oh, I see. It's all about the red rings, rather than the capability of the lens itself. Carry on

Yeah, really no sense arguing. I love how so many people make the assumption that because Fuji cameras are mirrorless they can't ever compare to "pro" gear

speedync wrote in post #16773334
Not really a good example there Talley. The Canon equivalent of the 56 1.2 costs $2250 roughly. The 35 1.4 equivalent of the 23 costs just over $1600. I could go on. If that's not saving heaps of money, I don't know what is. I think some people are just negative and like whinging

But this comparison is even "more" wrong. As Archer1960 totally correctly noted, price/weight of lenses is driven by the sensor size. The reason Canon's 50mm f1.2 is so heavy and expensive is primarily because it is designed for FF sensor. The proper equivalent of Fujinon's 56mm f1.2 would be a FF 84mm f1.8 lens, which does exist and is lighter and much cheaper than 50L.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16775116
You're right, they're not the same as L lenses, in many cases they're better.

BTW, my XF 18-55mm is considerably better than my 24-105L was, don't regret the trade for a moment.

Yeah, really no sense arguing. I love how so many people make the assumption that because Fuji cameras are mirrorless they can't ever compare to "pro" gear

speedync wrote in post #16773530
Oh, I see. It's all about the red rings, rather than the capability of the lens itself. Carry on

Well hmm. I wasn't trying to start a war or nothing and I never said they weren't capable lenses and/or not pro.

Hate to get back to a discussion on the lens that this thread was started for but......

So look like the price is $529. Also I can't tell from the pictures but is the hood removable? If its not then that would mean an expensive filter holder! No thank you! Looks like I'll be sticking with the tokina 11-16.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16775230
But this comparison is even "more" wrong. As Archer1960 totally correctly noted, price/weight of lenses is driven by the sensor size. The reason Canon's 50mm f1.2 is so heavy and expensive is primarily because it is designed for FF sensor. The proper equivalent of Fujinon's 56mm f1.2 would be a FF 84mm f1.8 lens, which does exist and is lighter and much cheaper than 50L.

Except again, not really. More light is more light, for the sake of exposure f1.2 is still faster than f1.8 and the 56mm is just as sharp at f1.2 (if not sharper) than the 85/1.8 is with less CA, better colors, more contrast and less vignetting. There's more to a lens than the DOF it creates, the fact that you can get an amazingly performing 56mm f1.2 for $999 is awesome and most certainly not over priced.

gremlin75 wrote in post #16775354
Hate to get back to a discussion on the lens that this thread was started for but......

So look like the price is $529. Also I can't tell from the pictures but is the hood removable? If its not then that would mean an expensive filter holder! No thank you! Looks like I'll be sticking with the tokina 11-16.

like the 14, it's probably not removable.... HDR is my workaround, which gets me 95% there.

Charlie wrote in post #16775777
like the 14, it's probably not removable.... HDR is my workaround, which gets me 95% there.

HDR is great, unless of course you need a CPL or solid ND filters (which are the two type of filters I use)