Is it me or is this Rokinon 14mm soft?

I've been having trouble with getting things in focus, I've had this lens for a couple weeks now. I'm beginning to think maybe it's not me. So I setup a boring test. Are my expectations too high? Or is there some trick to this lens I don't know. All pictures are 1/160, 5.6 ISO400 focused with live view x10

ETA: I removed the not so useful pictures. The new ones are added in post 22. It's not terrible, what do you think?

ETA: I removed the not so useful pictures. The new ones are added in post 22. It's not terrible, what do you think?

I can't see you're pics yet. But I had one and HATED it. I was probably the ONLY one on this board who didn't like it so I sold it. I haven't replaced it yet.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17264130
I can't see you're pics yet. But I had one and HATED it. I was probably the ONLY one on this board who didn't like it so I sold it. I haven't replaced it yet.

There is that. Prior to this 28mm on a crop was my shortest I could go and I was rarely shorter than 50mm. Maybe wide angle just isn't my thing.

i'm not sure how it compares to other 14mm...but i don't really see any reason to own this on a crop...there are a ton of crop specific options that go wider, that are all good

DreDaze wrote in post #17264171
i'm not sure how it compares to other 14mm...but i don't really see any reason to own this on a crop...there are a ton of crop specific options that go wider, that are all good

Well, it's cheap and its 2.8. Also if you ever wanted to move to FF you'd be set.

travisvwright wrote in post #17264164
There is that. Prior to this 28mm on a crop was my shortest I could go and I was rarely shorter than 50mm. Maybe wide angle just isn't my thing.

I don't think wide angle has anything to do with it. If its a bad copy its really a PITA.

An underexposed set of shots at higher than base ISO is a horrible way of doing a sharpness test...

You have it on a tripod, so set it to whatever shutter speed is needed to keep you at ISO100 and use a remote release or timer.

Those shots you posted look at least 2 stops under-exposed to me.

I only use LV to focus this lens if I am shooting at or near minimum focus distance AND f/2.8. Most times, I set it to f/8-f/16, focus at 3 to 7 feet, and just leave the lens alone. I walked around campus for an hour and never touched the focus ring. I've had this lens for a week, and love it. Still getting used to it, though.

Edit: Didn't notice you were using a crop. I think the 10-18 would have been a better investment. That lens is right at home on a 6D. But that is neither here, nor there. Take it outside and shoot something. I start at Tv, 1/60, f/8, Auto-ISO and focused at 3'. If I have something close to the lens, I back up focus to 2' and go to f/11 or f/16. If I want to make sure distant is in focus AND nothing close is in the frame, I'll go to focus at 7'.

Indiana University @ South Bend - Franklin Schurz Library, btw. And yes, I missed focus on the hydrant.

These are some horribly inconclusive test shots. Go outside, shoot it at various apertures and try bracketing some shots around the hyperfocal for the given aperture - once you find out if your distance scale is off (and how much it's off by), you won't need to worry so much about focusing. Oh, and make sure that they're properly exposed.

The Samyang gets its rear element handed to itself on a silver platter when put onto APS-C cameras.

Check out the resolution loss in these tests from FF to crop.

http://www.photozone.d​e …myang14f28eosap​sc?start=1

http://www.photozone.d​e …samyang14f28eos​ff?start=1


I am another person who doesn't like the 14mm Sambower. Crazy vignetting wide open, crazy distortion, no AF, no camera aperture control, poor color rendition, etc. It has a good price and is why is has a decent bang for buck considering all else. I just don't see any other option for f2.8 at 14mm on crop and at a decent price though, so it may be the only lens to fit that bill.

WhyFi wrote in post #17264295
These are some horribly inconclusive test shots. Go outside, shoot it at various apertures and try bracketing some shots around the hyperfocal for the given aperture - once you find out if your distance scale is off (and how much it's off by), you won't need to worry so much about focusing. Oh, and make sure that they're properly exposed.

yup, these are really bad test shots. need to shoot at iso 100, and as whyfi suggested, do it somewhere outside, under good lighting. personally I like to use AF under 10x zoom--the computer is usually a tad better than you can be at micro focusing.

that said, op, this lens has HORRIFIC quality control issues. 1/2 of them are decentered (exaggerating but might actually be true). I personally bought 3 copies, and 2 were extremely decentered to the degree that you can clearly see 1/2 the image is blurry without even zooming in. others complain that the various rings have quite a bit of play. etc. I wouldn't be surprised if your lens is bad.

I would never buy this lens used unless the seller personally guarantees that I can return it if I find problems.

but yeah, on my 5d, the 3rd copy, the only good copy, is extremely sharp, especially in the center. each copy was purchased at a different store (buydig, adorama, bh) so it wasn't a bad batch or anything--probably a systematic problem.

and as others have said, don't use this lens for crop. there are much better choices out there like canon's 10-18 or 10-22.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17264130
I can't see you're pics yet. But I had one and HATED it. I was probably the ONLY one on this board who didn't like it so I sold it. I haven't replaced it yet.

I sent mine back too. Super soft and I could never hit focus with it no matter what I did. Just wasn't worth it to keep it in my bag. The only piece of camera gear I've ever bought and returned.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17264218
An underexposed set of shots at higher than base ISO is a horrible way of doing a sharpness test...

You have it on a tripod, so set it to whatever shutter speed is needed to keep you at ISO100 and use a remote release or timer.

Those shots you posted look at least 2 stops under-exposed to me.

WhyFi wrote in post #17264295
These are some horribly inconclusive test shots. Go outside, shoot it at various apertures and try bracketing some shots around the hyperfocal for the given aperture - once you find out if your distance scale is off (and how much it's off by), you won't need to worry so much about focusing. Oh, and make sure that they're properly exposed.

In my experience with that lens exposure was one of the things that was a complete crap shoot. The light meter in the camera didn't coincide AT ALL with the results of the shots. I literally was shooting blind most of the time. The lens was a total PITA.

Some pretty hefty copy variation on these lenses... I have been through four of five of them now. My first was by far the best... It was a "Bell + Howell" branded one and it was by far the sharpest and most impressive copy I had used. Owned it for two years or more and regretfully sold it for some stupid reason.

When I went to buy another, it was soft at f/2.8 so I exchanged it... The replacement was decentered so I gave up.

A year after that or so, I tried again. First copy was quite bad, not really sharp anywhere. Replacement copy better, but had a focus ring slip issue. Gave up again.

I would love to find another great copy of this lens, but no luck so far... I miss my original Bell and Howell When you find a great copy of this lens, the performance is unmatched. The color rendering is a bit weird (very cool color cast, always had to adjust WB) but the sharpness was unreal along with lack of CA. I used to set it at 1m and f/8 and never focus on anything. Sharp front to back.