Is it me or is this Rokinon 14mm soft?

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17264681
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.

I'm sure that you're not going to like hearing this, but this sounds like user error. While I haven't used this particular lens, I've used a ton fully manual lenses and a ton of WA/UWAs.

UWAs take is a huge swath of scenery and, as such, are more likely to take in a big dynamic range. In addition, that big FoV means that, depending on your metering method, you may have a harder time metering on whatever it is that you want to meter on. Because of both of these reasons, it's usually a good idea to chimp the histogram frequently to make sure that you're in the right neighborhood.

When it comes to fully manual lenses (although this really only concerns aperture control), the best course of action is to, again, confirm with the histogram frequently. You've really only got two metering modes available to you - fully manual and Av. If you're someone that normally shoots in M, you're going to be checking the exposure frequently, anyway, so I suspect that you were having your problems in Av. The problem is that the internal light meters become notoriously unreliable at smaller absolute apertures (remember that at 14mm, f/2.8, we're talking about an opening of only 5mm and it [obviously] only gets smaller and less reliable as you stop down).

So while I can appreciate that both of these factors combined can make it much more tricky to nail your exposure, at the end of the day, the onus, and the blame, is on the user.

I appreciate your thoughts. But I can honestly say you're wrong. The lens failed on many levels. I know how to meter and I know how to shoot wide scenes. I shoot manual 99.9% of the time. But this isn't about me. I was just saying to those who were poo-pooing the OPs shots as being under exposed that the lens is not exactly cooperative when trying to get a good reading....even when metering on simple scenes with limited DR.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17264840
I appreciate your thoughts. But I can honestly say you're wrong. The lens failed on many levels. I know how to meter and I know how to shoot wide scenes. I shoot manual 99.9% of the time. But this isn't about me. I was just saying to those who were poo-pooing the OPs shots as being under exposed that the lens is not exactly cooperative when trying to get a good reading....even when metering on simple scenes with limited DR.

Of course it's not about you - it's about the OP knowing whether or not s/he's getting the most out of the lens. As such, if a) you're going to make the waters more murky by introducing a "this lens just sucks," variable, and b) I think that you're likely wrong, I'm going to point it out for the benefit of the OP and anyone else in her/his situation. Apologies of you feel set upon, but it's not intentional and, as you say, it' not about you.

Again - I acknowledge that there are very good reasons why this particular lens could be a confluence of metering difficulties, but at the end of the day, I don't believe that anyone familiar with those challenges would equate them to "shooting blind," and they would know that double-checking exposure and adjusting is par for the course.

On the metering, (yeah they suck sorry with the DST change I don't get home till after dark, and I wanted to test at 5.6 as that's the sharpest AV for this lens), I chose 160 to eliminate camera shake before I put it on the tripod, then ISO400 is normally imperceptible noise on the 70D.

I put my flash in ETTL expecting that to give me a proper exposure, but it looks like the zoom on the flash was off. The 70D has a known issue with flash exposure, (though I think it's supposed to be bounced only) and the nature of this lens could also throw off the ETTL. I'll get better shots today and post them.

Yeah, point that flash up this time

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17264840
I appreciate your thoughts. But I can honestly say you're wrong. The lens failed on many levels. I know how to meter and I know how to shoot wide scenes. I shoot manual 99.9% of the time. But this isn't about me. I was just saying to those who were poo-pooing the OPs shots as being under exposed that the lens is not exactly cooperative when trying to get a good reading....even when metering on simple scenes with limited DR.

Even if it is throwing off the meter, it ain't exactly like he's shooting in film... if the exposure is wrong, take another shot.

Ok I'm thinking that all of my soft shots are my fault.

It's bumped.

I spent many hours testing my Rok 14.

Mine focuses sharpest at 2/3rds PAST the infinity line, --when-- I turn the focus ring from closest focus, to infinity. It is then fantastically sharp from about 15 feet, all the way to astro. This is wide-open at f2.8.

If I go from the hard-stop past infinity, backwards toward closer focus, I need to go back to about where 15 feet would be (there's no marks on the distance scale between 10 feet and infinity). BUT-it's not as sharp going in this focus direction as it is from close-focus to infinity.

There is also some 'slop' in the focus mechanism, so I cannot move the focus ring back-and-forth a millimeter at a time. I MUST go back to near-closest-focus, and then out to infinity+.

I purchased a fantastic-sharp 24-70ii 6 months ago. This lens is just as good, and no coma on the stars!

Hrm,

It does look off to me. It should be wicked sharp at F8. And you don't need to focus at all. Just turn it to something close to hyperfocal, and use depth of field from aperture to capture everything in focus.

It's sharp enough, for basic stuff, but I think it should be sharper than that. At least, more defined.

Granted, if you pixel peep things done on an ultrawide, you will quickly think it's not sharp. Pixel peeing is terrible on ultrawides in general.

For reference, look at the tree limbs. I would expect them to be sharper than that.

Example of tiny bits of foliage, sharp, on an ultrawide (pixel peeping its a mess like all ultrawide images), at F8.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/p9Yt​9B

it's a tricky lens, even at F8, I would get corner smearing, but if you completely ignore the focus scale and use live view, you should be able to get good results. I have 2 adapters with different flange distances that I use on this lens. it can get really blistering sharp results, but careful of the corner smearing, it can happen due to field curvature/DOF.

I could say that every single part of this image is really sharp, even when viewing the full 1:1 36mpx:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pxNk​ak

Charlie wrote in post #17266638
it's a tricky lens, even at F8, I would get corner smearing, but if you completely ignore the focus scale and use live view, you should be able to get good results. I have 2 adapters with different flange distances that I use on this lens. it can get really blistering sharp results, but careful of the corner smearing, it can happen due to field curvature/DOF.

I could say that every single part of this image is really sharp, even when viewing the full 1:1 36mpx:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pxNk​ak Cabrillo Pier 2 by charlie617, on Flickr

Beautiful capture!

skid00skid00 wrote in post #17266513
I spent many hours testing my Rok 14.

Mine focuses sharpest at 2/3rds PAST the infinity line, --when-- I turn the focus ring from closest focus, to infinity. It is then fantastically sharp from about 15 feet, all the way to astro. This is wide-open at f2.8.

If I go from the hard-stop past infinity, backwards toward closer focus, I need to go back to about where 15 feet would be (there's no marks on the distance scale between 10 feet and infinity). BUT-it's not as sharp going in this focus direction as it is from close-focus to infinity.

There is also some 'slop' in the focus mechanism, so I cannot move the focus ring back-and-forth a millimeter at a time. I MUST go back to near-closest-focus, and then out to infinity+.

I purchased a fantastic-sharp 24-70ii 6 months ago. This lens is just as good, and no coma on the stars!

Oh is that all it takes?

Methinks folks are over-complicating this lens. Unless your subject less than 2 feet from the lens AND you are shooting at f/2.8, there is no reason on God's Green Earth to focus it, ever. (OK, astrophoto is a big exception; infinity has to work there.) Set this lens at 3' and f/11 and everything from 18 inches to Denver will be in focus. If you have to go to f/5.6, focus at 5 or 6 feet and everything form 3 feet to Albuquerque will look just fine. Focusing this lens past 6 feet, when NOT shooting astro, is wasting potential. I spent over an hour with this lens and never touched the focus ring. I got about 20 shots of everything from flower beds at 2' to lanscapes half a mile deep. For 95% of what I will ever do with this lens, 3' focus and f/8 is all I need.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17267060
Methinks folks are over-complicating this lens. Unless your subject less than 2 feet from the lens AND you are shooting at f/2.8, there is no reason on God's Green Earth to focus it, ever. (OK, astrophoto is a big exception; infinity has to work there.) Set this lens at 3' and f/11 and everything from 18 inches to Denver will be in focus. If you have to go to f/5.6, focus at 5 or 6 feet and everything form 3 feet to Albuquerque will look just fine. Focusing this lens past 6 feet, when NOT shooting astro, is wasting potential. I spent over an hour with this lens and never touched the focus ring. I got about 20 shots of everything from flower beds at 2' to lanscapes half a mile deep. For 95% of what I will ever do with this lens, 3' focus and f/8 is all I need.

If this is the case then mine is for sure bad. It does not work that way.