Jump to content


Photo

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Samyang 14mm f/2.8


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Abobakr Mohammed

Abobakr Mohammed
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:21 PM

here are my two choices;Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (the Samyang is also sold into other different names, ROKINON, BOWER..)

Okay, I am a little lost between those two wide lenses.. I can't decide which one to go for!

What I am looking for is your advice on these two lenses in terms of sharpness, distortion, and image quality for video. I'll be using them mainly on a canon 7D and or the Sony FS100.

What I love about the Samyang 14mm is that it is a fully manual lens! But again I'm mostly concerned abou the image quality when shooting video!!

Thanks in advance
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5942 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:08 PM

Never heard of the Samyang, but after reading this I'd avoid:

http://www.kenrockwe...ng/14mm-f28.htm

The Tonika gets a lot of good reviews; but I hate those "auto" type lenses anymore.
  • 0

#3 Abobakr Mohammed

Abobakr Mohammed
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:28 PM

Never heard of the Samyang, but after reading this I'd avoid:

http://www.kenrockwe...ng/14mm-f28.htm

The Tonika gets a lot of good reviews; but I hate those "auto" type lenses anymore.




thanks for the link.. it is very helpful, I am reading it now
  • 0

#4 Abobakr Mohammed

Abobakr Mohammed
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 24 January 2012 - 02:59 AM

Based on the two reviews of both lenses from photozone.de I guess I'll stick with Tokina though I quietly dislike it being an auto lens.. but heck, I am more concerned about the quietly of the image. The Tokina's handling of distortion is quite impressive compared to the samyang.. though its downside in the Chromatic Aberrations, but I guess I'll have to handle it in post. I don't wanna rush it for the Tokina but I'm hopping someone experienced with both lenses in video shootings can share his opinion here with me.


Review of the Tokina 11-16mm
http://www.photozone...a_1116_28_canon


Review of the Samyang 14mm
http://www.photozone...myang14f28eosff

Edited by Abobakr Mohammed, 24 January 2012 - 03:00 AM.

  • 0

#5 M Joel W

M Joel W
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Student

Posted 24 January 2012 - 03:53 AM

I'm likely trying an 11-16mm zoom soon and will probably buy it. I haven't tried the Samyang but I'll tell you how the Tokina compares with the 14mm f2.8 L on the 5D (which is wonderful--the lack of distortion is remarkable). My guess is that the Tokina is probably the right choice for APS-C. It's also much wider than the 14mm on a crop body. And much less wide than the 14mm on a 36X24mm body. The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is kind of useable for video, even if I wished it had different ergonomics, and pulling focus is less horrible with ultra wides, so I'm not that worried about ergonomics.

Edited by M Joel Wauhkonen, 24 January 2012 - 03:56 AM.

  • 0

#6 Abobakr Mohammed

Abobakr Mohammed
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:41 AM

1327395238[/url]' post='365063']
I'm likely trying an 11-16mm zoom soon and will probably buy it. I haven't tried the Samyang but I'll tell you how the Tokina compares with the 14mm f2.8 L on the 5D (which is wonderful--the lack of distortion is remarkable). My guess is that the Tokina is probably the right choice for APS-C. It's also much wider than the 14mm on a crop body. And much less wide than the 14mm on a 36X24mm body. The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is kind of useable for video, even if I wished it had different ergonomics, and pulling focus is less horrible with ultra wides, so I'm not that worried about ergonomics.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts.. I guess I'll go with Tokina
  • 0

#7 Jonas Fischer

Jonas Fischer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 24 January 2012 - 08:57 AM

I've had quite pleasing results with the 14mm. I shot a short film on the 7D and used it rarely, but the images it produced were just fine, not outstanding but adequate for the price. Not too heavy distortion and vignetting (given an APS-C sensor).

Have a look at the attached framegrab from the film.
I can definately recommend it for Video.

Jonas


vlcsnap-2012-01-24-13h59m23s81.jpg
  • 0

#8 Abobakr Mohammed

Abobakr Mohammed
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 24 January 2012 - 09:21 PM

1327413433[/url]' post='365076']
I've had quite pleasing results with the 14mm. I shot a short film on the 7D and used it rarely, but the images it produced were just fine, not outstanding but adequate for the price. Not too heavy distortion and vignetting (given an APS-C sensor).

Have a look at the attached framegrab from the film.
I can definately recommend it for Video.

Jonas


Thanks Jonas.. I am glad someone with a Samyang here.
I like the Samyang being a manual lens. and from photozone.de review the lens is good specially on the Chromatic Abberration. But its only downside the massive amount of mustach distortion. When you are shooting video, specially on straight Lines like when it facing buildings and so, is it a really obvious!? I read somewhere that the lens were withdrawal from the market when they were first released, to enhance the lens. I don't know if the reviews based on the first edition before the enhancement or the second.
  • 0

#9 M Joel W

M Joel W
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Student

Posted 27 January 2012 - 06:07 PM

Just got a Tokina 11-16mm. It's okay but like many lenses seems overpriced for what it does. Good contrast wide open and more than sharp enough for video at f2.8, flares a bit more than most lenses but the flares are pretty aesthetic. Bokeh is fine. Build quality is quite good. Distortion seems minor, but linear perspective distortion is dramatic with an ultra-wide and kind of hides it. The focus ring is smooth and has hard stops and a throw of about 90º, which is sufficient for a lens this wide, imo. But I don't mind AF lenses so long as they have an okay throw; if you do, well, this is one...

So far so good, but... It's not nearly as wide as a 14mm lens on full frame. Not even the same feeling. The chromatic aberration is really out of control, not that this will matter that often, but it's true even stopped down. Even the venerable 17-55mm IS has bad CA, so it could be worse, but should be a lot better. You won't see it in video that often is my guess, but it's pretty bad. The zoom range feels almost pointless. There's a difference between 11mm and 16mm for sure, but if you're going for ultra wide why would you zoom in to slightly less ultra wide?

It's good, but not great. My guess is the second generation model, coming in the next few months, will correct for some of these shortcomings. Pretty useful, though, really a dynamic focal length at 11mm.

Edited by M Joel Wauhkonen, 27 January 2012 - 06:08 PM.

  • 0

#10 Abobakr Mohammed

Abobakr Mohammed
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 28 January 2012 - 09:18 AM

1327705675[/url]' post='365288']
Just got a Tokina 11-16mm. It's okay but like many lenses seems overpriced for what it does. Good contrast wide open and more than sharp enough for video at f2.8, flares a bit more than most lenses but the flares are pretty aesthetic. Bokeh is fine. Build quality is quite good. Distortion seems minor, but linear perspective distortion is dramatic with an ultra-wide and kind of hides it. The focus ring is smooth and has hard stops and a throw of about 90ยบ, which is sufficient for a lens this wide, imo. But I don't mind AF lenses so long as they have an okay throw; if you do, well, this is one...

So far so good, but... It's not nearly as wide as a 14mm lens on full frame. Not even the same feeling. The chromatic aberration is really out of control, not that this will matter that often, but it's true even stopped down. Even the venerable 17-55mm IS has bad CA, so it could be worse, but should be a lot better. You won't see it in video that often is my guess, but it's pretty bad. The zoom range feels almost pointless. There's a difference between 11mm and 16mm for sure, but if you're going for ultra wide why would you zoom in to slightly less ultra wide?

It's good, but not great. My guess is the second generation model, coming in the next few months, will correct for some of these shortcomings. Pretty useful, though, really a dynamic focal length at 11mm.


Thank you my friend. I really needed to hear something like this.. since I am gonna be using this lens crop bodies, this Tokina first generation seems to be my only choice. I didn't know about a second generation. I had look online and it seems a good one, but I think they will be running out of stock when they are first released and I can't wait that long.
  • 0

#11 M Joel W

M Joel W
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Student

Posted 28 January 2012 - 08:37 PM

I had look online and it seems a good one, but I think they will be running out of stock when they are first released and I can't wait that long.


That's why I decided to go with the first generation--no use waiting when I'll have a few projects to shoot with it before the new one is released.

The CA really isn't that bad, just worse than I'd like and hard to avoid. For stills it's a problem but you can fix it if you shoot raw. For video it hasn't been a big issue so far, but it will show up in high contrast areas. The new revision should hopefully fix this, but don't think of it as a deal breaker.

The lens flares are more prominent than average, but they're very pretty looking. For landscapes this is irritating, for music videos and action movies I like it a lot.

I also forgot to mention that the minimum focusing distance is a bit long for an ultra wide. This is a very dynamic focal length range for macro style work and Michael Bay style inserts but you can't do that with the lens. The front element is quite small given the 77mm (I think) threads so you can probably use filters on it, though, which is convenient!

I recommend it, but also would recommend considering the 10-22mm Canon, which has less CA, is considerably wider, and is only half a stop slower at wide angle. Haven't used it, but I've heard great things. Or just rent!
  • 0

#12 Abobakr Mohammed

Abobakr Mohammed
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Student

Posted 03 February 2012 - 12:58 AM

1327801069[/url]' post='365351']
That's why I decided to go with the first generation--no use waiting when I'll have a few projects to shoot with it before the new one is released.


I had really took long thought about it. and your thoughts gave me a great insight. I bought it yesterday. I agree with all what you said about the lens. Thanks for your cooperation, it really did me a lot when considering buying this lens. so far I'm happy with it, though it was a quite pricey!!
  • 0






K5600 Lighting

Zylight

Visual Products

Cool Lights

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Pro 8mm

Lemo Connectors

Glidecam

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

CineLab

Cinelicious

Aerial Filmworks

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

System Associates

rebotnix Technologies

Robert Starling

CineLab

Visual Products

Lemo Connectors

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Glidecam

K5600 Lighting

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Pro 8mm

Zylight

The Slider

Robert Starling

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

System Associates

Cinelicious

Aerial Filmworks

Cool Lights