- Ptlens samyang 14mm profile full#
- Ptlens samyang 14mm profile software#
- Ptlens samyang 14mm profile free#
With shots like these I may not replace it with the same lens as I find that for at least landscape shooting, the Samyang 14mm is a much nicer choice. Sadly, in the time that I took these shots, my 16-35 was stolen from me and I need to get it replaced.
Ptlens samyang 14mm profile software#
Those interior shooters will appreciate the wider field of view and can use software to correct for perspective control, giving you a very inexpensive Tilt-Shift solution. For landscape photographers who like to shoot ultra wide, the extra 2mm is a great boon for you. However when it comes to image quality, the Samyang wins over the Canon L, by a reasonable bit (specifically the edge to edge performance). One lens is really suited for a specific task (Samyang), while the other is designed for more versatility.
The sharpness is lost and the CA is pretty bad, even at F/11.Ĭonclusions: Well it's not a really fair comparison. The crops show where the zoom really falls weak in comparison to the prime 14mm. Again this can be corrected in Lightroom, but it cannot correct for the other weaknesses in the lens like sharpness (This is where DxO Optics really makes the 16-35 better and unfortunately does not support the Samyang). But on the 16-35, the amount of edge distortion and CA is really apparent.
Ptlens samyang 14mm profile full#
You'll have to click on the images to see the full sized effects. Below is 100% crops of the images which show the apparent weaknesses of the 16-35 II:Ĭanon 16-35mm (I uploaded the wrong crop previously, this is now correct and the differences are really obvious now) The Canon is slightly better in that department but not easily spotted.īut here's where the real differences come in. Both display's a degree of moustache distortion which is easily corrected in Lightroom. Distortion generally speaking is pretty similar across the board.
This helps demonstrates what the extra 2mm does to the image. I regretfully did not keep it when I moved from crop to full frame.īoth of these images were shot at F/8 and on a Tripod. I don't own this lens anymore but certainly of the zoom type UWA's, it had the least amount of distortion. Sigma 12-24 is also another zoom to consider.
Ptlens samyang 14mm profile free#
Lightroom corrects both lenses very well, but in my long time search for the perfect UWA lens, I even bought a Nikon 14-24 to try to get distortion free UWA, but it's sharpness was still something that the 16-35II beat it especially in the center (The 14-24 definitely wins points edge to edge). However the very nature of all Ultra Wide Angle lenses do tend to fall victim to a very unique and hard to correct type of barrel distortion called moustache distortion. Landscape shots are really going to benefit with this lens, but interior shots will also benefit. So why compare? Beyond pixel peeping the versatility of the 16-35 does show it's value, but just for field of view and edge to edge image quality, there is a compelling reason to go with the much cheaper prime. One is automatic focus and diaphragm, while the other isn't. One lens costs $400 USD, while the other is somewhere around $1600 USD. Both lenses are Ultra-wide angle lenses and both are F/2.8 maximum aperture. So first things off, is it fair to compare a 14mm prime to a 16-35mm zoom. Hi, I'm mostly back, and have some time to post up the requested comparison of the Samyang 14mm F/2.8 lens to something like the Canon EF 16-36L f/2.8 II on my 5DmkII.
0 kommentar(er)
