Samyang 14mm vs 24mm (astro rtf)

T

Thats my sock

Messages
456
Name
steve
Edit My Images
Yes
For the likes of shooting the milky way, what lens would be preferential?

Both samyang 1 is 14mm 2.8 the other 24mm 1.4

Thanks
 
14mm 2.8 is a brilliant lens

What body you shooting with?
 
Last edited:
I have used a 14mm f/2.8 to good effect for stars and the Aurora Borealis (but resorted to an 8mm fisheye when the 14mm wasn't wide enough even on FF...) Most up-to-date FF bodies (and crops) can handle high ISOs very well WRT noise handling so lens speed is less important than it was a couple of years ago.
The 14mm I have is a Tamron one which is AF and auto aperture (the Samyang is auto aperture on Nikons IIRC but fully manual on other brands.)
 
I bought the 14mm for precisely that purpose on a FF. is it good? It depends on your benchmark. It has very weird distortion that makes a straight horizon bend and bow in a random wavy line. It's sharpness wide open falls off markedly from the centre of the frame. It can be straightened out in post but you need to know PS and "puppet warp" well (or other methods) is the kink and wobble is not uniform. Not much can be done about the distortion and sharpness of the stars sadly.

For less than £300 it's a good lens but compared to my other glass it's awful!
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I bought the 14mm for precisely that purpose on a FF. is it good? It depends on your benchmark. It has very weird distortion that makes a straight horizon bend and bow in a random wavy line. It's sharpness wide open falls off markedly from the centre of the frame. It can be straightened out in post but you need to know PS and "puppet warp" well (or other methods) is the kink and wobble is not uniform. Not much can be done about the distortion and sharpness of the stars sadly.

For less than £300 it's a good lens but compared to my other glass it's awful!
Click to expand...

The reported "moustache" distortion was what made me look for an alternative to the Samyang. TBH, I didn't even know that Tamron had made a 14mm f/2.8 until a mate pointed me at Ffodes's website listing for it.

My favourite shot from it (so far!) is below and has a few stars in it... Wide open and about a minute exposure.

079079 by gpn63, on Flickr
 
There are a number of lens profiles that can be used to correct the distortion on the samyang to a very decent level and wide open it's sharper across the frame than the canon L equivalent.

For the money the samyang is a fantastic astro lens I loved using it for the northern lights and would have kept it but i don't shoot enough astro to justify a dedicated lens and it was far to wide for landscapes in my book.
 
a1ex2001 said:
There are a number of lens profiles that can be used to correct the distortion on the samyang to a very decent level and wide open it's sharper across the frame than the canon L equivalent.

For the money the samyang is a fantastic astro lens I loved using it for the northern lights and would have kept it but i don't shoot enough astro to justify a dedicated lens and it was far to wide for landscapes in my book.
Click to expand...
Really? Wow...I must have the crappest copy known to man then, oh and a friend (who also owns the same lens) whose files look identical to mine.

Maybe you could also link the distortion correction profiles for me as I couldn't find anything decent at all, they were all rubbish. Unless of course our definition of "to a very decent level" differs somewhat!

As I said, for the money its fine but thats about it.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I bought the 14mm for precisely that purpose on a FF. is it good? It depends on your benchmark. It has very weird distortion that makes a straight horizon bend and bow in a random wavy line. It's sharpness wide open falls off markedly from the centre of the frame. It can be straightened out in post but you need to know PS and "puppet warp" well (or other methods) is the kink and wobble is not uniform. Not much can be done about the distortion and sharpness of the stars sadly.

For less than £300 it's a good lens but compared to my other glass it's awful!
Click to expand...

Indeed it is very wavy but you can sort it with a single click in ACR or LR. You just need to download a profile.

Sharpness should stay very reasonable all the way unless focus is off. (you can't trust factory calibration on these, but it only takes lifting some rubber and selotape for a fix).

The corners have some nasty colour cast. It can be masked in post with a few simple steps, or even cropped out. It will never be a problem for astro. I think even vignette could be left alone, as you just don't want ultra noisy corners if you fix it.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Really? Wow...I must have the crappest copy known to man then, oh and a friend (who also owns the same lens) whose files look identical to mine.

Maybe you could also link the distortion correction profiles for me as I couldn't find anything decent at all, they were all rubbish. Unless of course our definition of "to a very decent level" differs somewhat!

As I said, for the money its fine but thats about it.
Click to expand...
Either our expectations are very different or your copy is garbage/ the focus is badly off.

http://stormandsky.com/lens14mm

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=1

Like for like wide open for sharpness across the frame it is better than the canon L check out the photozone review above! for me the distortion can be corrected to a perfectly acceptable level with a single click and unless your photographing something where straight lines are critical architecture etc it can often be ignored. Obviously your mileage may vary but every review (except oddly Ken Rockwells who thought it was rubbish but that is probably a recommendation!) I've ever read has this lens as not just good for the money but just simply good for any money!
 
daugirdas said:
Indeed it is very wavy but you can sort it with a single click in ACR or LR. You just need to download a profile.

Sharpness should stay very reasonable all the way unless focus is off. (you can't trust factory calibration on these, but it only takes lifting some rubber and selotape for a fix).

The corners have some nasty colour cast. It can be masked in post with a few simple steps, or even cropped out. It will never be a problem for astro. I think even vignette could be left alone, as you just don't want ultra noisy corners if you fix it.
Click to expand...
Well, I have a profile (only one I could find) and I added and one clicked and it's awful. Straightens a horizon? Well, makes it better but still needs plenty of work. The vignette correction is a joke! The lens shoots with a massive vignette wide open. The correction way over brightens the corners. Cropping each corner in post kinda makes buying a 14mm kinda pointless doesn't it?

Well aware the focus may be out but I never rely on markings on any lens, just test and then know/mark where infinity is wide open. At 2.8, the drop off from centre (sharpness) is severe, as is the distortion. Anything straight edged needs plenty of post work to straighten if not central to the shot and is tricky due to the odd distortion (Not that surprising given its a WA and cheap and even after the wonderful one click profile).

Pin point stars in the centre turn to quite long streaks towards the edges and forget any pano ambitions (although it may be better to shoot a longer lens anyway if doing that)

If I paid the price for a Canon 14mm I I L and it was as bad as the Samyang I would def return for my money back. I may have a bad copy as said although I doubt it.

I checked the reviews before buying and was impressed. The real world however didn't live up to the reviews. I haven't owned the canon so can't compare although the 17mm tse and the 8-15mm fisheye are amazing but very diff lenses.
 
View attachment 40768

Well this was f5.6 at ISO 640 and 30 seconds.....

Perhaps you got a bad one....
 
Mark twiglet said:
View attachment 40768

Well this was f5.6 at ISO 640 and 30 seconds.....

Perhaps you got a bad one....
Click to expand...
Or maybe our standards differ. Look at the left hand side stars. Pinpoint huh? Compare those stars to the middle ones. You expect some distortion at 14mm but... TBH it doesn't look that sharp anyway to me but hard to tell as its so small. The stars 'streak' in many different directions as well. Look at the top left hand side and then middle frame on the right, then top right, look at the streak angles.

Oh and this is at f5.6, I think I've repeatedly said at f2.8 because op wants to shoot night-scapes but maybe you missed that!
 
A warning has been issued for this post
Rich_Ellis said:
Really? Wow...I must have the crappest copy known to man then, oh and a friend (who also owns the same lens) whose files look identical to mine.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps its yours and your mates technique ;)

Is being a nob your default position when responding to posts that don't agree with you
 
Last edited:
A warning has been issued for this post
jakeblu said:
Or perhaps its yours and your mates technique ;)

Is being a nob your default position when responding to posts that don't agree with you
Click to expand...
Who rattled your cage? Sorry, who made you the forum police? Oh, your a nob too.
 
Personally as wide and fast as you can go. If full frame 24mm and crop 14mm.

That said do have a read of lonleyspec.com some very enlightening stuff there and do learn the 500/600 rule.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Or maybe our standards differ. Look at the left hand side stars. Pinpoint huh? Compare those stars to the middle ones. You expect some distortion at 14mm but... TBH it doesn't look that sharp anyway to me but hard to tell as its so small. The stars 'streak' in many different directions as well. Look at the top left hand side and then middle frame on the right, then top right, look at the streak angles.

Oh and this is at f5.6, I think I've repeatedly said at f2.8 because op wants to shoot night-scapes but maybe you missed that!
Click to expand...


Do stars all streak in the same direction?
 
Mark twiglet said:
Do stars all streak in the same direction?
Click to expand...
For goodness sakes. If you don't know what I mean then there's no hardly a point in explaining. Just for ease, for a 30 second exposure the streaking on the left is way longer than the centre whatever direction it's going in and is distortion.

As for your angel shot, am I supposed to comment? It's lovely. Are you seriously suggesting the lens gives no distortion? I have already said it can be corrected so your point is?
 
OP, you've got two choices here believe all the reviews, the majority of people in this thread and your own eyes if you do a quick flickr (or similar) search or you can go with the lone voice of Rich_Ellis the choice is yours but I know where my money would go if I wanted an affordable astro lens again!

Didn't bother with distortion correction on this as what shows doesn't bother me:


Northern Lights, Iceland 2 by Alex Booth, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cheers for the replies, I'll have a read on lonely spec.com
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I bought the 14mm for precisely that purpose on a FF. is it good? It depends on your benchmark. It has very weird distortion that makes a straight horizon bend and bow in a random wavy line. It's sharpness wide open falls off markedly from the centre of the frame. It can be straightened out in post but you need to know PS and "puppet warp" well (or other methods) is the kink and wobble is not uniform. Not much can be done about the distortion and sharpness of the stars sadly.

For less than £300 it's a good lens but compared to my other glass it's awful!
Click to expand...
Strange, I dont agree with this at all!

Its true, there is moustache distortion but there is an LR profile that fixes that in a single click.

I have the Canon mount and its one of the sharpest lenses I've had the pleasure of using, even wide open, the resolved detail on this lens is stunning!
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Really? Wow...I must have the crappest copy known to man then, oh and a friend (who also owns the same lens) whose files look identical to mine.

Maybe you could also link the distortion correction profiles for me as I couldn't find anything decent at all, they were all rubbish. Unless of course our definition of "to a very decent level" differs somewhat!

As I said, for the money its fine but thats about it.
Click to expand...
I think you must have a poor copy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top