# Review: Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 12, 2015)

```
Dustin Abbott has completed his review of the Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 AS IF UNC. This is a lens that I find quite interesting, as it’s now part of a very crowded field of capable autofocus 50mm lenses. The difficulty I have with this lens is its $399 price tag, which is above Canon’s own, albeit aging (understatement of the year?) autofocus 50mm f/1.4. However, the reviewer here feels the optics of the Rokinon are superior to that of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.</p>
<p>That said, I do feel 50mm is a difficult focal length to manually focus accurately with the focusing screens that come standard in Canon DSLRs.</p>
<blockquote><p>The challenge for most photographers will be the fact that this lens does not include autofocus.  That makes it a lot more work!  Despite the negatives here, however, you can probably tell that I enjoyed my time with this lens.  In many ways it did win me over by producing some great images that I’m really proud of.  I’ll also acknowledge that I am a bit of a masochist when it comes to photography; I enjoy the challenge of manual focus lenses.  You will have to decide for yourself whether or not the excellent image quality from the lens is worth the challenges of acquiring images with it.</p></blockquote>
<p>If Rokinon finds a way to sell this lens for $299, then they may get some takers. At the $399 retail price it sits at, I think only a select few will choose this lens over the multitude of other options out there. Even from a video standpoint, for $150 more, you can get the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Rokinon_50mm/Ntt/Rokinon+50mm/N/0/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">cinema version of this lens</a>.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/03/rokinon-50mm-f1-4-as-if-umc-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> </strong>| <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089939-REG/rokinon_50m_c_50mm_f_1_4_lens_for.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 at B&H</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 12, 2015)

Looking at the block diagram of this lens I can see why it is relatively expensive despite being fully manual. 9 elements in the usual six groups is interesting for a 50 mm double gauss design, and it utilises bonded curved elements instead of flat: very expensive to produce. 

Manual focus is OK with a proper screen and / or focus confirmation ( which this lens doesn't have ) but manual aperture is a pain. You have to open to focus accurately, then stop down to meter and take the shot. Pitty they didn't add an auto aperture switch whereby you set the aperture you want and then just trip the switch to 'automatically' stop down to what you have set.

Even so, the optics look interesting.......


----------



## rowlandw (Mar 12, 2015)

For manual focus maybe I should just get the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 for $99.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 13, 2015)

I have an 85 f/1.4 cinema from this company, and I can say it's quite nice for video. I don't think I'd pay $150 extra for the cinema version though, because the only difference is a clickless aperture, which is sometimes a pain because it's easy to move it around without realizing it. I like the gear on the focus though. Even without follow-focus the gear makes it easy to focus with one finger. And the focus action is as smooth as it gets, like silk!


----------



## infared (Mar 13, 2015)

Dustin... I LOVE you the beauty shoot of the lens at the header of your review. EXQUISITE!
...but I am keeping my Sigma Art, Thanks!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 13, 2015)

infared said:


> Dustin... I LOVE you the beauty shoot of the lens at the header of your review. EXQUISITE!
> ...but I am keeping my Sigma Art, Thanks!



I've been accused of posting lens porn quite frequently ;D

I don't blame you. If you've got a good focusing copy of the 50A then you have one of best 50mm lenses ever.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 13, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin... I LOVE you the beauty shoot of the lens at the header of your review. EXQUISITE!
> ...


Porn? ???
Maybe I have a dirty mind, but when I read your review, made me uneasy the following sentence: :

"One interesting (unique) feature of this lens’ build is that the front element is in a housing with a lip that travels forward and backwards at least a half inch during focus."


----------



## lintoni (Mar 13, 2015)

Excellent review. Samyang do make some interesting lenses. I'm looking forward to your 135 review!


----------



## grainier (Mar 13, 2015)

Mint used ZE Planar 50/1.4 can be had for around $500, with focus confirmation and automatic aperture. Just sayin'


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 13, 2015)

Great review and Dustin's got me thinking about buying this lens. Though it is kind of weird how Lenstip tested this lens and got completely opposite results. Their resolution tests show this lens to be very "meh" wide open" and barely "good" stopped down. but Dustin's pictures are quite nice. This lens seems to be on par with the Canon 50 1.4 in terms of wide open sharpness (maybe a smidge better) but nicer bokeh.


----------



## l_d_allan (Mar 14, 2015)

Such a lens might be on interest on a Sony A77-ii with focus aids and IBIS and native E-Mount. But NOT on Canon, to me. Actually, I lose interest in modern, recent lenses without IS.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 14, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> Great review and Dustin's got me thinking about buying this lens. Though it is kind of weird how Lenstip tested this lens and got completely opposite results. Their resolution tests show this lens to be very "meh" wide open" and barely "good" stopped down. but Dustin's pictures are quite nice. This lens seems to be on par with the Canon 50 1.4 in terms of wide open sharpness (maybe a smidge better) but nicer bokeh.



If you're thinking about getting this lens then also consider purchasing a mint Pentax Takumar instead. There are many 'sleepers' out there, in 'brand new' condition. The one to get is the M42 mount SMC Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 and an adapter ring with flange. It'll cost you about $50.00 at the moment but prices are rising. 

You can get an adapter ring that gives focus confirmation and may need this on a 5DIII. Manual focus with a proper manual focus lens is OK, but manual aperture setting is a pain as you have to focus wide open for accuracy and stop down to meter and that the shot.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> mangobutter said:
> 
> 
> > Great review and Dustin's got me thinking about buying this lens. Though it is kind of weird how Lenstip tested this lens and got completely opposite results. Their resolution tests show this lens to be very "meh" wide open" and barely "good" stopped down. but Dustin's pictures are quite nice. This lens seems to be on par with the Canon 50 1.4 in terms of wide open sharpness (maybe a smidge better) but nicer bokeh.
> ...



This is not a bad suggestion. You might find this interesting, however. I directly compared the new Rokinon to four of my favorite vintage 50mm primes, including the SMC Takumar 55 (and 50 f/1.4).

Here's the link to the article: http://dustinabbott.net/2015/03/50mm-shootout/


----------



## jd7 (Mar 15, 2015)

The Roki 50 may not have AF, but saying it has optics comparable to the Sigma 50 Art is high praise for a $400 lens!!

Dustin, I know in your Sigma 50 Art review you commented you hated the old Sigma 50 1.4 EX lens, but I'd be interested to know more about your thoughts on the Sigma 50 EX v the Roki 50. Yes I wish the Sigma 50 EX was sharper wide open, but I really like the bokeh (I think it's better than the 50 Art, the Canon 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.8 in that respect) and overall I don't think it's too bad for its price/size/weight.


----------



## AJ (Mar 15, 2015)

Oh my, that is nice bokeh. Outstanding.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 15, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > mangobutter said:
> ...



Great article Dustin, thanks for producing that. It is fascinating to see how these old lenses compare. There are so many nuances of the various 50 mil lenses it's a little like being a wine or cigar connoisseur but with lenses! Another one that is good at infinity is the Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.7. Although a budget fast lens in its day it is very very sharp, though this makes it not a bokeh monster, albeit bokeh is pleasant. ( This lens and adapter require modification before using on a FF Canon). 

Photozone give the Rokinon a bit of a pasting. Personally I find that these types of lenses don't lend themselves well to test charts and bokeh tests; you have to really try them out for a while to see if they suit you. 

Regarding the Takumar 55mm f/1.8, here's a shot from to day using that lens at f/2. I think the rendering is superb. 

I'm wary of trying the Takumar 50mm f/1.4 due to the radiation it hitting the mirror at infinity. I would inevitably forget. However I'm sure it would be very easy to modify an adapter so that the whole lens is shifted forward by about 1.5mm. You wont get infinity but wont be using it at that distance anyway. 

Either way it seems to me that as there as so many manual aperture lenses out there that can easily be modified to work in exactly the same way as the Rokinon on a Canon, it makes the £400 a little bit suspect. And why such a huge front element when beautiful rendering lenses such as the Taks are so small - 49mm filter thread in fact.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Frankly, I think they get away with the huge front elements because everyone else is doing it. 49mm was the standard back in the day, but 77mm (and larger) is deemed acceptable today. Laziness? The Rokinon is obviously superior optically, but the one place I was disappointed that it didn't mop the floor with the older primes was in light transmission. That's where you would think that large front element would pay off. 

I love using the old primes. I've ordered a newer version of the SMC 50 1.4 that is built more like the 55. No thorium, and I'm hoping no mirror hang. A little bit of two sided tape in between the lens and the adapter can often provide enough space to solve the mirror hang issue. 

That UK price is really high. I suspect that in a year you will see a lower price on the Rokinon


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 17, 2015)

jd7 said:


> The Roki 50 may not have AF, but saying it has optics comparable to the Sigma 50 Art is high praise for a $400 lens!!
> 
> Dustin, I know in your Sigma 50 Art review you commented you hated the old Sigma 50 1.4 EX lens, but I'd be interested to know more about your thoughts on the Sigma 50 EX v the Roki 50. Yes I wish the Sigma 50 EX was sharper wide open, but I really like the bokeh (I think it's better than the 50 Art, the Canon 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.8 in that respect) and overall I don't think it's too bad for its price/size/weight.



My two greatest gripes with the original Sigma 50 was the inconsistent focus and the the very strong green fringing. I know a lot of people love it. I don't. I'd actually take the Rokinon over it myself.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Some lenses don't chart well. The Zeiss Planar t 50 and Canon 50l are good examples, and yet those lenses produce beautiful results when used to their strengths. None of the old primes in my shootout would chart well, and yet many of my images with them have had both commercial and critical success. 

I'm really glad for the chart testing others do. But I know that many people like my reviews because I use the lenses like a photographer


----------



## jd7 (Mar 22, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > The Roki 50 may not have AF, but saying it has optics comparable to the Sigma 50 Art is high praise for a $400 lens!!
> ...



Thanks Dustin. I can't say I'd found the green fringing particularly bad as wide aperture lenses go, although I'm not used to L primes much less Zeiss Otus primes so perhaps my expectations are not so high in that regard? And I have to say in going through some old photos tonight there is a bit more green fringing than I had noticed before. Hhhmmm.

As for AF, I do occasionally doubt the AF but then again it could just be me not being careful enough. Perhaps I should test it more carefully, but I haven't found it too bad overall.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 23, 2015)

jd7 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



In all honesty, the opinion on your gear that matters the most is your own. If you are happy with a lens, then just shoot it and enjoy it and forget about what I or any other reviewer says.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 24, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



I haven't thrown away my S50 EX just yet  You're right of course. Easy to get carried away with the technical aspects of lenses (or cameras) and lose sight of the fact that in the end, what counts is whether you like the images. Still, colour fringing is not helpful. That said, I mostly use the S50 indoors / in low light these days, and I don't *think* the colour fringing is too apparent in those circumstances so I don't think it is that big a deal for me ... although I'll certainly be keeping a closer eye on it now!


----------

