# DXOMark: Samyang 24mm f/1.4 for Canon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 12, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/dxomark-samyang-24mm-f1-4-for-canon/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/dxomark-samyang-24mm-f1-4-for-canon/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>DXOMark has completed their review of the Samyang (Rokinon/Bowers) 24mm f/1.4 for Canon. The lens gets a pretty good review, especially when you consider the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/868732-REG/Samyang_SY24M_C_24mm_f_1_4_ED_AS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">very good price of $669</a>. When compared the Canon of the same focal length and aperture, you’re paying an <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html/b/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">additional $1100 for AF and a better performance wide open</a>.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark

</strong><em>“Although the Samyang is a phenomenal performer, when stopped its sharpness wide open doesn’t match that of rival high-speed designs. Given the modest pricing it will no doubt continue to be a popular model but it would be all the more attractive with the addition of automatic aperture control and perhaps AF-assist (though it’s often unreliable without experience). There’s another, often overlooked benefit from the inclusion of data transmission – EXIF data stored in Raw files could be used by third-party software suppliers to apply lens corrections. Future updates such as these would seem likely but for now the Canon mount version is overshadowed by the better performing rivals.” <strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Samyang-24mm-F1.4-lens-review-Best-24mm-lens-for-Canon-full-frame-EOS-users" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/868732-REG/Samyang_SY24M_C_24mm_f_1_4_ED_AS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Samyang 24mm f/1.4 $669</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html/b/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II $1749</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Mar 13, 2014)

Speaking of Samyang, just found their 14mm is on sale for $309 with lightroom 5 and some other useless stuff. Anyone want to convince me not to get this and upgrade to lr5? 

http://www.buydig.com/shop/search.aspx?kwd=rofe14


----------



## SoullessPolack (Mar 13, 2014)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> Speaking of Samyang, just found their 14mm is on sale for $309 with lightroom 5 and some other useless stuff. Anyone want to convince me not to get this and upgrade to lr5?
> 
> http://www.buydig.com/shop/search.aspx?kwd=rofe14



I'm going to do the opposite. I'm going to call you a fool if you don't jump on that!

The Samyang 14mm is the sharpest lens I own, sharper than my TS-E 24mm II, 24-70 2.8 (orig), 85mm 1.2, 70-200 f4 non-IS. That's saying a lot, since the TS-E 24 is no slouch. My mind is boggled anytime I look at a 100% crop. And the best part is it's by far the cheapest lens I own or have owned, including some EF-S and non L glass.

The only reason I would tell you not to get it is if you NEVER do wide or ultra wide shots. I do 99.9% landscapes, and even I don't pull out the 14mm that much. It's ridiculously wide. Many of the times I have wanted to use it I haven't, because there hasn't been a polarizer that fits on there. Before you say anything about the sky, I'm referring to reflections in water. They have a holder for it now, I'm not sure if it's available for sale yet.

That was my long explanation to basically say: if you shoot wide, GET IT!! Plus you get LR5 on top of that, wow.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 13, 2014)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> Speaking of Samyang, just found their 14mm is on sale for $309 with lightroom 5 and some other useless stuff. Anyone want to convince me not to get this and upgrade to lr5?
> 
> http://www.buydig.com/shop/search.aspx?kwd=rofe14



If you don't need LR5. I already had LR5 and I got mine for $ 275 lens-only. I am sure it will come about again.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Except that the same retailer, BuyDig, had the 14mm lens alone for $299 only about 9 days ago...and it has sold for even less in the past via the big camera retailers, and I think also Amazon. I'm heavily considering buying one.

As for the Samyang 24mm, I don't doubt it's a fine lens, but I feel the *Sigma 24mm f/1.8* is by far the better buy at only $549 (during the holidays it was well under $500)...with autofocus, aperture control, etc. Yes the AF motor is not silent, but it actually works fairly well and quickly...even in servo AF mode. Optically, I would definitely put it up against the Samyang any day. Even wide open it is quite sharp in the middle 60% of the image, and in the middle 40%, its coma and CA are also relatively low. Towards the periphery...no. But I doubt it's much worse, if any, than the Samyang (or even the pricey Canon L for that matter!). The Sigma also has very smooth bokeh...smoother than my Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, anyway. When closed down, the Sigma is quite sharp everywhere with artifacts also on the low side...everywhere. That's saying something. (Obviously the 14mm Samyang/Rokinon is optically superior to all of these, but it is a unique lens and unique value, comparable optically, at least "resolution of detail"-wise, to the $3000 15mm Zeiss, as well as the much loved Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 zoom. Color rendition-wise, the 14mm Rokinon does not come all that close to the Zeiss. But that's a huge price differential to pay for some color and a bit of contrast, in my opinion).

The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 also has less barrel distortion than the Samyang 24mm f/1.4, I believe. That said, I am slowly trying to sell this Sigma (not lowered the asking price much yet), because I've spent too much on other lenses (recently bought the 70-300L), and just don't use it often enough. I mostly bought it for night sky and astro type imaging (believe it or not). As long as the object is in that middle 40%, it can comfortably be used wide open, or close to it. What it is best at though, is MACRO WIDE ANGLE photography. It is mindblowing with this, actually. Especially considering you have such a big choice of controlling the depth of field, at such a close distance with very good magnification. I do hate to let it go...so if I don't get a high enough offer, I may wind up keeping it after all. I've definitely not done enough macro images with it, and would like to do more of the spring wildflowers. The color rendition is better than my only other wide lens as of now, the 24-105L. And the amount of barrel distortion the 24-105L has, at 24mm...is actually absurd. If it were a 24mm prime lens with this much barrel distortion, I think they'd have a hard time selling it. Fortunately though, obviously it's a superb zoom lens, and a superb value overall (not trying to be captain obvious on that one, sorry...haha!)

I can see why people desire the 20mm f/1.8, because of its unique wide angle, big aperture, along with the macro ability. But optically, neither it nor the 28mm f/1.8 version, compare to the 24mm version. It is sharper everywhere. I did the research, looked at the test charts.

It's entirely possible that Sigma will produce an "art" version at 24mm, but that lens will most certainly cost more than $1000. And at this point, it might be 2 years from now before it's available, if not longer.

One last note on Sigma. What interests me most with them now is the new sensor in the new DP series cameras. The body looks almost ridiculous, but optically...it may very well exceed the D800's ability (even though it's a crop sensor!), at least in good light...obviously not in poor light. Also I doubt it will approach the D800's dynamic range at low ISO (so don't jump on me for that!)...I'm just referring to detail resolution via its stacked pixels, that don't need no stinking bayer array!

Sorry to those who didn't like to read about Sigma, I'm not trying to hijack the thread or anything. I just do feel it's necessary to discuss their 24mm lens, when considering a manual-only lens like the Samyang/Rokinon. Samyang's "T" series lenses meant for cinematography, do look quite interesting (and no AF is needed)...if the use scenario is video.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 13, 2014)

I wonder how much this lens differs from the 24mm Cine. Is it just the same lens rehoused? The Rokinon 24mm cine is my favorite lens on crop sensors.


----------



## Policar (Mar 13, 2014)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> I wonder how much this lens differs from the 24mm Cine. Is it just the same lens rehoused? The Rokinon 24mm cine is my favorite lens on crop sensors.



Optically the same.

I find the 24mm f1.4 Samyang to be sort of garbage (especially compared with the Canon, which is dramatically sharper wide open), but if you need a wide fast FF lens for video.... could be worse.


----------



## dafrank (Mar 13, 2014)

Actually, the DXO review for the Samyang, if anything, pretty much convinced me to consider buying the 24mm f/2.8 Canon IS prime. IS - good for 3 or 4 extra stops with static subjects and video, plus very good sharpness wide open, good construction, guaranteed camera compatibility, small size, light weight, exif communications and a price just above the Samyang and less than half of the faster Canon, makes the lens the rational choice for those that don't absolutely have to have the extra 1.5 (likely "real" T-stop difference) stops faster aperture or the tilt/shift ability of the 24mm TS-E. Of course, YMMV, but I can't see how this isn't rational and true, and I know that, even with very fast (f/1.2 to f/1.4) lenses, I rarely actually shoot at maximum aperture, because I usually want that slight extra sharp focusing margin that a slightly smaller aperture affords.

Regards,
David


----------



## iMagic (Mar 13, 2014)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> Speaking of Samyang, just found their 14mm is on sale for $309 with lightroom 5 and some other useless stuff. Anyone want to convince me not to get this and upgrade to lr5?
> 
> http://www.buydig.com/shop/search.aspx?kwd=rofe14



I bot from BuyDig the Rokinon 14mm at the ridiculous low price of $275 as a flyer. I wouldnt do it again. It was unacceptably decentered. Not worth the time to send back as I am in Canada and the shipping and hassle not worth it. I sold it locally. Next time I will buy locally for a higher price so it is easier to return if there is a problem.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 13, 2014)

iMagic said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of Samyang, just found their 14mm is on sale for $309 with lightroom 5 and some other useless stuff. Anyone want to convince me not to get this and upgrade to lr5?
> ...



As I said in my previous post, I bought the Rokinon 14/2.8 for $ 275, from Buydig, and it works fine.


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 13, 2014)

So if I throw a magnifying glass onto a Canon lens, sell it for $5, DxO could possibly score it a 31 too?

Sure, cost factor is important to consumers but would I be wrong to ask that a lens's score is based entirely on performance?

Precisely why some folks think the Tamron 90mm macro lens is equal or superior to the Canon 100mm non IS macro lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 14, 2014)

iMagic said:


> Andy_Hodapp said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of Samyang, just found their 14mm is on sale for $309 with lightroom 5 and some other useless stuff. Anyone want to convince me not to get this and upgrade to lr5?
> ...



Didn't the person you sold it to complain to you about the decentering?


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 14, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> iMagic said:
> 
> 
> > Andy_Hodapp said:
> ...



When is it going to be $275 again, that's my question.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 14, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> So if I throw a magnifying glass onto a Canon lens, sell it for $5, DxO could possibly score it a 31 too?
> 
> Sure, cost factor is important to consumers but would I be wrong to ask that a lens's score is based entirely on performance?
> 
> Precisely why some folks think the Tamron 90mm macro lens is equal or superior to the Canon 100mm non IS macro lens.



How is that Tamron inferior to the Canon? The review I read said it was just as sharp, focused just as fast and accurately. Just because it's not 100mm, or because it's not a Canon...that makes it inferior?


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 14, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > So if I throw a magnifying glass onto a Canon lens, sell it for $5, DxO could possibly score it a 31 too?
> ...



I shot with the lens, my shoot buddy has one. 

Extending barrel, noisy AF but that's a moot point as I shoot manual. Yes it is really sharp but overall, the build quality and other considerations, I strongly feel the Canon is a better lens.


----------

