# Rokinon SP 14mm 2.4



## chrysoberyl (Mar 10, 2017)

My brick just arrived. As noted in the reviews, it has a Zeiss-like look. Opinions vary, but mine is that it is a nice look. The throw feels nicely long, quite damped and very smooth.

John


----------



## applecider (Mar 10, 2017)

Well then tonight we expect that you will be outside shooting stars at 2.4 and posting on the board so you can show off the coma and vignetting. If possible post a pano with two shots to see how the vignetting affects ability to do so.

No cloudy sky excuses, no busy excuses, I suppose a five to ten page review is also in order.

Being first has its privilege and also responsibility. 

Oh yeah a really good review would compare this lens to the sigma 1.8 side by side.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 10, 2017)

applecider said:


> Well then tonight we expect that you will be outside shooting stars at 2.4 and posting on the board so you can show off the coma and vignetting. If possible post a pano with two shots to see how the vignetting affects ability to do so.
> 
> No cloudy sky excuses, no busy excuses, I suppose a five to ten page review is also in order.
> 
> ...



All noted - I'll wait 'til my Sigma 1.8 arrives to post anything more. Oh, and the font size will be 20 for my 10 page reviews.

I live just south of Atlanta; is light pollution a good excuse? How about the moonset (98% illumination) at 6:22 AM with sunrise at 6:52?

I will post something, though - I can't wait to use it!


----------



## applecider (Mar 12, 2017)

Damn those are pretty good excuses, been cloudy so long in portland that TPE has to tell me the moon phase...

Some impressions would be nice though, even the impression on your toe from gear fall down. Cleardarksky.com says a place called Ford Lake Observatory ( that sounds promising ) has some 40% dark sky.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 13, 2017)

I have never reviewed a lens, but: This shot shows vignette and distortion. It was taken wide open about 7' away from the garage door. Clearly, I didn't have the camera positioned perfectly, but I was in a hurry because the light was fading. The vignette is pretty pronounced in the corners. Considering how close the camera was to the door, the distortion looks pretty low.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 13, 2017)

Same shot, except closed down to f/4.0. Vignette is much less.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 13, 2017)

BTW, this lens really isn't a brick. I will be looking into a higher contrast screen or magnifier as I had some difficulty getting this shot focused correctly. I have not checked lens decentering very much, but this looks pretty good.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 13, 2017)

This lens really is a pleasure to use! The long throw with firm damping is a delight. And it feels right on a 6D.

This shot shows sharpness wide open at minimum focusing distance.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 13, 2017)

applecider said:


> Damn those are pretty good excuses, been cloudy so long in portland that TPE has to tell me the moon phase...
> 
> Some impressions would be nice though, even the impression on your toe from gear fall down. Cleardarksky.com says a place called Ford Lake Observatory ( that sounds promising ) has some 40% dark sky.



Hi applecider. I checked out the Ford Lake Observatory; it's a private lakeside home. Thanks for the lead, though.

John


----------



## tron (Mar 13, 2017)

You can take some test photos at night in or near a city and place some distant lights towards the corners. This will simulate stars and it will show coma if any.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 13, 2017)

I was up in Tromsø a few weekends ago and used this lens to take some aurora pics. Fairly amateurish, but I'll try and find some time to post a few. Is attaching them via the attachment function the best way to attach pics? I don't use any type of quality photo sharing sites (SmugMug, 500px, Flikr, etc.).


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 13, 2017)

CANONisOK said:


> I was up in Tromsø a few weekends ago and used this lens to take some aurora pics. Fairly amateurish, but I'll try and find some time to post a few. Is attaching them via the attachment function the best way to attach pics? I don't use any type of quality photo sharing sites (SmugMug, 500px, Flikr, etc.).



The attachment function works best for me. Thanks in advance for sharing. Where I live, it could be days before I see stars again.


----------



## kphoto99 (Mar 13, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> BTW, this lens really isn't a brick. I will be looking into a higher contrast screen or magnifier as I had some difficulty getting this shot focused correctly. I have not checked lens decentering very much, but this looks pretty good.



That is some distortion, those squares sure don't look square


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 14, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> That is some distortion, those squares sure don't look square



Those are all rectangles. Oh, I get it - you're joking! Ha!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 16, 2017)

Astro shot and the lovely Atlanta light pollution.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 16, 2017)

One more shot to evaluate coma.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 16, 2017)

And a wide open shot to show landcityscape distortion. No changes were made to correct the distortion.

I'm pretty happy with this lens!


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 16, 2017)

It's difficult to see the stars in your dark shots. Maybe add two stop of exposure in Lightroom (or whatever you use) to bring up the stars some.


----------



## wldbil (Mar 16, 2017)

I too found the shots to be dark when looking at them. Once I clicked on them though they came up and were just right. I also liked the cityscape. I will be thinking of getting this lens after your review. Thanks Bill.


----------



## Duckman (Mar 16, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> My brick just arrived. As noted in the reviews, it has a Zeiss-like look. Opinions vary, but mine is that it is a nice look. The throw feels nicely long, quite damped and very smooth.
> 
> John



Do you happen to also own the 14mm 2.8? I'd be interested to see direct comparisons between the two lenses, esp. coma and vignetting shots wide open.... 
I own the 2.8 (primarily used for astro/nightscapes) and wonder if its worth the extra cost to upgrade...
-J


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 16, 2017)

wldbil said:


> I too found the shots to be dark when looking at them. Once I clicked on them though they came up and were just right. I also liked the cityscape. I will be thinking of getting this lens after your review. Thanks Bill.



The cityscape was taken through thick, double-paned glass, too. The irritating artifacts are from interior lights.

I'll try to get some shots with the sun in them to evaluate flare.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 16, 2017)

Duckman said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > My brick just arrived. As noted in the reviews, it has a Zeiss-like look. Opinions vary, but mine is that it is a nice look. The throw feels nicely long, quite damped and very smooth.
> ...



Sorry, I do not own the 2.8.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 17, 2017)

These will be the last shots as a review. I expect Dustin Abbot will soon post his thorough review and I very much look forward to it.

Shot wide open directly into the sun. It looks minimal to me with very little veiling flare.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 17, 2017)

Another shot wide open with the sun near the center.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 17, 2017)

The sun positioned partway to the top. Some flare is evident.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 17, 2017)

Now with the sun close to the edge.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 17, 2017)

Now the worst case scenario, the sun is just outside of a corner. This degree of flare does not surprise me.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 17, 2017)

Tromsø; 5 Mar 2017; Not the best aurora shot (and the sky was a bit hazy) but you can see stars in the upper corners.

Canon 5D Mark IV; Samyang XP 14mm; f/2.4; ISO800; 8 sec;

+0.58 exposure; +5 vignette (no lens correction, no other adjustments). JPEG 70% (to meet file size requirement)


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 17, 2017)

Tromsø; 25 Feb 2017; Stronger aurora, but you can see stars in the upper left corner.

Canon 5D Mark IV; Samyang XP 14mm; f/2.4; ISO3200; 5 sec;

Vignette correcting (no other adjustments). JPEG 65% (to meet file size limitation)


----------



## Click (Mar 17, 2017)

Cool shots, CANONisOK. I really like the first one.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 17, 2017)

Tromsø; 25 Feb 2017; Now, this one is just for fun. 

Canon 5D Mark IV; Samyang XP 14mm; f/2.4; ISO3200; 8 sec;

Lots of little tweaks to levels. JPEG 65% (to meet file size limitation)


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 17, 2017)

Tromsø; 01 Mar 2017; Last one. I can tell I must've just slightly bumped the focus ring when spinning around to capture this little burst. But I still like it.

Canon 5D Mark IV; Samyang XP 14mm; f/2.4; ISO2000; 4 sec;

Some little tweaks to levels. JPEG 65% (to meet file size limitation)


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 17, 2017)

Click said:


> Cool shots, CANONisOK. I really like the first one.


Thanks! I really was glad to have this lens with me up north. Good performance and I like the aperture control and AF chip.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 17, 2017)

Duckman said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > My brick just arrived. As noted in the reviews, it has a Zeiss-like look. Opinions vary, but mine is that it is a nice look. The throw feels nicely long, quite damped and very smooth.
> ...


I happen to have both but didn't take the "pepsi challenge". Something to consider the next time I go shooting.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 17, 2017)

Tromsø; 25 Feb 2017; It also works during the daytime. 

Canon 5D Mark IV; Samyang XP 14mm; f/2.4; ISO100; 1/125 sec;

Some little tweaks to levels. JPEG 65% (to meet file size limitation)


----------



## bholliman (Mar 17, 2017)

Some excellent shots, thanks for posting CANONisOK


----------



## applecider (Mar 17, 2017)

How many stops of vignetting do you think there is at f2.4?

I see minimal coma, but maybe a little stretching of stars in the corners, certainly well controlled. As the shooter and computer you have the best view.

Checked my temperature and pulse and concluded that I may be suffering an early attack of GAS. The fact that sigma has an unreviewed in large part 14mm lens coming out is both limiting and extending the illness.
Your images are outstanding. 

Regards


----------



## applecider (Mar 17, 2017)

I just wiki'ed Tromsø, Wow it sounds unique, says you have a large student population and are above the arctic circle. 

Sometimes I am amazed by what humanity as a species does and building cities that far north qualifies. 

No wonder you have such great northern lights.

Enjoy your new lens.


----------



## Click (Mar 18, 2017)

Beautiful pictures, CANONisOK.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 20, 2017)

CANONisOK said:


> Tromsø; 25 Feb 2017; Now, this one is just for fun.
> 
> Canon 5D Mark IV; Samyang XP 14mm; f/2.4; ISO3200; 8 sec;
> 
> Lots of little tweaks to levels. JPEG 65% (to meet file size limitation)



Superb, CANONisOK! This shot conveys three dimensionality wonderfully and the colors are really harmonious! And it is ethereal, at least to one who has seen the aurora only twice.


----------



## Duckman (Mar 20, 2017)

CANONisOK said:


> Duckman said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



Yes please do!! 
-J


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 4, 2017)

If you are careful about your levels distortion isn't too bad. Vignette seems to be the primary weakness, but not as bad as the 2.8/14mm.



Le Chateau Montebello by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

I've been focused on a bunch of Tamron lenses, but I do have a first look video up on this: http://bit.ly/SP14mmFL plus an image gallery: http://bit.ly/SP14Gallery

I'll be intensifying my coverage this week as I start to clear my desk of other reviews. I'm fairly impressed by the lens, though I think not adding weather sealing was a pretty huge mistake. The build is otherwise gorgeous.


----------

