Surprised by Sony FE 24-105; as sharp, if not a bit more so, than Samyang 35mm f2.8

jondc

jondc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,404
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently purchased a sonf FE 24-105 f4 and with also having the 16-35mm, all my lenses are big and heavy. So, after reading reviews, I plumped for the Samyang 35mm f2.8 as a pancake option for when I wanted smaller and lighter.

Tonight, I set the 24-105 at 35mm, in a fixed position and manual settings, and took some images at f4 and f6.3 Then I did the similar with the Samyang 35mm f2.8.

To my eye, the 24-105 matched or just piped the Samyang 35mm for sharpness at f4 and f6.3 in both centre and corners!
 
Yep the Sony 24-105mm is the best mid zoom I have used by most measures. I get the best stabilization on A7Riii with this lens (close to 5 stops).
It's sharp across the range wide open.
The only downside is the vignetting.
 
Hope mine will turn up in the next day or 2. :D

Guess the one advantage for the sammy is that it's tiny, therefore you can just pop it on & wander about without looking like you're on a photo-mission.
 
The Samyang is pocket-able, cheap and a stop brighter, so still very nice to have.
 
I guess my point was/is, how good the zoom is to be as sharp as a prime.
 
The
jondc said:
I guess my point was/is, how good the zoom is to be as sharp as a prime.
Click to expand...

Hardly a shock is it that a £1000 lens is better than a £200 lens?

People buy the Samyang lenses because they are small and cheap not because they are any good.

Compare your zoom to a proper lens like the 35mm Sigma Art or the 24mm GM and you will a difference. Not really to fair to compare the zoom with a junk lens like the little Samyangs.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
The


Hardly a shock is it that a £1000 lens is better than a £200 lens?

People buy the Samyang lenses because they are small and cheap not because they are any good.
Click to expand...
The Samsung review led me to think it punched above its price point, and the optics of a prime are a lot less complicated and costly. Thus my thought process, of a prime being easier to make sharper than a multi x zoom lens.
 
jondc said:
The Samsung review led me to think it punched above its price point, and the optics of a prime are a lot less complicated and costly. Thus my thought process, of a prime being easier to make sharper than a multi x zoom lens.
Click to expand...

It’s a £200 quid lens which is tiny which is an advantage. Optically, it’s rubbish compared to a real lens. They are a toy, handy for travelling etc.

Council house prime as the saying goes.
 
jondc said:
I was led by multiple on line reviews, saying the £250 council house punches at the £680 inner suburbia tree lined avenue's. They kind of did not say to me optically it's rubbish but small rubbish. Maybe I'll try a Sony version and compare.

https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/e-...m-2-8-vs-samyang-rokinon-35mm-2-8/#Conclusion
Click to expand...

Price isn't always an indicator or quality, look at the humble nifty fifty for most brands, usually cracking little lenses that out-perform much pricier zooms at times. Did you think the Samyang was decent before your comparison? I'm sure many are happy enough with it if they haven't anything better to compare it to. You don't need G lenses if you're not getting paid for your photography, they're wasted on many who process the s***e out of their images no matter the lenses used.

You said it yourself pretty much in your first post "just piped the Samyang" - seems it was close then? Not bad for a cheapo lens prime or not. Bit of a touch up in post and there'd be even less between them, if at all
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
It’s a £200 quid lens which is tiny which is an advantage. Optically, it’s rubbish compared to a real lens. They are a toy, handy for travelling etc.

Council house prime as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

The Samyang 35 f2.8 is nicely sharp, its cheap yes but its certainly not crap - the build isn't great, very plasticky but hey its £250...
Its very much a real lens and compares very well with many of the Sony FE mount stuff.

Also the 24-105 while its f4 (which is why its cheaper) the IQ really is very similar to the 24-70 GM - its super sharp.
 
chrism_scotland said:
The Samyang 35 f2.8 is nicely sharp, its cheap yes but its certainly not crap - the build isn't great, very plasticky but hey its £250...
Its very much a real lens and compares very well with many of the Sony FE mount stuff.

Also the 24-105 while its f4 (which is why its cheaper) the IQ really is very similar to the 24-70 GM - its super sharp.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say it was crap, (although I think it is, but my standards are high) but it is a toy lens and doesn’t compare with any of the real prime lenses available for e-mount as you would expect from a lens that costs £200.

Even the 28-70 kit lens will give similar performance at the same apertures.

My eldest likes the Samyang 24mm because it’s small & light etc. that doesn’t mean it’s any good though, because it isn’t.

If image quality is important you simply won’t use these. People buy them because they are cheap, and to be fair maybe they are happy with them for all that they cost.

Seems odd though that anyone with a half decent body would use these. Lenses are much more important than bodies and using one of these on any of the higher end bodies is like buying a Ferrari and never driving over 30mph.
 
f/2.8 said:
I didn’t say it was crap, (although I think it is, but my standards are high) but it is a toy lens and doesn’t compare with any of the real prime lenses available for e-mount as you would expect from a lens that costs £200.

Even the 28-70 kit lens will give similar performance at the same apertures.

My eldest likes the Samyang 24mm because it’s small & light etc. that doesn’t mean it’s any good though, because it isn’t.

If image quality is important you simply won’t use these. People buy them because they are cheap, and to be fair maybe they are happy with them for all that they cost.

Seems odd though that anyone with a half decent body would use these. Lenses are much more important than bodies and using one of these on any of the higher end bodies is like buying a Ferrari and never driving over 30mph.
Click to expand...

I do agree that lenses are much more important. But cheapo lenses are usually reserved for those focal lengths less used by the owners often in these cases. You'll get people like myself, who tend to use one main lens for just about everything but like to mess about with council house primes for a but of rough and ready. Like having a model missus, but nipping out to play with your council house hussies when you're wanting a bit of strange :ROFLMAO:
 
f/2.8 said:
It’s a £200 quid lens which is tiny which is an advantage. Optically, it’s rubbish compared to a real lens. They are a toy, handy for travelling etc.

Council house prime as the saying goes.
Click to expand...

I 100% do not agree with you. I found the Samyang to be sharper than the Sony 35mm 2.8 and overall Image quality to be the same.

And yes I have had and used both and used them side by side.
 
JJ! said:
I 100% do not agree with you. I found the Samyang to be sharper than the Sony 35mm 2.8 and overall Image quality to be the same.

And yes I have had and used both and used them side by side.
Click to expand...

I never said that the Sony 35mm 2.8 was any good either. It is muck too. Although pretty much every review disagrees with you. Every review seems to say that the Sony is much sharper in the corners than the Samyang and it does have weather sealing and a better build.
 
Last edited:
Guess we read different reviews. Most I read say Samyang is sharper at closer distances and Sony is better in the corners.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree and get back on to the OP subject.
 
f/2.8 said:
I never said that the Sony 35mm 2.8 was any good either. It is muck too. Although pretty much every review disagrees with you. Every review seems to say that the Sony is much sharper in the corners than the Samyang and it does have weather sealing and a better build.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the Samyang but I have looked at how DXO rate the Sony 35mm f2.8 which I own and have taken thousands of pictures with. The DXO ratings are there to see and it's also interesting to see what lenses are ranked below the Sony lens.
 
woof woof said:
I don't know about the Samyang but I have looked at how DXO rate the Sony 35mm f2.8 which I own and have taken thousands of pictures with. The DXO ratings are there to see and it's also interesting to see what lenses are ranked below the Sony lens.
Click to expand...

Yeah DXO rating is the most important thing even though they haven't tested any of the newer lenses, they actually haven't tested any e-mount lens for 2 years.

Maybe not :LOL:
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Yeah DXO rating is the most important thing even though they haven't tested any of the newer lenses.

Maybe not :LOL:
Click to expand...

It's one measure and there are a lot of well regarded lenses that have been through the process and are behind the Sony in the ratings. Maybe you missed all that in your rush to support your muck point? I haven't looked for the Samyang, maybe it's there.

If you want another measure apart from DXO, you're almost off the scale with the muck talk. The op has a point and he's made it. Do we really need all the negativity and trash talk and to suck the fun out of everything.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It's one measure and there are a lot of well regarded lenses that have been through the process and are behind the Sony in the ratings. Maybe you missed all that in your rush to support your muck point? I haven't looked for the Samyang, maybe it's there.

If you want another measure apart from DXO, you're almost off the scale with the muck talk. The op has a point and he's made it. Do we really need all the negativity and trash talk and to suck the fun out of everything.
Click to expand...

DXO stopped reviewing anything 2 years ago. Perhaps you missed that in your eagerness to prove your point. They have only a few weeks ago started reviewing equipment again. 2 years is a long time, there has been loads of firmware updates for Sony glass since then that makes all of their previous reviews moot.

There has also been loads of lenses released since then that they haven’t reviewed at all.

You seem to have an opinion on everything mentioned on this forum, yet rarely are you correct though.

There is always the ignore function.
 
f/2.8 said:
DXO stopped reviewing anything 2 years ago. Perhaps you missed that in your eagerness to prove your point. They have only a few weeks ago started reviewing equipment again. 2 years is a long time, there has been loads of firmware updates for Sony glass since then that makes all of their previous reviews moot.

There has also been loads of lenses released since then that they haven’t reviewed at all.

You seem to have an opinion on everything mentioned on this forum, yet rarely are you correct though.

There is always the ignore function.
Click to expand...

If you said what you've said in this thread about some other lenses on DXO you'd be laughed off the forum and rightly so.

As to being right, what are you 7 years old? Lets take this on a case by case basis and in this case I think you're going to extremes of opinion and language to support your view. I don't think either of these primes are as bad as you seem to think. That's my view. Anyone interested can Google their way to reviews, bench tests and opinion other than yours. And mine. Shock. Horror.
 
Just watched a couple reviews, it's a lens I would be interested in if I ever did switch to Sony. Looks decent, seems it's at it's best at F4, which is no real surprise, barely any distortion to speak of, no complaints about sharpness, bokeh looks decent enough for a 35 2.8, one reviewer actually states "guess what? It doesn't suck!" :D - I love that there's budget options out there tbh, Samyang know what they're at, they're not aiming lenses like this at the pros, I guess their 1.4 variants are for that market. These are cheap and cheerful and seem to be solid performers, like I say, for the focal lengths you might not use often why would you spend a tonne unless you're getting paid?
 
woof woof said:
If you said what you've said in this thread about some other lenses on DXO you'd be laughed off the forum and rightly so.

As to being right, what are you 7 years old? Lets take this on a case by case basis and in this case I think you're going to extremes of opinion and language to support your view. I don't think either of these primes are as bad as you seem to think. That's my view. Anyone interested can Google their way to reviews, bench tests and opinion other than yours. And mine. Shock. Horror.
Click to expand...

:LOL:

You state your opinion as fact even when you are clearly very much wrong.

Like the other day when you insisted that the little olympus camera would not fit in a pocket even when I said I had already tried it and it did, as did someone else. You even went to the bother of posting up comparison sizes with other cameras I was definitely not considering to try and prove your point even though again you where completely and utterly wrong. :LOL:
 
Cagey75 said:
These are cheap and cheerful and seem to be solid performers, like I say, for the focal lengths you might not use often why would you spend a tonne unless you're getting paid?
Click to expand...

Also if the intended use may mean excessive wear! Why spend more if it is meant to perform optically as well as a £680 lens and only meant to be inferior in build quality.

Kind of think the thread strayed from the original noted point.
 
jondc said:
Also if the intended use may mean excessive wear! Why spend more if it is meant to perform optically as well as a £680 lens and only meant to be inferior in build quality.

Kind of think the thread strayed from the original noted point.
Click to expand...

It's TP ... whaddaya'spect? :D

It's comparing apples to oranges to begin with, the zoom is a completely different lens that you'd use for different purposes. The prime is more specific, you're looking for extra light [in both meanings of the word] - some bokeh maybe, a more arty feel to images, stealthiness and yes not to break the bank - it is nice if the lens is sharp and has little cons too [on this one it seems the corners can be a bit soft wide open and it is sharper at F4 than 2.8 but that's about it] I don't see build quality as a con with a lens like this. That is why it's cheap, and I have never broken or even damaged a lens in my life no matter how flimsy it was. You could have a bunch of primes for the price of a decent zoom too!
 
Cagey75 said:
It's TP ... whaddaya'spect? :D

It's comparing apples to oranges to begin with, the zoom is a completely different lens that you'd use for different purposes.
Click to expand...

It was more a point of note, than a comparison. I suppose I had an expectation that, after reading many online reviews and taking into account lens construction, that the prime would naturally be sharper, even taking the price point into account (negated by reviews that optically comparable to a much higher price point lens).

Was purchased to use as a light weight walk about lens, which it fits the bill on.
 
jondc said:
It was more a point of note, than a comparison. I suppose I had an expectation that, after reading many online reviews and taking into account lens construction, that the prime would naturally be sharper, even taking the price point into account (negated by reviews that optically comparable to a much higher price point lens).

Was purchased to use as a light weight walk about lens, which it fits the bill on.
Click to expand...

I normally expect a prime to perform better than a zoom too, I guess it depends on the zoom. There's zooms such as the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 that many say can easily replace a bag of primes within that focal range - 18, 20, 24, 28, 35 - but it's also a pretty hefty lens so you wouldn't be saving any weight just adding convenience. That's a rare case though, not many 1.8 zooms in existance and it's also APSC only.
 
f/2.8 said:
:LOL:

You state your opinion as fact even when you are clearly very much wrong.

Like the other day when you insisted that the little olympus camera would not fit in a pocket even when I said I had already tried it and it did, as did someone else. You even went to the bother of posting up comparison sizes with other cameras I was definitely not considering to try and prove your point even though again you where completely and utterly wrong. :LOL:
Click to expand...

eh? :D What I actually said when I posted the pictures was...

woof woof said:
It does?

There doesn't look to be anything in it for me, I find even the RF style cameras too heavy and bulky for even a winter coat. For me these cameras even with a compact lens have to go in a bag. Especially if on holiday and just wearing shorts and a shirt.
Click to expand...

How the gosh is that stating opinion as fact? That's rhetorical, no need to answer :D That looks like a clear personal opinion to me and was posted as such.

Anyway, in this thread I think you're going overboard. Ok, that's you prerogative and there's plenty of hyperbole on forums. I prefer a more balanced view.
 
The difference in ultimate lens quality is usually entirely lost in the ability of of the Photographer to create interesting images.
Sharpness is a minor factor in most great photographs.
I have never seen a critically sharp image taken by Cartier Bresson, when examined closely.
And just about all the fantastic photographs by Edward Weston were limited by diffraction.
Even Ansel Adams was far more interested in tonal quality than sharpness, which was lacking in many of his images.

Lens quality is about far more than sharpness.

Samyang lenses are far from being toys, and they fill an important place in the world of photography, and many exceptional images are captured using them.
For those photographers that never produce prints larger than A3 anything better is likely to be massive over kill.
Very few photographer need the sharpness and quality available from using the finest and most expensive lenses, and they can only discern it when pixel peeping, and never in the real world situation.

Samyang produces one of the very finest fisheye lenses for 360x180 immersive photography. It is the lens of choice for a majority of professional photographers.
It is perhaps bettered by the equivalent Nikon lens in terms of sharpness, but the Samyang is in most cases easier to stitch and covers a wider field.
Not that cameras makes other than Nikon have a real choice, as nearly all alternatives are Samyangs marketed under other names, though some Chinese made fisheyes have become available in recent times.
 
This is a very curious thread. The point of having a sharp lens is so you don't need to worry about lens performance, and that's pretty much it. But there's also more to a photo than sharpness, as already noted.

As for Samyang, I've owned 2 so far. The 85 manual focus was sharper than any ordinary Nikon lens I owned, including primes, and the Sammy 50 f1.4 FE I had was also sharper than the Nikons (which I'm using with adapter on the A7III). These are optically professional quality lenses, but slightly let down by the mechanics. They may not be the very sharpest available, but at least they're priced sensibly, unlike some of the underperforming Sony zooms.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The difference in ultimate lens quality is usually entirely lost in the ability of of the Photographer to create interesting images.


Samyang produces one of the very finest fisheye lenses for 360x180 immersive photography. It is the lens of choice for a majority of professional photographers.
It is perhaps bettered by the equivalent Nikon lens in terms of sharpness, but the Samyang is in most cases easier to stitch and covers a wider field.
Not that cameras makes other than Nikon have a real choice, as nearly all alternatives are Samyangs marketed under other names, though some Chinese made fisheyes have become available in recent times.
Click to expand...

They produce one of the more popular WA lenses for APSC too, their 12mm F2 is a cracker, very nicely build and the image quality is as good as any lens I've used at the 18-24mm range on any system. Plenty of Interior design photographers use it even over the likes of the Fuji 10-24, because of that F2 aperture and the fact it's every bit as sharp, it's lighter, smaller and of course cheaper. Even pros are budget consious, not all of them need to be flashy and have everything at the highest end. That's nonsense, but everyone is different.
 
Cagey75 said:
They produce one of the more popular WA lenses for APSC too, their 12mm F2 is a cracker, very nicely build and the image quality is as good as any lens I've used at the 18-24mm range on any system. Plenty of Interior design photographers use it even over the likes of the Fuji 10-24, because of that F2 aperture and the fact it's every bit as sharp, it's lighter, smaller and of course cheaper. Even pros are budget consious, not all of them need to be flashy and have everything at the highest end. That's nonsense, but everyone is different.
Click to expand...


Agreed, I had the Samyang 12mm f2 on my XT1 and it was very very good.
 
chrism_scotland said:
True but the much cheaper (new) Samyang 35mm f2.8 is basically the same IQ wise
Click to expand...

One of them is on my wish-list for later in the year as a street & travel lens, though I might go for the 28 f2 simply for the faster aperture & wider AOV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top