Which Lens?

Nikon users!! Which lens do you perfer on a Nikon D750? The Rokinon 14mm f2.8 or the Samyang 14mm f2.8?

I think it's the same lens with two different labels. I bought the Rokinon because it seemed all right to pay $280 (on sale) for an focal length I seldom need.

I'm sure they're the exact same lens with just a different brand label. So pick the cheapest one, and you'll be fine :-)

Vivitar, Bower, Opteka, Rokinon, etc. are usually the same.

Got to go with the Nikon, since its new logo's sequential white rays represent "the future." You want to be part of the future, don't you?

 

LINK

I am a Canon shooter, but can confirm I have been happier in the long run with my Canon lenses. I have over time ended up upgrading my Sigma and Tamron lenses. Eventually, they start to show their age and not work optimally. Cheap lenses are ok if that is all you can afford, but if you are a serious photog you will eventually outgrow the cheap lenses and eventually upgrade to a Nikon lens. Why not just buy the Nikon lens now? Better investment long term.

can confirm I have been happier in the long run with my Canon lense

Ditto with Nikon!

"can confirm I have been happier in the long run with my Canon lense"

 

Ditto with Nikon!

LOL. Sandy, by accidentally neglecting to capture the "s" in "lenses" when you pulled the quote from Model Mayhem Gallery, you've unwittingly committed that cardinal sin of online photographers, appearing to have spelled "lens" as "lense." Unfortunately, I was a typesetter by trade, so I can't help but proofread as I browse through threads. When it first popped out at me, I assumed it was just another misspelling of the word, but it was fun to find out it was serendipity. :)

but it was fun to find out it was serendipity. :)

Haste makes waste, as Granddad used to say! :oops:

I've used 3rd party lenses for most of my life, originally because I couldn't afford Nikkors for everything. I still have a Tamron 28-75 and it gets used regularly, it's been very good for the last decade. Just bought a 24-120 Nikkor as part of an fx purchase and it does very well but the Tamron stays. I also have what may be the least expensive lens I've ever seen, a small off brand 19-35. It's been used, abused, tossed around and cussed at but it delivers a unique look that nothing else I have offers so it sticks around. It's funny though, the lenses in the OP probably are the same thing just rebranded. Makes me wonder at times if there is just one huge lens factory at the north pole that makes all the lenses on the planet.

 

Rick H.

Haste makes waste, as Granddad used to say! :oops:

You got me curious to see who, besides Granddad, is responsible for the saying, "Haste makes waste." A lot of sites attribute it to Ben Franklin, who's also given credit for "Early to bed, early to rise, etc. . . ." Anyway I found a couple of other cute quotes about haste in the process.

 

An old English Proverb: "Haste makes waste, and waste makes want, and want makes strife between the goodman and his wife."

 

And one from the always clever Chinese masters: "A hasty man drinks his tea with a fork."

At last count (and not up-to-date) I have about 200 lenses. Many have been acquired along with my accumulation of old film cameras, and some specifically FOR those cameras.

Aside from environmental issues (e.g., fungus) most are in good working condition. With a few exceptions, durability of function does not appear to have much to do with the manufacturer.

For my contemporary and past travel equipment, I have largely used OEM brand lenses on both Nikon F and Canon EOS. However, for some functions, such as ultra wide angle and macro, I have gone with Sigma and Tamron for my working inventory.

 

The exceptions are a few spectacularly poorly designed lenses, and the worst of these for continued functionality is the automatic diaphragm on the Meyer Domiplan that was the default normal lens on a rather sad period in the camera production of the Workers' and Peasants' State (the DDR). After the Antifascist Protection Wall (aka Berlin Wall) went up, ironically the quality of East German manufacture also improved.

 

However, the only modern lens made by Nikon or Canon that has broken on me was one of my favorites, the old Canon EF 35mm f/2. They got it back to me quickly and for a modest repair cost, and it's worked well ever since.

Why not just buy the Nikon lens now? Better investment long term.

 

Well, the only comparable Nikon lens is the AF-D 14mm f/2.8, which isn't great, but is priced like it would be. Its second hand value is not holding up, and will gradually grow worse. So it's not an investment in any way. A better option is the 14-24 f/2.8 lens, which costs about 6 times more than the Samyang, and also deprecates (so also not an investment).

There are very good reasons to consider the Samyang/Rokinon, and they're not just about being able to afford the Nikkor or not - sometimes the OEM lenses simply are not the best you can get for your money.

I agree entirely with Wouter - but I would add that the 10-20mm and 17-35mm Nikkors are both comparable (in a loose sense) to the Rokiyang 14mm. The first is variable aperture and the second costs between $1k and $2k so they're only theoretically comparable.

 

And it's true. Third party lenses can be just as good as Nikon-Canon stuff. Sigma is making great glass nowadays, and even 20 years ago, the Tokina 28-70 was comparable to Nikon's version. IMO Sigma and Tokina both make optically great lenses but they're not going to last a lifetime.