mark_amos

<p>Although I ordered the lens for myself, my wife wrapped it and put it under the tree, and I was glad to wait to open it on Christmas day today. I used it for the sojourns to our various family destinations today, and I was very pleased with the results I was getting. Finally about 10:30 p.m. back home just a little earlier than now, I did a simple test against the Sigma 19 in my garage with a tripod with ISO set at 100. I have enjoyed using the Sigma 19. It is a great value at $200. My Nikon 20 2.8 ais is a fine optic but smears around the edges, and the Sigma 19 is generally better than the Nikon on Sony mirrorless APS-C. Having said that, the Rokinon 21 1.4 blows the Sigma 19 out of the water. From my first test, the Rokinon at 1.4 is sharper in the center than the Sigma at 2.8. At those same apertures even at the periphery of the frame, but in the plane of focus, the Rokinon is so much higher in contrast than the Sigma. Granted, the Rokinon isn't a tiny lens, but it isn't large either. It is the same size as the kit lens or the 50 1.8 OSS. Perhaps I will offer a post with more commentary on this quite amazing lens. I think I have indeed finally found the wide-normal-fast lens I have been wanting for my Sony APS-C camera for about 4 years now....that doesn't cost $1,000 (like the Sony/Zeiss 24 1.8) Furthermore, I am glad to have an aperture ring and a focus ring actually linked to the lens elements instead of the interface of most all Sony mirrorless AF lenses.</p>

<p>I still have not received it, but I'm looking forward to it. When I said "not available in M mount", I meant that this lens focuses fairly closely like 10", and most all M mount lenses don't because they were originally intended for full frame use with the Leica rangefinder mechanism that didn't work closer than their typical .7 meters minimum focus distance. Furthermore, the fact that this lens is only for aps-c lenses allows it to be much smaller and lighter than the full frame Voigtlander 21 1.8 or Leica 21 1.4, and it is vastly less expensive. I would have probably been happier for it to be even smaller and more like 23 f2, but I'm going to try to enjoy the fact it is a tad wider FOV and faster than that. It will be the only native e mount manual focus lens I have, and I hope that the focus scale is accurate enough to do pre-focusing, which I can't do with Leica M or Nikon lenses on adapters, but I'm reading that hope might be unfulfilled.</p>

<p>I had read that one Arthur, but since you reference it, I have studied it more. They compare the Rokinon to the Canon EF-S 24 2.8 pancake for aps-c and also the Fuji XF 16 1.4, so I read reviews of those lenses, and both are highly regarded. If I'm reading the popphoto review correctly, they seem to place the Rokinon between the other two in image quality, which I realize is a very vague expression. But I don't personally have experience with either of those lenses. A few comments I read said the Rokinon is better than the Sigma 19 2.8, which I have. One might wonder why I would want the Rokinon since I already have the Sigma, but each difference is precisely the reason: faster and possibly sharper, not quite as wide, manual focus and also has an aperture ring. <br> Perhaps I can tag the following question on to my post: When using an af lens like the Sigma or the Sony lenses in manual focus, do the lens elements absolutely stay still even if the camera is turned off and on? It seems like they do, but I'm not sure. That is one reason I like the idea of an actual MF lens, so that I can achieve focus and then during the course of several minutes or more, I will not exactly where I'm focused if I want to raise the camera and shoot. And there is no risk that the camera would try to af and focus on the background for example if in af mode. </p>

<p>I've read all the reviews at B&H and Adorama about this lens as well as a handful of other reviews. In spite of the manual focus and lack of data contacts (which are not problems for me and mf with a connected ring is often a benefit), most people seem to say the lens is amazing and even very good at 1.4 in the center and quite flare resistant perhaps because of the coatings. At an equivalent 32.5mm and f1.4, I would probably say that this lens is a great solution for the one lens carry around lens and especially for in-door photography. The obvious comparison is to the Sony/Zeiss 24 1.8 that costs about $1,000 while this Rokinon is $400. The one aspect that is very hard for me to get around is that at 2 5/8" long and 58mm filter thread, I don't think it is a truly small lens even though all the reviews say it is compact, but it is relative because it is almost the same size as the Zeiss 24 1.8. I guess that after these several years, I'm finally maybe ready to give up on getting a go-to lens as small as I want in order to get the focal length I want, (32.5-36), the speed I hope for (f1.4-2), the close focus distance for food shots and such (not available with M mount except for with special close focus adapters) and also maybe the ability to zone focus by presetting the focus distance scale and then lifting the camera and shooting (but I hear that Rokinon lenses sometimes focus beyond infinity, darn it.) ....and all at a reasonable price of $400.<br> If anybody has any experience with this lens, I would love to hear about it. Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff :|</p>

<p>I know I'm getting ahead of myself here a bit because the performance of the Kipon Baveyes/Speedbooster for M is totally in question for now, but it is exciting to think that this device might even be feasible because it totally enhances the usefulness of Leica M mount glass to the point of fully validating (and vindicating) it as an ideal solution for APS-C mirrorless compact cameras. All this time, I have still found my M mount lenses pleasurable to use because of the quality, control and the fact that even though they are full frame, they are more compact than the typical e mount AF aps-c or full frame AF lenses and even smaller than the MF lenses like the Loxia that are optimized for the digital sensor. One reason they are smaller might also be that they don't have any sort of in-lens OSS. So wouldn't it be amazing if finally Sony made a very compact aps-c Leica C sort of camera that also had in-camera stabilization: think a6500. And then what if we had an adapter that took advantage of the full frame coverage of the legacy M lenses by converting these tiny lenses' full field of view to the aps-c sensor of these compact rangefinder styled cameras and gave us another stop in the process and maybe even enhanced center performance. Furthermore, I wonder if the baveyes might be able to improve the edge performance of the symmetrical wide M lenses in the process of adapting them from full frame image size to aps-c size. It is quite exciting to imagine my original version Voigtlander 15 VC f4.5 being usable on the a6500 (or my nex-6) as a 15mm f3.3 lens and so compact. Furthermore, from the whitepaper about the SLR speed booster, it might be that an M speedbooster would even be a little thinner than the glass-less M to E adapters. What if my 35 cron asph could be a tiny 35 1.4? Oh well, maybe I'm just dreaming. I also acknowledge that if Sony could put a full frame sensor in a body the size of the a6500 that could work well with the symmetrical wides then it would be a similar accomplishment, but I actually wonder if the optics of an adapter could remedy some of the issue.</p>

<p>I read most of the white paper from Jeff just now and also looked at the metabones link Gerry included. I have to admit that I had not taken these boosters very seriously previously, but this is now going to be on my radar for more study since I have Nikon lenses already. A subtle point that maybe is what really sold me is that the adapter is slightly shorter than the regular open tube like the Metabones Nikon F to e I already have.<br> Do you all know of a web site that confirms performance with the speedbooster ultra with various Nikon lenses?<br> Also, I assume that pre-AI Nikor lenses can be mounted?</p>

<p>Gerry, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I am presently looking for the Metabones' press releases or other articles to explain how the speed booster could actually improve lens quality as opposed to even slightly degrading it. My comment here is probably overly simplified, but what I gather is that perhaps when it gives the extra stop of light/speed, the image quality is better than a lens would be if it were stopped to that on it's own. So for example, an SLR 35mm lens at f2.8 would have the "speed" of an f2 lens, but it would be at it's own f2.8 level of aberration and distortion and all that would be better than it would be if it were actually being shot at aperture f2. Is this the case? Is that what is meant?</p>

<p>Nicely done Gerry. That is a very enjoyable result. I just finished putting together my set-up for my aps-c Sony 5n with a Nikkor 55 micro pre-AI that I got for a great price at KEH. </p>

<p>That's encouraging Gerry. I'm not sure what we can expect from the M to E adapter because it is so small and protrudes back so far also, but the price suggests that they gave it their best shot in any case. I feel the adapter is worth $600 if it can maintain quality and effectively creates a couple new lens options from old ones.<br> (BTW, I checked out your slide thread and made a comment.) Also, I knew about Ken's name, but I thought maybe Arthur was making a funny or avoiding giving a straight plug to Ken.</p>

<p>I read the Rockwell review of the similar Canon adapter, and I'm hoping the Leica M version will maintain high image quality with at least the lenses I wish if not all lenses, but I acknowledge this might be unrealistic. Specifically it would be wonderful if it could be the solution to provide smaller faster wide angle lenses for the aps-c e mount. For example I enjoy using my original tiny Voigtlander 15 f4.5 on my NEX-6 even as an equiv 22mm, and it would be really wonderful as a 15 3.5. But as mentioned in the Rockwell article, some lenses (including the 15) protrude so far back beyond the lens mount that they not work with the Baveyes in any case, meaning it might not be possible to even mount the lens on the adapter, but I suppose we shall see. I look forward to a review of it. </p>

<p>I know there are many gadgets that don't really do much to enhance our photographic results. I think we can agree that indulging our comforts can reinforce limits but can also give us familiar pleasure that yield good photography. Am I the only one so totally hopeful that this particular speed booster can work? I have been thinking about it for years. It would be the one and only way that I know of for APS-C Sony users to get an equivalent 35mm field of view in a fast lens that is also high quality and very compact by using a Leica 35 cron. <br> For anybody that doesn't understand what speedboosters do, this condenses the full frame image of a full frame lens to the size of an aps-c sensor so that the full field of view of the lens is maintained and in the process a nearly full stop of exposure is gained. There is always a potential for loss of image quality with a specific lens, but sometimes the results are very fine. That is what I'm wondering about, but I don't see any tests out yet. </p>

<p>The Sony site instructions say that it isn't guaranteed to work unless I use the Sony USB cable that came with the camera. I bought it used, so I don't have that cable. What is the likely hood that it really won't work with another USB cable? I think it is the standard cable as used with most non-iphone phones, isn't it? Am I going to end up with a nightmare?</p>

<p>Thanks Fred.</p>

<p>I note how the instructions for updating my NEX 6 to firmware 1.03 point out that it can't be reversed. Does anybody know of any downside of 1.03 compared to 1.02? I ask because I recall one time reading about somebody regretting an update, but I have no idea what camera it was. Thanks.</p>

<p>Just to update my own post, I had heard about the Iberit (related to Kipon company maybe?) manual focus FE lenses last Spring but had not seen any additional information. I just saw a Matt Granger video about them linked through Sonyalpharumors, and I will say their 24 2.4 is notable as representing the sort of lens that I am saying is sorely missing, and that is a high quality compact affordable (maybe $500?) not-too-slow equivalent 36mm lens when used on aps-c. It only marginally achieves all of those requirements, but I think it does, and we will see some day what the actual performance is. True, it would be even better for the aps-c shooter if it were optimized for aps-c, but on the other hand, I think I would probably buy it in M mount and have that versatility to use it on other systems going forward as I would choose. I know we can already use SLR 24mm lenses on adapter, but I think this lens is notably more compact than those on adapter.</p>

<p>I will be 57 then. I think the changes will be more advances in connectivity and in ways I can't predict. I recall about 15 years ago wishing for a very small very high quality (equal to my best film) affordable digital camera that could use either my Nikon or Leica lenses and a small affordable note book computer where I could plug in a card and see my pictures. Furthermore I thought it would be cool to be able to economically and easily look at them on one of those big fancy expensive slim plasma screen televisions that had come out. This was all possible but not simple or economical, so I waited. I even got an HDTV about 2004, but it didn't have an HDMI port. They were not standard yet, so at the end of the television's life, it still wasn't easy to get the most out of it.</p> <p>So my point is that in actual use, the common 24 MP sensors of today are not necessarily so significant compared to the 6 MP sensors of 12 years ago or so. What is amazing is that I can take a picture with my Sony NEX 6 (purchased used) and wifi it to my iphone 6s anywhere and then email a high quality picture in about 1 minute. Or I can take the card out of the camera and install it in my slim 11.6" touch screen Dell two-in-one notebook that cost just $400 and not $2,000.., and you can find a wi fi zone anywhere. Or I can hook the laptop to my $400 40" LED TV because they both have HDMI ports, or for that matter I can hook the NEX 6 directly to that TV with an HDMI mini to regular adapter and watch videos playing directly from the camera. In fact, I carry the adapter everywhere because I can go to almost anybody's home, shoot some video or pictures, and you can count on them having something connected to their TV with an HDMI cord, so I just use it to plug in my camera. I am not into any of the social media sites (for some reason), but I enjoy documenting life and sharing it with people and saving my work, and that is all unimaginably easy now. I held out of using mainly digital equipment for years because what I thought I wanted to do was just not popular, practical, or possible, but then all of the sudden it was, so I dove in. I so adored slide photography, but then when I could do what digital allows, finally slides lost a lot of their relevance to what I wanted to do. That is probably because I always wanted to document beautifully, and digital allowed me to do more of it. One might argue that the artful care is lost with the bulk shooting ease of digital, but I would instead say a little of the mystery and luck is gone, but I get more great images than ever before when film and developing cost and not seeing what you got before-hand were factors.</p> <p>In 9 years I would guess we will just be further down the road where imagery is more of a part of our immersion in our every movement more than it is part of classic photography or even documentary photography as we know it now. I recently disappointed my home security system salesman when I told him I don't want cameras in my house. Maybe as time goes by, whatever I am afraid of will feel fine. I guess I would say it isn't a question of what is new; it is a question of what we will be able to do with things we are already familiar with.</p>

<p>When the aps-c e mount system was introduced Eric, one of the first lenses was the $1,100 Zeiss 25 f1.8 ZA. That was a very logical lens for Zeiss to start with. In the 5 years since then, the only other attempt by anybody to make an equivalent 35mm lens for the system (as far as I know) is that both SLR Magic and Mitakon make a mediocre manual focus 23 1.7. That is who I meant by second tier. I would think that Voigtlander or Sigma or Samyang or even Sony would realize that a more economical 35 mm equivalent lens than the $1100/900 Zeiss would be appealing in the market. I keep saying the same thing over and over again in this thread, but nobody really addresses it. The closest best answer is that everybody knows Sony is focusing on FE, but with the A5300, A6000 and A6300, there would be enough market for such a common focal length at an affordable price</p>

<p>I saw that Robin. I guess I'm switching to A mount since apparently aps-c E mount is dead. :)</p>

<p>Eric, I just want to thank you for such a thoughtful response. I just saw it and sat about to make notes and try to address it line by line as it deserves since you are trying to answer my question(s). I'm sorry I have not been able to do that even though I have read your response several times. I think maybe the answer that is obvious is that Sony doesn't want to make several options in aps-c for the most common focal length 35mm equivalent the world has known because they have their own priorities. I get that, but I think a valid and more subtle point of my question is why has nobody else filled the void?</p> <p>The second tier China companies have made 23 1.7 lenses. Why not Sigma or anybody else?</p>

<p>Responding to Eric and Edward, I'm not sure either of you understand what I mean, but it may be that I don't understand what you mean. Edward, you say Sony is driven by sales. I think if Sony made a small 24 2.8 $350 aps-c that would be an equivalent 36mm lens it would sell well (unless it were undercut by Sigma). Eric, you seem to be saying that they would rather prod me to buy into their A7 series instead of giving me what I want in the smaller aps-c camera, but the problem is that I know what I want; I'm don't want the larger camera and larger lenses for what I do, so they can sell me what I want and need or they can watch me walk away or at the very least, they can see that I just don't buy any more of their new stuff, and I just keep managing with what I already bought from them, or I switch systems.<br> Eric, I think you made the point that buyers should research what they are getting before they buy-in. I agree., and I do so like crazy. That's why I bought into Sony NEX for what it did for me then adequately like being able to fulfill a dream of using my Nikon and Leica lenses, but because I don't see a full commitment, I don't buy much more. I am more or less content with this NEX 5n and NEX 6 solution even now for me, but that doesn't mean I won't or can't complain about how it is ridiculous that Sony doesn't offer more options for the MOST POPULAR FOCAL LENGTH FOR GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHY - the equivalent 35mm field of view. <br> I bought the Sony 5n before the Fuji X-E1 was introduced, and the Fuji X Pro 1 that was already out was too big for me and too expensive. If Fuji had got the X-E1 out the door sooner, things might have been different. </p>

<p>Edward, I realize that using full frame lenses on a Sony APS-C is possible, and that would be a great solution if Sony made a very compact affordable 23 f2 FE or even a 23 f2 2.8 in order to achieve the equivalent 35mm field of view on the APS-c bodies, but of course they don't. And I know they make a 28 f2 FE, but an equivalent 42 is nice but not a 35, which is the classic semi-wide one lens solution. The really weird thing is that none of the main aftermarket companies do either nor does anybody make a dedicated APS-C 23(or 24) f2 or 2.8, which would be cheaper and smaller than an FE lens. I can only guess that Sony has some kind of agreement with Zeiss so that nobody will compete with that $1,098/$899 24 1.8 ZA lens, and maybe they even use leverage with the likes of Sigma to prevent them from making such a lens. </p>

<p>Doesn't it seem odd to anybody but me that whereas Fuji already makes a 23 1.4 lens, they chose wisely to introduce this smaller f2 lens (even though they have their own X100 series) while Sony only offers the larger $900 24 1.8 ZA for APS-C? (and that is with a $200 discount!)? I mean I think most of us know that historically the 50 f2 and 35 f2 (equiv) lenses were the most popular versatile general purpose lenses, so why does Sony offer only 1 high quality option for the equivalent 35 field of view, and it is obscenely expensive? Should we assume that since the coming Fuji 23 f2 is only $450 that it is probably krap compared to the Sony/Zeiss ZA?<br /> Further why would only Chinese fringe companies like SLR Magic and Mitakon realize there is a demand for such a lens with their 23 1.7 lenses? I don't think these usually get reviews that are as good as what we see from Rokinon/Samyang for their extremely ambitiously fast but still really cheap lenses? I mean we are seeing so many e-mount lenses and a few are optimized for APS-C. I think my point is substantially made by the fact that when the APS-C Sony NEX was introduced, Zeiss offered exactly one lens first: the 24 1.8 ZA. Can't one of the established companies like Sigma or Rokinon or Tokina (that has the new 20 f2 FE) realize there is a market for an affordable version of an APS-C 24 f2 even if it is slightly slower and lacks the Zeiss name plate? It's not like I'm clucking for some rarely used accessory. For FE there is the Loxia 35 f2, a real gem. Then there's the Sony Distagon FE 35 1.4 too (yes, large). But then there is the Zeiss 35 2.8 FE for $699 that is MUCH smaller than the APS-C ZA lens? What gives?</p>

<p>Edward, I don't know the specific issues of lens design, but I have to think it is possible to make an aps-c optimized lens that is designed specifically at the margin of each characteristic that keeps the size down while making it still worth having as a one lens solution. I have said before that this isn't really as arbitrary of a set of goals as it might seem. For example, people don't usually hang around with kids and friends in a living room that is darker than 30 foot candles or so. High ISO performance today makes 2.8 a really great sweet spot for max aperture and small size. Furthermore, you can get a shot of everybody on a couch with about a 28mm equiv without backing up more than 10' in a typically small size living room. That focal length also is good for getting all 22 kids in a pic set up in a typical elementary class room. These are very common parameters. Further, a head to waist portrait can be achieved with a 50mm equiv lens and notable background blur at f 2.8 as long as the background is 15' back or so. Actually I'm kind of wasting my breath because the Fuji X 18-55 2.8-4 already proves what I'm saying. People say it has very high quality imagery. How about limit it to 20-40 f2.8-3.5 and keep the optical quality high and correct in camera what is left. Everybody would love that, and it doesn't have to have a 72mm filter thread. The Fuji is 58mm and 2.75" long. 58mm would be fine for what I'm describing. You would have the perfect carry around lens. it could be about 2.5" long, and if the zoom made the central elements have to zoom outward, it wouldn't be far because of the limited zoom range. I wish Sigma would make this. The unfortunate point is that the Fuji kit zoom is similar in size to the Sony but has better image quality and is a full stop faster. I like my Sony cameras, and I'm a little bought-in, but that Fuji lens by itself gives them an edge with people starting fresh I'm guessing.</p>

<p>I agree Michael that the Samyang 12 f2 and 21 1.4 seem just too good to be true because the reviews are very good, and the prices are so reasonable, and they are large but not enormous. However, for me, these are probably things I would like to have but don't much need for most of what I do. While I would love such a fast equiv. 32.5, as I have much bemoaned, I would rather have a reasonably priced very small equiv. 35 2.8 or f2 ideally. So I repeat, these would be a blast to have, but I don't see myself carrying them everywhere in daily life. I also agree with Edward that Sony is giving little attention to new aps-c lenses, but I feel it has to be a careful strategy. They want us aps-c users to buy the FE lenses for now, and while that is ridiculous in many cases, it isn't so bad in the case of using the 28 f2 FE as a 42 for aps-c or even the Zeiss 55 1.8 as a 82mm portrait lens for given it is always on sale for $699. I should clarify that I am buying neither one of those. </p> <p>I have clearly explained that I want a smaller, cheaper aps-c 35 equiv. In other threads/posts I have explained that I wish they made a small 20-40 f 2.8 zoom, which I assume they will never make. Micheal, what is it you want them to make that they don't?</p>