Samyang announced the new 7,5mm 10mm and 12mm Cine Lenses for Micro Four Thirds!
Official press text:
Nearly a month after their market release, Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS and Samyang 12 mm f/2.0 NCS CS lenses are now available in their equivalent cine versions: Samyang 10mm T3.1 Cine and 12mm T2.2 Cine. Samyang VDSLR cine lenses feature aperture and focus rings with sprocket wheels controlling their work through Follow Focus systems. This allows for noiseless and smooth adjustment of the above parameters during filming.
Samyang 10mm T3.1 Cine and 12mm T2.2 Cine have nanocrystal anti-reflective layer (NCS) that ensures better light transmission, increased resistance to light reflections and higher contrast, which improves optical resolution of the lenses.
Samyang 12 mm in photo and cine versions fills the gap among lenses dedicated for mirrorless cameras with APS-C sensor, large angle of view and high brightness. The lens has been designed for cameras fitted with a high resolution sensor (above 24 mln pixels). Samyang Optics company is renowned among clients for great quality optics offered at affordable prices. And this is also the case with 10mm and 12 lenses which provide technical parameters and optical potential that can easily compete with the best wide-angle prime and zoom lenses available on the market.
Samyang 7.5mm T3.8 Fish-eye Cine. This is a cine version of a meticulously designed manual fish-eye lens which provides diagonal field of vision equal to 180 degrees. Despite its small size, Samyang 7.5mm T3.8 Cine produces images with splendid parameters and exceptional vividness, and the minimal focusing distance amounts to only 0.09 meters.
More images and specs at samyang-europe.com/index.php/new-products/93-samyang-new-lenses-coming-soon
38 Responses
Real M43 shooters only buy F 0.95 lenses. The rest is for amateurs.
Speak for yourself clown
Are you angrie nerdie?
Looks like we have a TOUGH GUY on 43rumors. OH boy! Go back to the frat house. lolz
Keep it coming nerdie. Your pain is my joy 🙂
ah huh
And even then, at huge prices and large sizes, DOF and quality don’t come close to 135…
Hahahaha….show us any comparison or proof of that statement
“Proof of that statement” have you swallowed a dict? Look, we are teaching you for free, you should be thankful. You don’t believe us? Your problem, not ours. Enjoy your uberpriced toys.
Absolutely, the fanatic posters here must be Olympus employees, or complete idiots.
I consider an idiot the real idiot that only can shoot with a 135 BUT come here to troll people that take better pics with a much smarter system although with a smaller sensor. This blah-blah does not prove anything, other than you are that idiot…
But you cannot take good pictures, you are just a kid. You cannot even write simple sentences in English. Poor mum…
Are you one of those kids who can only read but not write?
Don’t feed the troll.
I can take over the world with my T 1.6 Noctitoy and E-M1 with PRO written on.
I wonder how the 12mm f2.0 will compare against Olympus’ old lens with the same general specs and the new Panasonic 15mm f1.7
It’s hard for me to get excited about the Samyang lenses as long as they don’t make a native one for mFT. When I compare the Samyang 12mm to the Olympus 12mm its 260 vs 130g and 67 vs 56mm filter size. Maybe it’s just me, but the size and weight was a reason why I went with the mFT system, so I won’t buy lenses that are larger and heavier than they would have to be except the quality is way better what I don’t think.
For the users who care more about video they might be nice, but for pure photography I’m not that much excited.
Well it has also some advantages. Samyang can reuse the design therefore the individual lens gets cheaper. And we get the advantage of using its center area with less distortion. Optically, Samyang lenses tend to be excellent. I like to shoot night sky and they’re tack sharp and don’t produce halos around point light sources. I guess CINE versions will retain the quality, just add stepless rings and gears.
By cine lens standard, those Samyang looks very small actually.
“For the users who care more about video they might be nice, but for pure photography I’m not that much excited.”
These are lenses specifically for video. You’re not supposed to be excited if you’re into still photography.
Yes native m43 lenses would be much better. And they can be remounted for Nikon, Samsung and Pentax system cameras.
Wrong. A 12 mm lens is not bigger than another because it covers a wider image circle. This is one of several M43 marketing lies.
I’d like to see proof of this. How do you figure?
Have you got an engineering background? This is not something for wikipedia or other online rubbish (yes, wikipedia is rubbish), you really need to know a little optics. Sorry, not everything can be made easy.
Anyway, let me try and dumb it down a lot. The front element’s size is given by focal length and F number, by construction. The elements behind it are normally narrower, irrespective of the sensor size, so they have no impact on the total size. The innermost element can have a bigger or smaller radius, to fill up a larger or smaller image circle. This is negligibly small with respect to the total size.
On top of this, the total objective length is not related to the image circle, but only to focal length and design.
In a nutshell: focal length, F number and design affect the size of an objective; the image circle does not.
M43 lenses are not thinner than equivalent lenses for other formats; they are only shorter. The system practically has no teles, so this potential advantage is negated. We are left with some design advantages for wide angles, where M43 lenses are a bit smaller than 135 designs, which require retroprojection designs.
If you have a considerably small lens, it is probably not equivalent to the much larger lens for another system you are comparing it to.
That’s why faster lenses have huuuuuge front elements. Like that new Nocticron. But as for the teles, well I do hope they fill that one up but it’s a good start that the 70-200mm f2.8 FF equivalent for M43 is considerably smaller. It’s still an advantage.
There are no equivalent lenses in M43. Is there a 35-100 F1.4? If there was, it would have a front element the size of a 70-200 F2.8, it would be shorter (but still bulky), it would probably cost more.
While most of what you’re saying is strictly true, it is rubbish from a perspective of optical engineering. Light cannot be capture by the sensor at all angles, and keeping the same diameter for the innermost element would place unreasonable demands on optical angular resolution as the sensor size increases. Consider a sensor size of 1 m^2. Do you think a micro 4/3 lens would cover it adequately? Because from what you’re saying, it would make no difference. The truth is that while focal length is an important contributor to lens diameter, lenses are also made to cover the sensor size to avoid extreme angles of projection.
From what I am saying, it would not work. Read again and forget about your marketing truth. Sorry for being blunt.
Thank you for taking the time to dumb it down – as you say: a lot. I’m sorry. I don’t have an engineering degree. I thought however that those that knew what they’re talking about can make any explanation seem logical and easy.
So I understand what you’re saying. However there are questions that have not been answered. When you refract light too much you’re going to get severe vignetting in the corners as light falloff from a small lens element onto a bigger projecting plane in addition to this: unless the lens is absolutely perfect, the lens elements will introduce imperfections and diffraction what shows up as softness in the final image. A pinhole camera is capable of capturing an image – not a very good one as well all know. So how do you overcome this with a small lens on a big sensor?
There are several techniques, but the size of a lens does not matter. Imagine you have a fast lens and you stop it down: you only use a small portion of your lens then (sorry, it is again very dumbed down). In other words, you will get better quality and less vignetting from a smaller lens.
I’ve read lots of talk about reduced flange distance (vs SLR) allowing simpler design and (not automatically) smaller lenses, specially on the wide end.
As for the image circle being a factor, please show me the alleged marketing lies. It must have flown under my radar somehow.. Physically, there are no reasons why the size should differ. A focal length its an absolute measurement which dictate the diameter of the aperture. There remains a case to be made about vignette however. For instance, high quality Cine lenses are known to have extremely little vignette, which explains why they are so massive. My question is, when a certain image quality is required, does image circle counts in the equation for the size of a given lens? Probably, I’d say.
There are two factors that come into play here – flange distance and image circle diameter. At the wide end it’s the flange distance that has more impact. Towards the long end, the size difference between M43 vs the others becomes significant.
46mm on the 12/2.0…
Excellent news !!
Why are they using all kinds of anti-reflective layers, since lots of filmmakers seems to prefer having lots of light leaks and flares etc?!
You’re talking about JJ Abrams. He’s not the norm.