Samyng on the left and Zeiss on the right. Image courtesy: Tystory.
Tystory (Click here) is the only reviewing site that got his hands on the Samyang 135mm f/2.0 which comes in both A-mount (Click here) and E-mount (Click here). The review shows a comparison between the new Samyang and the much more expensive Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 A-mount lens.
The reviewer doesn’t draw any conclusions but shows a very detailed comparison and it’s quite clear that the Samyang is a very good lens! At first glance the Samyang looks a tiny bit sharper wide open and also suffers of less color fringing.
Of course we have to see more tests to draw any meaningful and more “final” conclusion But I am sure Samyang (as usual) has again delivered a very fine lens here.
The new lenses from Samyang can be preorderes at BHphoto:
135mm f/2.0 for Sony A-mount (Click here) and Sony E-mount (Click here).
135mm t/2.2 Cine for Sony A-mount (Click here) and Sony E-mount (Click here).
83 Responses
Samyang looks slightly better in this test, very impressive lens.
Zeiss overprized… bla bla Sony lens mediocre….bla bla… compressed RAWs …bla bla …wobbly E-mount ..bla bla.. autofocus bad… bla bla…DSLR better and Canon has 300 great lenses bla bla
I think everything has been said now my little trolls. You can go home already.
Zeiss superior quality… bla bla Sony lens best video autofocus….bla bla… compressed RAWs more shots same quality…bla bla …universal mount can’t use all lenses in the world ..bla bla.. autofocus in video exclusivity… bla bla…DSLR too bulky and heavy and Canon has 300 old, not sharp and heavy lenses bla bla
not sure if trying to be funny or simply not understanding my humor…
At least you should have called yourself “Fanboy-Queen” to be more consistent!
😉 😉 😉
I’m hungry
Beats the Canon EF 135mm L through most of the range:
f/2 – The Samyang is better all over. Hands down the best performer at f/2.
f/2.8 – Samyang is better in the center, with its advantage increasing the further out you go.
f/4 – Samyang maintains just a slight advantage
f/5.6 – Samyang seems to be a tiny bit better at C and L1. The gap is bigger for L2 and L3.
f/8 – Same
f/11 – At this point both lenses match up pretty much the same. Samyang has a slight advantage.
f/16 – Diffraction has kicked in by this point so all lenses show a decrease in quality. For the first time Canon seems to have a slight advantage.
f/22 – Canon still has the upper hand but just barely. Anyway, if you’re looking to maximum sharpness you won’t use either lens at f/16 or f/22 on this camera.
http://www.diyphotography.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/3_RES_com-far.jpg
Almost everything beats a Canon L lens. There are just lot’s of them, but most people mistake quality with quantity.
No… most people mistake artificial tests with real life performance. For example, if you put the 85/1.2L II through the same tests it’s worse than all of these 135s but under intended use, there’s no alternative.
There’s always the Contax… 😉
Hehe i haven’t seen any quality that’s noteworthy from that lens. If i want better performance, I’d go for a larger format.
This lens won’t be usable on the Canon or Nikon because they both suck when it comes to manual focus.
Depends on your skills… but yes, far easier to focus with focus peaking than via an OVF.
Single lens reflex cameras show you the image throught he lens. A precision focussing screen helps manual focus way beter than peaking. You must tell apart marketing and reality.
“You must tell apart marketing and reality.” Indeed …
I have been using both OVF and EVF, OVF in the film days with precision focussing screen: There is no way OVF can mach the precision of EVF with focus zoom, peaking is not as good as the focus zoom, but with good understanding of the tool and some trainig it can match a good opitcal focusing screen.
Focus zoom is good, but you get it in DSLRs as well, so it’s not a deal breaker. Or, if you prefer, it’s no “disrupting innovation”.
Interesting, cause we have completely opposite impressions.
On my D800 with split-screen I can nail focus perfectly. My friend A7r I can rotate focusing ring back and forth while focus peaking is still showing that supposedly I nailed focus in a point… then I take a shot and it’s slightly out of focus. I don’t know how you compared your suff, but I made a side-by-side comparison with 50f/1.4 and OVF easily win when it comes to precision.
What split-screen are you talking about? The focusing screens of the Nikon recent cameras are not replaceable. Even KatzEye does not produce any focusing screens for these new cameras.
You are mistaken.
http://www.focusingscreen.com/index.php?cPath=22_130
I dont know how you use the peaking tool, but this is my understanding: peaking do not show you if it is in focus or not, it show where in the picture you have a certne level of contrast, that might appear befor, during and right after you hit absolute focus. The highest contrast is where the peaking color is brightest and this is where the sharpest focus is. The other areas lighting up might be more or less out of focus. This is also why the peaking level must be adjustable. Using the peaking tool like this, I can certanly live with it, and I do not miss the OVF of my A900.
The 50/1.4 is your culprit. See my reply above… focus peaking can be fooled by lens aberrations like what you get from most f/1.4 lenses. If you turn it off, the plain evf wouldnt be worse than the ovf.
Right on the spot, you need sufficient understanding and training to be able to focus efficiently with peaking. Even peaking on different bodies of the same brand has a different feel to it, not to mention different lenses.
No… with good lenses, focus peaking is spot on. With not so good lenses, focus peaking can be misleading, but that can be fixed easily by turning it off and just using your eyes.
And no… it doesn’t matter what the absolute sharpness you see from the EVF vs. OVF is… you decide where the focus is based on the turning point of defocus (when via ovf or focus peaking is not in use)
I wrote about this in my blog post, that another comparison of it has been done vs the Canon 135mm f/2L, which it absolutely thrashes the Canon!
http://ironfilm.co.nz/samyang-135mm-f2-leaked-edit-rokinon-ds-cine-135mm-t2-2-announced/
That wouldn’t be all that hard, the Canon is very good but not on the same level as the ZA.
A 2X teleconverter would be a nice option for this lens.
Something seems off if you ask me.
Why not? No really?
Yeah if they cut transmission to shorter wavelengths correction could be much easier, and charts would look pretty even with cheap-o glass, like many modern budget lenses.
Well then you’ll get colour issues. The sensor sees the wavelengths it needs to see to produce good colours.
Isolated test like this does not tell all. No contrast in this scene. I’d like to see these lenses really slug it out. Samyang is only getting better though. I think the whole , “Have to pay a lot to get a lot” is becomes less and less true. We’re living in a golden age of photography. No AF so it’s a pass for me.
Would make a great video lens that could shoot wide open, the cine version is only $50 more.
The Zeiss has better contrast and color. Samyang is looks kinda yellowish/greenish
The Samyang has better color fringing but the CA in Zeiss is just one click away in Lightroom thus it’s no big deal. The CA is very minor that it won’t even show up in video mode even at wide open.
The Zeiss has better color and is consistent with other high quality Zeiss lenses.
The Zeiss can do autofocus and is compatible with SteadyShot on A99.
The Samyang will be a headache to focus. It will make you pull out your hair LOL.
The Samyang 135mm is useless for portrait work just like any other 135mm w/ manual focus only. Enjoy your hair pulling because you will never get your shot in focus. I will stick with the Samyang 85mm 1.4 for portrait.
“The Zeiss has better contrast and color. ”
Not what the “resolution comparison” test shows.
“The Zeiss has better color and is consistent with other high quality Zeiss lenses.”
You can keep saying it over and over again but it won’t become true. This is what happens when people start blindly worshipping brands. The 135/1.8 has always been a very nice lens but it’s not the most corrected or the sharpest…
f5.6 – f/22 clearly shows it LOL. Just look at the color comparison and contrast. Whe white on Zeiss is white and the black is black. The test proves it so take a good look again.
Also enjoy focusing manually in telephoto lens lol. Enjoy the shake lol. Increasing shutter will just degrade your image because you will have to increase the ISO gain too. With the Zeiss 135mm 1.8 you can lower the shutter way below than what’s recommended w/ the help of SteadyShot.
“Whe white on Zeiss is white and the black is black. The test proves it so take a good look again.”
At f/5.6 it could be moire and clearly the white balance has not been set properly in these. The images are also very heavily compressed and there’s compression artifacts everywhere… see the captions.
“With the Zeiss 135mm 1.8 you can lower the shutter way below than what’s recommended w/ the help of SteadyShot.”
True… but not every uses the crippled A mount. On the A7II, it would make no difference.
On the A77 II the Zeiss should enjoy 5-axis IS vs 3 on the Samyang. I agree MF is not a huge issue and the Samyang is significantly cheaper. Also interested in the weight difference between the two. To me the main difference will come down to the quality of bokeh and I already have the Zeiss which cost me about what the Samyang cost but I get AF when I want it, so doubt I will be switching, but the Samyang certainly looks like a fine lens.
People have been using 3 axis stabilisation fine for a long time. Also with lenses of this field of view, yaw and pitch don’t produce image motion that’s too different to x and y motion.
Bokeh and things are personal… have you also checked out the 135/2 Apo Sonnar?
Do you think the 135/2 APO deserves the APO title? I’ve only seen the initial samples but I’m honestly not impressed by the CA control.
Apo doesn’t mean there’s no CA. All lenses show CA beyond some magnification.
The 135/2 AS performs better than the 55 Otus… fwiw.
This test isn’t showing much. The Zeiss being sharper at the border than in the center? I have it with LA-E4 adapter on the A7ii and it is tack sharp from 1.8 on already, with very nice colors. Needed some AF fine tuning, however. Mine definitely doesn’t show this weird behaviour.
CA isn’t really a 1 click fix. In fact, there really is no fix for CA. Sure you can turn it grey in lightroom, but that loss of color information can look really funky at times and is essentially a loss in resolution and sharpness.
You are exaggerating the issue.
Maybe. Don’t get me wrong I would be ecstatic to own either one of these lenses. But when comparing a 550 dollar lens to an 1800 dollar one, you’re examining the finer points of each lens.
We know they both are capable of producing quality images, but I was responding to “manual telephoto”‘s comment in comparing the two lenses. He stated that it was a 1 click fix, and imho ca removal in post isn’t exactly perfect. I think most of us can agree on that.
When there is a 1250 dollar difference between two lenses, I think the issue of CA correction being imperfect is a totally valid consideration.
“….The Zeiss can do autofocus and is compatible with SteadyShot on A99.”
What’s that? The Samyang benefits from the same Steady shot no? It’s IBS (In Body Stabilization”
Looks like they have different focus points.
While the results seem quite accurate, the first set of crops of the buildings shouldn’t be taken very seriously because it’s an overly synthetic test.
The second/scarecrow test is poorly conducted… I’m pretty sure the focus is missed.
The third/”resolution” test isn’t not good except for the center/A target unless they refocused for each of the targets (which I doubt)… this is not a macro lens and field flatness is a moot. Even if refocused, it’s on an a600 so there’s more that’s not covered by that sensor.
Again, no doubt the Samyang is good and better at f/2… but you might not see the same differences in real life.
New Sony FE 135mm Zeiss coming soon, byebye A-mount lenses
stop teasing! I want such a lens w/ OSS, fast and silent motor at f/1.8. dun care how big it will be because the A9 will have a good grip to handle it focus.
I want a Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 FE + 5 Axis IBIS
Use it with the LAEA4. You get 5-axis IBIS. I easily go down to 1/20th of a second at f1.8 to get sharp shots.
If it is F2.8, it will be small enough to justify the E-mount philosophy but if it is F1.8 or F2, it will be so huge, there will be no benefit at all compared to the current 135 F1.8 ZA (aside from in-lens AF motors).
thought this is a sony rumors forum, what does canon got to do with this ? it’s a comparison between samyang and sony anyway..
Sony shipped A7 series bodies with an option of a Canon or Nikon adapter in some parts of the world 😉
Good job Samyang! Bravo. Nice to have options in this category.
I’ll be sticking with the ZA135 for now. Here’s some recent wide open f1.8 samples.
http://alphatog.com/zzPhotos/Lenses/ZA135/ZA135-A.jpg
http://alphatog.com/zzPhotos/Lenses/ZA135/ZA135-B.jpg
Oh, those are on a99. Remember that one?
hello guys and good morning 🙂
Cool! Yet the fact is that these are portrait lenses and the samyang does not have AF. In real life, unless you are photographing a corpse, you will get 99% tack sharp photos on the Zeiss and maybe 10% on the samyang.
staged photography, posing, focus magnification…
Even on staged photography, posing will not give you a 50% tack sharp images rate with manual focusing, unless they models head are leaned on a wall, couch etc… if the model is standing or sitting at any time it will lean few cm back and forth, which will happened constantly, even when they think they are being still. Af will adjust constantly where in manual focus you will not.
I’m talking about tacks sharp for today standards, not medium format film era, when if it looked in focus it was good enough. cheers.
I shoot MF nearly exclusively and it’s not nearly as hard as it seems.
That said, Sony could really benefit from focus trap like Pentax systems. Which makes MF focusing a real breeze.
Indeed but people like talk nonsense because maybe they tried 5 shots in MF and couldnt get it to work for them…gotta love it 😉
Not the best test I’ve seen.
Since when is a lens sharper in the edges than in center? The Zeiss lens is focused at the edge, so the sharpnes compare is faulty. The color cast of the Samyang is strange, it is wors in the bottom of the image than at the top, also it is worse at full opening and less when closed down, so i believe this is due to smog and not the lens, and it probably clared up during the test.
Anyway: the test is good enough to show that the Samyang is a great lens. So good going Samyang, but if you want to compare it to the zeiss, you better wait for a test done right.
Holy crap!
Are my eyes deceiving me or is the Samyang on the top row of these samples?
And if so, then I’m completely blown away at what Samyang has done with this lens.
Making the Zeiss 135/1.8 look like garbage
As remarked before the detailed crops are somewhat weird and inconsistent. However, one quick look at the image of the scarecrows (if this is what they are) and you know why you would be willing to spend a lot more for the Zeiss: what a difference in micro contrast, color rendering, clarity.
For those interested: analysis of A99 transparent mirror at lenstip: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=137
TL;DR: Mirror doesn’t affect image in any noticeable way other than taking out some light. Despite of many worries people had online – it also doesn’t affect lens resolution on any of the existing cameras.
That looks like an issue with focusing… or a bad copy. First of all – they’re inconsistent. And secondly – I never seen such an unsharp photos from ZA 135.
Good job Samyang. But I recommend waiting a few months to buy a used one. There will be a lot of Samy 135’s eBay’d when photographers realize how difficult they are to manually focus at such wide apertures. Sure, many will like it fine. But many will not, and wanting better build quality with AF, they will sell their Samy’s soon after purchase.
Minolta 100/2 AF is as sharp as any lens, half the size, and had for a relatively good price. Also the Minolta 135/2.8 AF is super fast focus, super cheap, super high quality build, excellent IQ, and perfectly matched to the size and ergonomics of the smaller E-Mount cameras.
Yep, that’s what happened with all the other Samyang lenses, especially the 85/1.4 and 14mm. They’re selling used for around $200.
The 14 is easy to focus, but it’s a $300 lens to begin with. I wouldn’t try the 85, as AF on portraits is pretty useful to me.
In case some people missed this, don’t buy the E-mount version of the Samyang 135mm.
You’re better served with the SLR versions of your choice. If you’re an exclusive Sony user, better get the A-mount version. The Samyang E-mount version is the same just with a extension barrel to make it up for the difference in register distance so you’re not getting a smaller lens compared to the SLR versions. Also, if you buy the SLR version, you get the chance to mount it on bigger cameras or in other mounts in case you need it (if you buy the mirrorless version, there is no luck getting it to work on other SLR or other mirrorless mounts with a bigger register distance than E-mont)
Also, if you buy the E-mount version and you’re an APS-C camera user, you don’t have the chance to use Speed Booster to get a similar DOF and FOV as Fullframe cameras. If you buy the SLR versions, there are speed booster for A-mount, EF-mount and F-mount.
Aside from that, I really doubt the Zeiss perform that bad. At least my Zeiss doesn’t seem to be that bad.
True – but there is value in having a cleaner built-in “adapter” and not having to buy/carry/mount a separate adapter. I’m an exclusive e-mount user and shoot full-frame, so for me it makes sense to buy the e-mount versions of these lenses.
As was expected: Sony lenses with zeiss labels not up to real zeiss standards. Expensive though 🙂
As expected: You’ve obviously never shot with one. Bleacher seat critique’s not up to real standards either.
That is true, only tried ZA 135 and found it a bit lifeless. Prefer Canon’s rendering although it is even worse technically speaking (except horrible CA of Sony “zeiss”).
I see you understand A/F lens design compromises and can state the obvious, well done!
The Zeiss is clearly backfocused….It is producing red color aberations when backfocusing. Also the sharpness is far from my personal experience with the lens. IT is also strange to see the Zeiss sharper in the corners….
My impression, too. Own it, is really very sharp.
Dear Administrator, Tystory is not individual name, rather a site name such as “yahoo.”
The Zeiss 135 is my favorite lens. Insanely sharp. Ridiculous build quality. Used for commercial, fashion, portraiture, and weddings here in the Turks & Caicos islands. The entire A7 and 135 was submerged under a large rogue wave- the A7 stopped working until recently, now its working again. The 135 didn’t even flinch. This lens is ridiculously sharp and ridiculously tough. I love it….
http://www.frankwithersphoto.com
Let’s wait for more tests before drawing any conclusions.
The Zeiss focus is waaaaaaaay off, I have one and it is very sharp wide open
If you’re doing a lens test, please, focus manually and triple check with the magnification to 100% to 300%.
Well there’s not much difference if the tester set the magnification to 300% or if the reader does it. It’s artificial anyway and if you can’t tell at 100% then there’s your answer.
I gotta laugh at all the stupid comments about MF being impossible etc…seriously people stop spreading so much BS because you are too lazy to try for real or just lack the skills. Its not magical that only a few of us can do it, anyone can MF if they really try but whatever. The samyang is amazing!