Any difference between the Samyang and the Rokinon 12mm?

[SquarePeg]

Other than price????

 

[480sparky]

Samyang, ProOptic, Bower, Opteka, Bell & Howell, Rokinon, Falcon and Walimex and some Vivitars today. I think they're all made in the same factory.

 

[SquarePeg]

Risky to buy a used lens in this case? Normally I don't hesitate to buy used but I think I recall reading somewhere about the lens being great "if you get a good copy"... There's a pretty sweet deal on a like new Samyang in one of my Facebook groups but the user says he only used it once so how would I know if it's a good copy or not? At that price point is it better just to buy new so I can return it if it's not a good copy?

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't think those for the most part are all that great, are they? At least I never thought they were supposed to be. Except maybe Rokinon, I don't remember Samyang even being around til recently (as in, the internet).

I don't get either what it would mean that a lens would be good if you got a 'good' copy. There's probably a reason if they're cheap. Not really any guarantee buying on Facebook is there if it doesn't work out.

 

[Derrel]

Lens rentals.com used to refer to the "samyrokibow" lenses, and also included the Vivitar brand names. I think Sparky above nailed it… The names are typically importer or trade names, not names of the specific manufacturer. Over the past few years " Rokinon" has gained a reputation as offering for sale a remarkably good 14 mm lens, as long as you get "a good copy "...and according to lensrentals.com a few years ago,these inexpensive lenses had some of the worst reliability records of all the equipment that they rented, with some of the shortest mean time before failure---if my memory serves me correctly, and I think that it does, it was at one time three months on average that these cheap lenses held together. Really, really poor reliability, but compare a $1500 Nikon or Canon 14 mm F2.8 with a $275 14 mm F/2.8 manual focus lens of offbrand origin… For many people the low price would outweigh issues of reliability. Many people were using the 14 mm F/2.8 off brand lenses as star shooters, and were extremely pleased with the results. I am speaking of 'The time around 2010-2013… Since then interest has shifted away from these lenses to other things,and now people are talking more about mirrorless cameras and such.

 

[SquarePeg]

I don't think those for the most part are all that great, are they? At least I never thought they were supposed to be. Except maybe Rokinon, I don't remember Samyang even being around til recently (as in, the internet).

I don't get either what it would mean that a lens would be good if you got a 'good' copy. There's probably a reason if they're cheap. Not really any guarantee buying on Facebook is there if it doesn't work out.

From what I understand from reading, Rokinon and Samyang are the same exact lens but the Rok is $60-80 more. Was trying to figure out if there is an advantage to buying one over the other.

Lens rentals.com used to refer to the "samyrokibow" lenses, and also included the Vivitar brand names. I think Sparky above nailed it… The names are typically importer or trade names, not names of the specific manufacturer. Over the past few years " Rokinon" has gained a reputation as offering for sale a remarkably good 14 mm lens, as long as you get "a good copy "...and according to lensrentals.com a few years ago,these inexpensive lenses had some of the worst reliability records of all the equipment that they rented, with some of the shortest mean time before failure---if my memory serves me correctly, and I think that it does, it was at one time three months on average that these cheap lenses held together. Really, really poor reliability, but compare a $1500 Nikon or Canon 14 mm F2.8 with a $275 14 mm F/2.8 manual focus lens of offbrand origin… For many people the low price would outweigh issues of reliability. Many people were using the 14 mm F/2.8 off brand lenses as star shooters, and were extremely pleased with the results. I am speaking of 'The time around 2010-2013… Since then interest has shifted away from these lenses to other things,and now people are talking more about mirrorless cameras and such.

This would be used for star/milkyway shooting. It's not something I plan to do a lot of so not going to spend the $900 for the Fuji 10-24 (which is only f/4 anyway). I started looking for a reasonably priced alternative...

 

[Soocom1]

I purchased the Rokinon 85mm a bit back and am very pleased with the overall image quality with it.

I remember many years ago that when Vivitar sold out the name rights to whomever, that the manufacturing of them went to S. Korea and some were "good" and some were "bad".

today I have found many reviews on the newer stuff and the reviewers give most of them a good mark.

Sorta like Pyramid stereo components. First REALLY bad, then not so bad and then a main stay of good equipment up until they were bought out.

 

[vintagesnaps]

That sounds familiar, that Vivitar sold out or something and their lenses went downhill.

So Derrel what is meant by a 'good' copy?? Isn't it the same lens that the manufacturer made over and over again? How are some of the same lens good and others not?

 

[SquarePeg]

That sounds familiar, that Vivitar sold out or something and their lenses went downhill.

So Derrel what is meant by a 'good' copy?? Isn't it the same lens that the manufacturer made over and over again? How are some of the same lens good and others not?

I would assume quality control issues...

 

[Soocom1]

That sounds familiar, that Vivitar sold out or something and their lenses went downhill.

So Derrel what is meant by a 'good' copy?? Isn't it the same lens that the manufacturer made over and over again? How are some of the same lens good and others not?

Think Soviet Russia on a Wednesday.
Everyone finally sobered up and doing good work but goes to pot by starting vodka early on Thursday.

 

[vintagesnaps]

lol So they didn't care what came out of their factories, huh?... sloppy workmanship and a 'who cares?' attitude it sounds like. No wonder I never got the impression those brands were any good!

 

[cgw]

Brand worship can be pricey and that's why these lenses sell. Friends shoot them, like them, and don't seem to be kvetching about "sample variation" or "lemons" so far. They tend to have poor resale value but the Nikon shooters I know just keep them since most were bought for specific purposes and didn't bankrupt them. No one seems to be suffering from breakdowns on these MF lenses. Korean design and QC have improved markedly.

 

[Derrel]

good copy means a lens that has been assembled correctly and which has met a reasonable level of quality control. If a lens is not assembled correctly, or if certain parts do not measure up to the desired specifications, then the lens often has A poor ability to do its job correctly. Quality control costs money and requires a time commitment… With high-priced low production volume
lenses, such as the lenses made by Leica or those branded by Zeiss (which as I understand it are assembled by hand in Japan by Cosina),Quality control is a very important part of the manufacturing process. With a lens that is sold for $275, quality control is just two words, and not an actual realityin the same way that it is with lenses branded as Leica or as Zeiss. For example the extremely good Zeiss Batis … Buyers of a $4000 lens expect a different level of quality control then do buyers of lenses that cost under $300...

let's put it this way: if you purchase five identical Canon or Nikon lenses you have a good chance of getting five lenses that will all perform adequately well, and possibly, not necessarily, but possibly,one of the five will be a particularly good copy that just happens to have been assembled with perfect components, all of which are put together exactly as specified in the design, With perfect tolerances. there is some degree of sample variation in mass produced lenses, but in the low end lenses that we're talking about there is often terrible consistency, and this is where the "good copy" idea comes from.if you are interested I would suggest reading some of Roger's articles over at lensrentals.com

 

[RVT1K]

To the best of my knowledge, they are from the same source. Sort of like Chevy and GM or Chrysler and Dodge.

I have the ProOptic 8mm f/3.5 fish-eye and I LOVE it! It takes great shots especially when you step it down to f/9 or so, the depth of field is so huge everything is in focus. Plus I just have a ton of fun playing with the distortion. The only minor down-side is that it has to be used fully manually.

I bought a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 used off Craigslist and I love that one, too. My camera will control the aperture on this one but I still need to focus manually. I posted shots of my neighbor's T-bird that I took with that lens and I was very happy with them.

 

[SquarePeg]

Well o decided to take a chance on the used one. The seller has the bill of sale from adorAma less than a year ago and the box, packing materials, paperwork etc. pics of the lens look pristine. We will see! It was such a good deal that it won’t be a big loss if it’s a poor copy.

I don’t shoot a lot of wide angle so spending a lot for a high end lens seems like a poor choice.