Samyang Cinema kit missing a key lens...

[Bob Gundu]

Seems odd to sell this as a cinema kit without a 50mm kens??? I know they're working on it, but seems incomplete.

http://samyang-europe.com/index.php/configuration/press-releases/80-nowe-obiektywy-samyang-4

 

[Liam Hall]

It seems odd to sell a cinema kit that includes a 500mm mirror lens.

 

[Björn Benckert]

It seems odd to sell a cinema kit that includes a 500mm mirror lens.

That mirror lens is the coolest thing around, the other ones I do not care much for

 

[Liam Hall]

That mirror lens is the coolest thing around, the other ones I do not care much for

I own the 800mm version of that lens. Cool, yes, but it's not a cinema lens.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I own the 800mm version of that lens. Cool, yes, but it's not a cinema lens.

So what is a cinema lens? To me thats very hard to define.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Seems odd to sell this as a cinema kit without a 50mm kens??? I know they're working on it, but seems incomplete.

http://samyang-europe.com/index.php/configuration/press-releases/80-nowe-obiektywy-samyang-4

i am soooo impatiently waiting for the damned 50!!!

 

[Mike P.]

Ugh, no 24, 35, 85 t1.5 kit, or 16, 35, 85 set, or better still, 16, 24, 35, 85.... That's rough…

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

It's idiotic they are called 'cine lenses', but I get where they are coming from.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

So what is a cinema lens? To me thats very hard to define.

A cinema lens simply means it was built and designed to be used in Cinema applications, versus photography or other.

A cinema lens may have many cine-lens characteristics but does not have to have all. Very few can boast having all, since usually one quality/objective must be compromised to perfect another, when designing the lenses.

These cine-lens characteristics do one of two things:

1) Give a consistent and repeatable performance (for the look of the film) to the cinematographer. Since cinema editing is an illusion of continuous time, things like exposure, color, and image quality needs to stay the same across lenses so when you cut between them there is no discernible change in quality/reality. It's really all about very high optical quality while maintaining consistency across a vast range of focal lengths.

2) Give the camera crew/ AC's the tools they need to do their jobs fast and right. Mechanics and proper build can allow AC's to achieve focus with better control (thus success), but also cinema lens builds often allow for better logistical use on set with camera systems. These advantages saves time, reduces error and that means saving money not only on set, but in post.

Off the top of my head:

- Iris ring, focus ring placement same as other lenses in series
- Length similar or same than other lenses in series
- Weight similar or same than other lenses in series
- Front diameter same or similar to other lenses in series
- color and contrast reproduction same as other lenses in series
- Internal focusing (no telescoping)
- (if a zoom) Internal zooming (no telescoping)
- (if a zoom) parafocal focus
- (if a zoom) maximum aperture throughout range (even some modern zooms don't do this, but most do)
- Minimized or virtually absent breathing
- Long focus throw
- Multiple and very accurate witness marks
- T stop aperture ratings
- If possible, a linear iris or at least an iris with mid-stop or third stop increments
- Absence or very suppressed uneven field illumination
- Absence or very suppressed distortion
- Geared rings for FF/WFF
- Now-a-days, meta data for VFX

 

[Liam Hall]

So what is a cinema lens? To me thats very hard to define.

Not really, at least with this lens: it's a stills lens, an old-fashioned stills lens. In fact, it can better be described as a telescope. Certainly, it was not designed to be part of Samyang's cinema lens range, which is my point.

Yes, you can put it on an Epic, but be aware that its resolving power is barely HD quality, it has a fixed aperture and you can't pull focus on it. That said, I still still pack it in my bag when I'm traveling and have got some extraordinary shots with it. So, I guess it's a cinema lens if you want it to be, which is your point if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I give them credit for seeing a market and embracing it. Are these lenses top notch cine? Mechanically, no way. Optically they hold their own at certain settings. For someone who needs a cine-like lens with decent mechanics and very good optical quality I think these are a nice deal. I see them as owner-operator lenses, a way to build an affordable and respectable kit but not necessarily something you would use on an A-list feature unless there was something about their character you absolutely love.

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

There is a LOT of hate toward these lenses here! Wow. If I had not started building my Contax set before I used these, I would have went with these instead. So affordable, fast and sharp. Great lenses.

Of course, having no 50 is insane, lol.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

They need two things:

50 / 1.5
18 / 1.5

Then they have a set. All the needed focal lengths, consistent fast speed. Very poor mans Super Speeds.

A cine set? For some values of 'cine', yes. I own them, I like them for the right job; if all fails, they're crash lenses. I take them on volcanoes, where I wouldn't take a Master Zoom.

Mike

 

[Matt W.]

They need two things:

50 / 1.5
18 / 1.5

Then they have a set. All the needed focal lengths, consistent fast speed. Very poor mans Super Speeds.

A cine set? For some values of 'cine', yes. I own them, I like them for the right job; if all fails, they're crash lenses. I take them on volcanoes, where I wouldn't take a Master Zoom.

Mike

They're apparently working on a 50mm and they have the 16mm t2.2 that's apparently excellent, so that would make a full kit. But I'm kind of turned off by the 24mm's poor performance anyway, although the 35mm and 85mm are both excellent lenses.

These are super cheap, though. That's worth something!

 

[Bob Gundu]

The 50 is rumoured to be a fast lens:

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Not really, at least with this lens: it's a stills lens, an old-fashioned stills lens. In fact, it can better be described as a telescope. Certainly, it was not designed to be part of Samyang's cinema lens range, which is my point.

Yes, you can put it on an Epic, but be aware that its resolving power is barely HD quality, it has a fixed aperture and you can't pull focus on it. That said, I still still pack it in my bag when I'm traveling and have got some extraordinary shots with it. So, I guess it's a cinema lens if you want it to be, which is your point if I'm not mistaken.

Hey Liam. Not true. Their cine range has removed the clicks from the iris, so it is not fixed. Additionally there is a 180 degree focus throw... this isn't quite the PL standard, but pretty good IMHO. These lenses resolve equally and in some cases outresolve Canon PL glass which is made to deal with 7K resolution images. Compare Samyang to master primes. at 5.6 the difference in sharpness and CA is far less than than it should be, which is unbelievable.

My main criticisms of the lens is in the nervous bokeh and the inconsistency between the lenses as a set. The 35 and 85 are tack sharp wide open, where the 24 is as soft as shit. The 85's min focal distance is abysmal. There is no 50 (but I hear they are woking on it). Lastly, while the friction on the lenses is quite nice, it is not consistent as a set. They have different levels of resistance which necessitates you learning and accustomising yourself to each lenses' characteristics.

Cheers,

Ivan

 

[Doug Beatty]

The 35 and 85 are tack sharp wide open, where the 24 is as soft as shit.

Not true, well, either that or the tacks you have been using your entire life are on the duller side of sharp. These lenses are passable at T 2.0 and above and have a sweet spot at a 4-5.6 split.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Not true, well, either that or the tacks you have been using your entire life are on the duller side of sharp. These lenses are passable at T 2.0 and above and have a sweet spot at a 4-5.6 split.

I disagree. Compare them to Canon L series and the results are surprising. For a stills lens, they are surprising good for their pricepoint and comparable to lenses 3-4 times their price. Mostly for the lack of superior electronics, build quality and weatherproofing.

Addendum: I am using 2 sets of master primes in Thailand now, so please make no assumptions on what tacks I have been using my entire life mate You could have phrased that slightly differently, and slightly less insultingly.

 

[Matthew Scott]

@Ivan

"soft as shit" ain't the best phrase to start with either....compared to what? I'm comparing them all to my nikkors right now (I own both sets) and the 24 is great!

 

[Ivan Kovax]

@Ivan

"soft as shit" ain't the best phrase to start with either....compared to what? I'm comparing them all to my nikkors right now (I own both sets of both), and the 24 is great!

Maybe I got a funky lens then. My 24 is uncomfortably soft at 1.4 compared to the 35 and 85. The 35 is simply outstanding and its MTF is unbelievable at all f stops.

Anyway, back to the lenses...