Rokinon Lenses

[mousehockey37]

Are they good, are they bad?

I have a Canon T3, I'm looking at these Rokinon lenses going "why are they so cheap?"... I'm not big on the technical photography jargon, so any and all responses, please, put them in simple English, lol.

I've seen telephoto lenses 500mm(1000mm with teleconverter), 800mm(1600mm with teleconverter) for decently cheap as well as a fisheye lens too....

Does anyone have anything by Rokinon? Do they work well with Canon's? I mostly take sports pictures and scenery (aka, tons of stuff at Disney).

For what I already have, like I said, it's the Canon T3 with the 18-55mm lens. I don't have anything else. So, in simple English, can anyone give me some ideas if 1)Rokinon is good 2) a direction to go with a limited budget (under $500).

 

[Allen C]

I have the the Rokinon 8 mm fisheye. This lens is actually manufactured by Samyang and is rebranded as Bower, Rokinon, or Pro Optic etc. The lens is inexpensive (but not cheaply built by any means) becuase it does not make electronic contact with the camera body. The lens has to be focused manually and you have to set the aperture manually. The lens is a non-CPU lens as it doesn 't have a chip that communicates with the camera body regarding lens specs and settings. I had to enter the lens specs in the camera's non CPU lens database.
That being said, it is still solidly built and quite heavy for its size. It's a solid performer and quite sharp. It's a great lens to have at the parks.


Fisheye Friday - Inside The Seas Pavilion by Allen Castillo, on Flickr

 

[CP_alum08]

I have the the Rokinon 8 mm fisheye. This lens is actually manufactured by Samyang and is rebranded as Bower, Rokinon, or Pro Optic etc. The lens is inexpensive (but not cheaply built by any means) becuase it does not make electronic contact with the camera body. The lens has to be focused manually and you have to set the aperture manually. The lens is a non-CPU lens as it doesn 't have a chip that communicates with the camera body regarding lens specs and settings. I had to enter the lens specs in the camera's non CPU lens database.
That being said, it is still solidly built and quite heavy for its size. It's a solid performer and quite sharp. It' a great lens to have at the parks.

Spot on! They do have a new model for the fisheye that has a CPU, I don't know if it's just for the fish or if all the lenses have the option now. I have the fish too and got it about 3 months before the CPU version came out, kicked myself pretty hard for that!

I like my fish quite a bit. It seems well built and I've never had any issues with it, however it's the first and only fish I've used so I can't compare it to anything else. The only other Rokinon lens I hear mention of is the new-ish 85mm and I've heard similarly good things about it.

I know when I was looking at the fish I came across several sites that had it a little cheaper but seemed pretty shady to me. If you do get one I'd pay a few dollars more and get it from Amazon or I think even B&H carries them now. At least that way you can return it if there is an issue.

If you click the link in my signiture it takes you to my Flickr page. Anything on there that has distortion was taken with the Rokinon 8mm Fisheye.

Fight to the Death (Explored) by CJ Balogh, on Flickr

 

[PhotoDave219]

Oh that fisheye look makes my head hurt.....

 

[BertBart]

Oh that fisheye look makes my head hurt.....

I've learned to live with the pain.

BTW, Allen C and CP_alum08: Awesome shots!!!

 

[CP_alum08]

Oh that fisheye look makes my head hurt.....

haha, it's definitely not for everyone. I've found there is a very strong love/hate relationship with fisheye shots in general. I know it can be "stale" and "cliche" and whatnot, but just like using a prime lens it makes you actually think about the shot and different ways to compose.

 

[mousehockey37]

Spot on! They do have a new model for the fisheye that has a CPU, I don't know if it's just for the fish or if all the lenses have the option now. I have the fish too and got it about 3 months before the CPU version came out, kicked myself pretty hard for that!

I like my fish quite a bit. It seems well built and I've never had any issues with it, however it's the first and only fish I've used so I can't compare it to anything else. The only other Rokinon lens I hear mention of is the new-ish 85mm and I've heard similarly good things about it.

I know when I was looking at the fish I came across several sites that had it a little cheaper but seemed pretty shady to me. If you do get one I'd pay a few dollars more and get it from Amazon or I think even B&H carries them now. At least that way you can return it if there is an issue.

If you click the link in my signiture it takes you to my Flickr page. Anything on there that has distortion was taken with the Rokinon 8mm Fisheye.

Fight to the Death (Explored) by CJ Balogh, on Flickr

Do you have the product code for the fisheye with the CPU chip?
What about any other Rokinon lenses? Anyone have any experience with them, be it good or bad?

 

[CP_alum08]

Do you have the product code for the fisheye with the CPU chip?
What about any other Rokinon lenses? Anyone have any experience with them, be it good or bad?

Not offhand. I think I saw it on amazon. There should be two versions and one will be slightly more expensive and I think the nikon version had "AE" in the title (auto exposure). If I remember it was only around $30 more for the chip one.

 

[fractal]

I have the the Rokinon 8 mm fisheye. This lens is actually manufactured by Samyang and is rebranded as Bower, Rokinon, or Pro Optic etc. The lens is inexpensive (but not cheaply built by any means) becuase it does not make electronic contact with the camera body. The lens has to be focused manually and you have to set the aperture manually. The lens is a non-CPU lens as it doesn 't have a chip that communicates with the camera body regarding lens specs and settings. I had to enter the lens specs in the camera's non CPU lens database.
That being said, it is still solidly built and quite heavy for its size. It's a solid performer and quite sharp. It's a great lens to have at the parks.


Fisheye Friday - Inside The Seas Pavilion by Allen Castillo, on Flickr

Rokinon dropped the price on the 8mm fisheye by $100 (at least for the Emount) so I couldn't resist. Focus peaking on my NEX-7 helps tremendously with manual focus and I'm actually enjoying manually setting the apeture -

It arrived 2 days ago and so far I've been just screwing around with it in my house. Definitely can't wait to take it on a trip. Heading to New Orleans in a few weeks so we'll see what damage I can do.

 

[fractal]

just took this a few hours ago with the Rokinon 8mm fisheye on my NEX-7. It was from county swim championships.
This is the JPEG right out of the camera...

 

[WorldDad]

I have a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 that has a cpu chip for my Nikon D5000. I love it. Shallow depth of field, beautiful bokeh and great for low light. These are just a few examples .

 

[ddbowdoin]

I have a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 that has a cpu chip for my Nikon D5000. I love it. Shallow depth of field, beautiful bokeh and great for low light. These are just a few examples .

that bokeh is a little rough...

compare it to it's Nikon cousin, 85 1.4G (albeit a nice price difference)

 

[WorldDad]

I am not a professional photographer nor do I plan to be. I take photos for fun, so I can't justify spending that kind of money. Three hundred dollars was not bad for what the lens can do. The OP specifically asked about the Rokinon lenses. I wasn't trying to compare lenses at different price points

 

[ddbowdoin]

I am not a professional photographer nor do I plan to be. I take photos for fun, so I can't justify spending that kind of money. Three hundred dollars was not bad for what the lens can do. The OP specifically asked about the Rokinon lenses. I wasn't trying to compare lenses at different price points

I was merely pointing out that I wouldn't classify that bokeh as nice, and showing an example of what "nice" is.

 

[maxairmike]

With the kind of money that buys a cheaper Rokinon, I'd say that bokeh is "nice" at that price point. That would be like comparing my $250 Sony 75-300 to the couple thousand dollar G lens equivalent; pointless for both sides. The person buying the $250 lens has 0 use for comparing to a professional lens used by the likes of NatGeo photographers, and NatGeo photographers have 0 use comparing their lenses against the ones I'm buying.

So yeah, that bokeh on the Rokinon is pretty nice by what I can see in the context of price. I will say, though, I got lucky and only had to drop $50 to get 5 great Pentax K lenses with awesome bokeh (at least on the 50mm, so far).

 

[ddbowdoin]

With the kind of money that buys a cheaper Rokinon, I'd say that bokeh is "nice" at that price point. That would be like comparing my $250 Sony 75-300 to the couple thousand dollar G lens equivalent; pointless for both sides. The person buying the $250 lens has 0 use for comparing to a professional lens used by the likes of NatGeo photographers, and NatGeo photographers have 0 use comparing their lenses against the ones I'm buying.

So yeah, that bokeh on the Rokinon is pretty nice by what I can see in the context of price. I will say, though, I got lucky and only had to drop $50 to get 5 great Pentax K lenses with awesome bokeh (at least on the 50mm, so far).

regardless of product and price, products are judged by their merits. If you want to think that's good bokeh for a 350 dollar lens, that's like telling me the Corolla is the greatest car in the world because you can't afford a Porsche. I was merely pointing out that it's rough bokeh, a 125 dollar Nikon 50 1.8 smokes that... and you can just zoom with your feet. So to me, skip the Rokinon for what is not a unique focal length.

 

[maxairmike]

Call me tasteless, then, but I find absolutely nothing wrong with the bokeh from the posted Rokinon shots. Are the backgrounds silky smooth, no, but then I wouldn't want it from the Everest shot, maybe on the Alice shot, but I think its still a lovely shot.

 

[CP_alum08]

regardless of product and price, products are judged by their merits. If you want to think that's good bokeh for a 350 dollar lens, that's like telling me the Corolla is the greatest car in the world because you can't afford a Porsche. I was merely pointing out that it's rough bokeh, a 125 dollar Nikon 50 1.8 smokes that... and you can just zoom with your feet. So to me, skip the Rokinon for what is not a unique focal length.

That's not what it's like at all. It's more like driving a Corolla and thinking its a decent car for the money. Obviously the Nikon is better, it SHOULD be better it's 4x the price. Nikon would have some serious issues if the Rokinon was competing at their level for a quarter of the price. I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying what you can afford, maybe the Corolla doesn't go 200mph and make the hair on your neck stand up but it does its job, just like the Rokinon. You have to think of it in terms of luxury, both the cars are just cars but one is a luxury car, same thing with the lenses.

 

[fractal]

I found the comparison useful. It shows me what you get for the extra $5-600.

Then one can decide if it's worth it.


What I did find out is I can buy the Nikon 50mm lens for about $250 and a Nikon lens adapter for about $25 and use Nikon lenses on my Sony NEX-7.

 

[ddbowdoin]

That's not what it's like at all. It's more like driving a Corolla and thinking its a decent car for the money. Obviously the Nikon is better, it SHOULD be better it's 4x the price. Nikon would have some serious issues if the Rokinon was competing at their level for a quarter of the price. I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying what you can afford, maybe the Corolla doesn't go 200mph and make the hair on your neck stand up but it does its job, just like the Rokinon. You have to think of it in terms of luxury, both the cars are just cars but one is a luxury car, same thing with the lenses.

I suppose I should have been clearer... a 125 dollar Nikon 50mm 1.8D (or a little more for the G version) would blow that lens out of the water. I think going to these off-brands for uncommon focal lengths, ie an 8mm fisheye, is a justification. But, 85mm... that isn't an uncommon focal length, especially on a cropped body. I'd rather use a 50mm, zoom with my feet and lose a little of the telephoto compression then spend more for an inferior product.