Samyang AF 35 mm f/2.8 FE
7. Coma, astigmatism and bokeh
It’s been so far the only category where the Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/35 fared noticeably better than the cheaper Samyang.
| Center, f/2.8 | Corner APS-C, f/2.8 | Corner FF, f/2.8 |
|
|
|
| Center, f/4.0 | Corner APS-C, f/4.0 | Corner FF, f/4.0 |
|
|
|
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the case of the astigmatism the situation is reversed and the Samyang once again prevails. That aberration level, understood as an average difference between vertical and horizontal MTF50 function values, we assessed as 5.7 % and we consider it a very good result, especially when compared to almost 14% of the Sonnar.
The out-of-focus areas don’t impress us, however. The light spread in circles is characterized by concentric rings and a noticeably lighter rim which appears on stopping down. In the frame corner that ring is especially asymmetric when it comes to its brightness.
You also have to mention mechanical vignetting, unavoidable in such a small lens attached to quite a big sensor. The circle in the frame corner is significantly truncated. That truncation remains visible even by f/5.6 although it seemed to be a bit less pronounced than in the case of the Sonnar.
| Center, f/2.8 | Corner APS-C, f/2.8 | Corner FF, f/2.8 |
|
|
|
| Center, f/4.0 | Corner APS-C, f/4.0 | Corner FF, f/4.0 |
|
|
|
Center, f/5.6 | Corner APS-C, f/5.6 | Corner FF, f/5.6 |
|
|
|
