Samyang announces T1.5 35mm, T1.5 24mm and T3.1 14mm VDSLR lenses

Today Samyang officially announced the T1.5 35mm AS UMC, T1.5 24mm ED AS IF UMC and T3.1 14mm ED AS IF UMC VDSLR lenses:

Cracow, 9th August 2012 – Samyang Optics gladly informs, that Samyang Family has been enlarged by three new lenses dedicated for digital cinema purpose.

Lenses with focal 35mm, 24 mm and 14mm will be available on sales in sequence next week, at the end of August and in September.

The construction of the new lenses has been based on previous types dedicated for photography. Their main feature are racks co-operating with follow – focus system, and a ring rotated continuously. Thanks to these alterations it is possible to precisely and silently operate focus and depth of field. Another facility is putting aperture and focus scale parallel to the axis of the lens and aperture marked with number of transmission T. Lenses are compatible with Nikon and Canon cameras.

Prices will be announced soon.

This entry was posted in Samyang. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • David O

    Instant GAS.

    • Camaman

      GAS as in…?

      A little on the big side for photo use…

      • David O

        Gear Acquisition Syndrome. It’s traditionally more of a musician-y word.

        • Dave

          More specifically with guitarists, who can’t seem to get enough guitars, stompboxes, amplifiers, despite the previous thing they bought having promised sonic nirvana. Being both a guitarist AND a photographer, I’m in some trouble.

          • David O

            Bass-players are just the same…

          • Dave

            You are very right. I guess I include bass players along with guitarists in the gear department. In fact, I think I just might go and buy myself a Jazz Bass, now you mention it…

  • amien

    Samyang should built dedicated Anamorphic glass for movie makers, this would rock !

    • Mark

      Seriously, I don’t get it why no one has jumped on the budget anamorphic lens market for the DSLR enthusiasts. There is virtually nothing available that isn’t 30 years old at best.

      • Darren

        Because in order to shoot with them it takes a lot of skill and knowhow. At that point people will just throw post and be set. That way they can remove it later if they want.

        It sounds great in theory to do it, but you aren’t the one fronting a several hundred thousand dollar investment in for some lenses that might not become popular because you can do it in editing so easily.

  • JC

    Seriously, who did these Korean copy this time?

    • Mike G

      Why do you care as long as the optical quality is OK and even way beyond that?

      • Not Surprised

        Maybe he wants to know where he can get more lenses like them. 😉

  • Bill

    The 35 looks great for video. Nice focal length for run n gun stuff. Focusing wide open might be a problem though.

  • Nothing in MFT mount…


  • videodslr

    if only nikon could use the whole power FX glass offers for video. correct me if I am wrong but 1080p is recorded by selectively reading some pixels on the sensor to create that 1900×1080 image. DX lens would be enough – maybe except that on FX you can change the focal length due to different crop modes.
    canon with their much superior low light video performance probably does this thing right. nikon, waker up! i hope d600 is going to do this right.

    • Correction Guy

      You are wrong.

      • videodslr

        care to elaborate or just trolling?

    • scottd800

      It is my understanding that there are two primary ways that final resolution is processed.
      1. Line skipping (i guess using “some pixels” as you said) and…
      2. Pixel-bin processing type.

      The d800 uses a process of line-skipping (approx. every 3) of their 36mp sensor resulting in an output of 2240 x 1260, and is then down-sampled to a very clean 1920 x 1080. [I guess it’s really a combination of both in the end] The result is an extremely high level of detail (sacrificing low light capabilities). Because of the down-sampling post-process the smaller capture area (dx) are not dealing with as many pixels to start with the result is not the same. More moire and “actual” noise.

      The 5DM3 uses a pixel-bin type of process from the start that, although less detailed, utilizes more light. The problem with bins is that the output is much less detailed, although it solves the moire problem. This is also why the 5DM3 looks a little darker, but cleaner, at similar ISO settings in comparison to the d800. Less moire and “melted” noise.

      So, both result in more light capture through forms of downsampling. With both methods the pixel-array in relation to the lens provides a much better image capture, DOF, and flexibility in shooting with FX.

      let me know if I am wrong or I have left out something…
      happy shooting

      • videodslr

        Thanks for clarifying. It seems more complicated than I thought.
        I am not sure I understand the part when you say line skipping produces more detailed output than pixel-binning. It doesn’t make sense to me and you didn’t provide any hint why would that be true. Am I missing something?

        Regarding the downsampling of FX vs DX – I don’t see why taking every third line from FX would produce less noise than taking every second (or whats the math on that) from DX.
        But you might be right about the moire effect.

        • scottd800

          i will try to explain, but apologize if i am still unclear. If you think of each pixel point on a sensor as a tiny bucket. in the case of the d800: 36 million of them, in the same area 22.3 mil for the 5dm3 (they are slightly larger)
          Into each bucket (pixel) you pour a specific color/brightness as recorded from the real world. Sampling an array of buckets give the exact color/brightness at that point (line-skipping). Bins are like getting all of the paint buckets in an area and mixing them together, diluting hard details and conveniently stifling moire, but altogether less accurately portraying the detail. From a pixel to pixel perspective, the bin method seems more practical, but blending every pixel in an area to an average has an effect when performed over the whole image.
          Things tend to change when you record video from hdmi directly (quite stunning results in favor of the d800 actually) where image is less compressed and “skipped” information is used in processing.
          sorry, my explanation was all over the place but i do have both cameras and love them very much (use d800 mostly for stills, but both for video). Unless you are doing big productions, the 5dm3 captures plenty of detail for anything going up on the internet.

          PS The recorded result is always much darker (but with way less noise) out of the 5dm3 at the same high iso levels. However, I can always run the d800 at lower iso settings than the 5dm3 and equal the playing field.

  • Back to top