In my review of the Samyang AF 24mm f/2.8 FE I tell you why I think that Samyang has made a few compromises too many in order to keep it small.
Most images in this review can be found in full resolution here.
|Filter Thread||49 mm|
|Close Focusing Distance from the sensor||0.20 m|
|Number of aperture blades||9 (rounded)|
The Samyang has a metal mount but I think it is of less durable aluminium. The rest of the lens is made from plastics. The focusing ring is wide enough but doesn’t feel as smooth as that of most Sony FE lenses.
The lens hood is a bit flimsy, rather thin and cheap plastic. It is the right size to protect the front element from most damages but too small to really have any effect on the flare resistance.
In general the Samyang 2.8/24 feels a little cheap. Not as cheap as your typical $99 kit lens but Sony’s more affordable lenses feel nicer.
Samyang lenses have a reputation for failing more often and having higher variance than any competitor’s lenses. According to a trusted source the newer AF lenses are no exception to that. This is one reason why Samyang can offer their lenses at very competitive prices and in part offset be rather generous warranties.
Size,Weight and Handling
The 93g Samyang is a very small lens which makes the small FE 2/28 look big. Only Smayang’s own 2.8/35 is smaller and lighter.
The size is the Samyang’s most important quality. If your focus is on a very light and small kit then there is no real alternative to the tiny 2.8/24.
As mentioned before the focusing ring feels ok with a little high resistance and a hard to describe lack of smoothness. I have used worse, but again every Sony lens has a nicer feeling focusing ring. As every other E-mount AF lens the focus is by wire but at least it does not depend on the speed with which you turn the focus ring. The focus throw is short at about 80 degrees. All in all a below average performance.
I used the Samyang 2.8/24 on the older a7II with a rather dated AF module. Usually it is a bit slow but reliable. Not so with the Samyang: I had higher number of misfocused images than I would have expected or had I used my FE 2/28 or FE 4/16-35. I didn’t investigate this further with another camera but it made me enjoy the Samyang even less.
AF is mostly quiet but at times you hear a scraping noise.
The Samyang has a narrower field of view than my other 24mm lenses so it is more like a true 25mm or 26 mm lens.
Out of focus highlights are rendered quite smoothly by the Samyang 2.8/24 but there are distinctive onion rings in some scenarios as well as significant bokeh fringing.
Scenario 1: Close Distance with demanding background
Scenario 2: Close focus, less demanding background
Scenario 3: Medium distance focus, demanding background
Scenario 4: long Distance with demanding Background
So for a wideangle bokeh is good in most scenarios but there are some scenarios where it gives less than ideal results.
The Samyang’s flare resistance is below average by modern standards. There is very little ghosting but veiling flare is an issue in more demanding scenarios. I would rate it better than almost any legacy 24mm lens but on par with the FE 4/16-35. I took quite a few images where veiling flare resistance was a real issue and I find this to be pretty limiting for landscape photography.
At 3.3 stops wide open the Samyang set a new record for any lens I have tested so far. This means that the extreme corners are basically at f/9 when the lens is used wide open. Numbers improve a little as you stop down but the remain close to two stops.
This is easily corrected but it costs some time and increases noise in the corners.
The Samyang 2.8/24 displays pretty complex distortion which can’t be easily corrected by manual adjustments. -4 in LR gave the best results but visible distortion remains. At the time when I write this review (9/2018) the is no profile available in LR but this might change in the future.
Since the Samyang has 9 rouneded aperture blades you get fuzzy 18-pointed stars at most apertures. At f/16 they are somewhat defined by won’t excite anyone.
f/2.8:Good sharpness in the center, okayish midframe and softish corners..
f/4: Very sharp in the center, good in the midframe area und still softish corners.
f/5.6: Very good across most of the frame but the corners remain somewhat soft.
f/8: Corners are okay now.
f/11: Corners improve a little while the center is a tad softer.
Not a very impressive performance. The Samyang 24/2.8 FE is sharp enough for many applications but almost any competing lens is sharper.
Compared to other lenses
The Sony FE 4/16-35 ZA is about five times as big and heavy and about three times as expensive. It is also a little sharper and much more versatile because of the larger zoom range.
Legacy 2.8/24 lenses. I compared the Samyang to the Minolta MD 2.8/24 (plan MD) which is one of the better classic 24mm lenses. I found the sharpness pretty similar (at f/8). The Samyang has better flare resistance, smoother bokeh and is much smaller AF while the Minolta is more affordable and more enjoyable to handle.
Zeiss Loxia 2.4/25: The half a stop faster, four times as heavy and much more expensive Loxia is of course the technically better lens. It is a lot sharper. From f/2.4 it is sharper across the frame than the Samyang ever gets. In regards to CA, contrast, flare resistance and sunstars the Loxia is also superior. So if you take your landscape photography serious go for the Loxia.
Zeiss Batis 2/25: A tiny little bit little weaker than the Loxia but bulkier and with AF it also runs circles around the Samyang.
Sony FE 2/28: The not much more expensive Sony weights 200g which is twice as much but very little overall. It outperforms the Samyang in any aspect but distortion and is a stop faster. Unlike with the Samyang I found the AF to be very reliable. So unless you put a lot of emphasis on small size I would always recommend the Sony over the Samyang.
Every lens is a compromise between performance, price and size. The Samyang AF 2.8/24 FE puts a very small size and relatively low price over performance. If you don’t push it too hard it delivers good results but in more demanding scenarios I often found it lacking. If a small size is really important to you it might be a good fit for you but to most users I can’t recommend it.
More Sample Images
- Sony FE lenses: The honest Guide for the a7 series
- Guide to Macro Lenses for the Sony a7 series
- Long-term Review: Sony FE 2/28: A Smart Compromise
Latest posts by Phillip Reeve (see all)
- Rolling Review: Voigtlander 21mm F3.5 Color-Skopar - November 3, 2018
- Voigtlander 110mm F2.5 APO Macro Hands-On: Photokina Recap Part 5 - October 4, 2018
- Photokina Recap Part 1: Viltrox E-mount lenses - September 30, 2018