is there a big difference between this lens and the Rokinon CV85M-C 85mm t/1.5 Aspherical Lens?
1239751
This lens has a wider view so you see more. It's a little heaver and bulkier than the 85mm, but you can stand much closer to an object that you want to have in focus (12 inches) as opposed to the 85mm (about 3-4 feet).
1239752
The 85 is going to give you a tighter shot. I have the 35 and it is a beautiful lens. I would highly suggest Rokinon, great glass for the price!
1239753
Honestly, I like the quality of the Cine lens more than the regular Rokinon. Also it's easier to change the Aperture with the Cine lens if that is important for you. I hope this information helps.
754196
Speaking from my experience with the Rokinon 8mm, which is a little wider than your 10-22, it is noticeably less wide. At lower focal ranges the difference between a few mm's is more significant than when higher. This lens has very little to no distortion which is the reason i finally made the switch form the much wider 8mm, and honestly you get more detail when zoomed in a little more.
1380695
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6.
1936778
Mine is excellent. I'd never read anything where this particular lens is bad. Wide open you'll get purple fringe. But you'll get that on most 85mm lenses. Stopped down at a lower f stop is clean. You can always get rid of the fringe in Photoshop if you prefer to shoot wide open. But you may not need to, seeing that the lens is a low light shooting lens. Beautiful lens and a steal compared to the Sony Zeiss version.
1140119
It has been sometime since I made the side-by-side review of the two models. Suggest that you view web site: dpreview.com to compare. Except for more mpixels, the real difference will be the choice of the highest quality lens to meet your intended use.
749846
It also depends on the camera the 85mm will allow a closer shot. But the 35mm will be wider angle.
31789
I would go to the website and see what info you can find there. They may have both lenses there. You can also try to go to a photo review site such as Ken Rockwell to see what they have to say.
633524
I have the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. It's my go to lens especially for taking shots of my fast moving son. I don't mind standing away from him that way I can take more candid shots, more day-to-day happenings & on-the-spot mischievous events. I have not tried the 28 though so... this more on the 85. I do use this inside of the house. It takes some getting used to initially but once I got used to the 85, it's my main lens now... ^_^ I hope this helps!
187072
I was not sure when I first looked, then I realized the different models had different temperature capabilities, and if I recall some of them had different focus ratio as well.Keeping this in mind, Read descriptions carefully, the differences will be more apparent!
931353
It is just a little bit thinner (a few mm) but that's not a big deal. The main difference is that the 20 mm lens is better optically.
1718567
Yes, the only difference is it does not attach to the lens. It is a much cheaper version that is perfect 98% of the time, and the other 2% is probably me doing something wrong.
1658027
http://www.5min.com/Video/Portrait-Photography-Tips-72416664The main difference is the working distance from the subject. The video I posted will help you better understand. The 85mm has better bokeh also.
790656
HelloWell as you can see the Rokinon cine lens 35mm t1.5 is made especific for video and cine cameras, the rokinon 35mm f 1.4 is for still pictures, keep in mind that F 1.4 and t 1.5 are not the same apertures also the rokinon cine lens series that aperture ring is declicked allowing a more smooth transition in apertures when shooting movies. They are both excellent pieces of optics but one is more suited for videos and movies than the counterpart of the same size. Hope this answer your question. Thanks.
1640068
From what I can tell, the cheaper version is smaller and lighter. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes it a better lens. Here is the link to sigmas page for the more expensive lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm And here is the link to the less expensive one: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c I have the more expensive lens, and I have used it exclusively since I bought it. I've never shot with the other one though, so I can't accurately compare one to the other.
767370
Do a little side by side comparison, and see for yourself. The common believe in the past was that in lens IS was better, but I think with proper technique either one will work. CWDaly claveldaly.com
2140676
If that was the only difference between the two versions, I would say the answer would be 'no' - but I believe that the VC lens has a better (up-to-date) lens elements than its older version.
1346886
I don't know anything about the 85mm lens, but I own the 50mm f/1.4 USM. That lens was great for about the first 4 months. It took very crisp shots, performed well in low light, and gave beautiful bokeh. However, after 4 months, the USM motor started to not function properly, and my lens would no longer autofocus correctly. I just sent it back for repair under warranty. Hopefully they will be able to fix it permanently, but I have recently read many reviews that have noticed the same problem. Therefore, I would not recommend the 50mm f/1.4 USM. I wish I had bought the 50mm f/1.8 instead. I don't know anything about the 85mm lens, but I own the 50mm f/1.4 USM. That lens was great for about the first 4 months. It took very crisp shots, performed well in low light, and gave beautiful bokeh. However, after 4 months, the USM motor started to not function properly, and my lens would no longer autofocus correctly. I just sent it back for repair under warranty. Hopefully they will be able to fix it permanently, but I have recently read many reviews that have noticed the same problem. Therefore, I would not recommend the 50mm f/1.4 USM. I wish I had bought the 50mm f/1.8 instead.