Rokinon 35mm F/1.4 AS UMC Wide Angle Lens for Olympus 4/3 - $270 @ Amazon

Discussion in 'Hot Deals - Find a Great Deal? Share It Here.' started by nublar, Dec 30, 2014.

  1. nublar

    nublar Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 22, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  2. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Well I think this would be a great deal for anyone with a Sony A7.
    But for µ4/3 users I bet it would be too big an awkward compared to alternative lenses in this focal range.
    I wonder how this would compare to my Rokkor 35mm 1.8 lens when used on a µ4/3 camera? My Minolta 35mm lens is much smaller with only a 49mm filter mount, but i wonder if the IQ is dramatically better.

    I still think that from the beginning, before they even had µ4/3 and there was just 4/3, these Manual SLR lenses should have been offered in an M42 mount, That way they could be adaptable to Soo many different old mounts that Film users still use, as-well as any new mounts that come out.
  3. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    m4/3 mount wouldn't really work with a lot of these designs unfortunately. The rear elements would stick too far out the back.

    The closest thing to a universal SLR mount at this point is Nikon F, which can be adapted to pretty much everything save Olympus OM and Leica R.
  4. betamax

    betamax Mu-43 Regular

    May 7, 2011
    NSW, Australia
    While i agree that it's a big lens, there really aren't any options for this focal lenght in this price range though are there? I can only think of the Sigma 30mm, but that's f2.8. i have the P20, the O45, and this would sit nicely in-between.

    Add a speedbooster to the equation with a Nikon mount version, and it looks very tempting... unless I've missed something (other than size/weight).
    • Like Like x 1
  5. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Incorrect about the Nikon mount. M42 is more Universal than Nikon (Please correct my quote in your previous post as i meant to type M42 but mistakenly did M45) WHICH is why M42 is also called the 'Universal Screw Mount'; it can be adapted to way more mounts than a Nikon F mount..

    Also you mentioned "m4/3 mount wouldn't really work with a lot of these designs unfortunately. The rear elements would stick too far out the back." I have no idea why you mentioned that, It's true but Kinda out of left field regarding what i wrote or for this thread. I never even came close to suggesting using µ4/3 designed lenses on SLR's and I am disusing lenses that are designed for dSLR's that was posted here.
  6. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    I agree it is tempting with a booster, (other than size/weight AND Price) I have never been bothered by using a large lens on my µ4/3 camera..
    Adding a speed booster to the equation would be expensive unless you already have one. However it wouldn't be a 35mm anymore but more like a 20mm 1.0 and in that range we do have something attractive other than that Hulking Combo.
  7. Chris5107

    Chris5107 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 28, 2011
    I think the speed booster option is to get one of the cheap 50mm f1.4 lenses and then add the speed booster. This comes out to be a 35mm f1.0 lens equivalent which would be an option over this 35mm f1.4.

    I have the FD to m43 speed booster with an FD 50/1.4 and the combo is about the same diameter as the m4/3 75mm lens and is about 1/2 inch shorter overall than the 75.

    Total cost used for this setup was around $400.
  8. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Yes that sounds like the best weight & cost effective solution.
    I wonder how a comparison between that and this Rokkon 35mm's I.Q. would be .
    I have that Canon Lens too, as well as the 50mm 1.2 , but no speed booster, Yet.
    I cant decide which mount to get.
    Besides those canon lenses I also have a Canon FD 85mm 1.8 and an FL mount 100mm 2.5.
    I have lots more Minolta MD mount Glass .
  9. Chris5107

    Chris5107 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 28, 2011
    I wanted to pick up a Canon EF to m43 speed booster because you can get many adapters for this one but ended up getting a used FD to m43 speed booster from Adorama because it was $100 off. I am a sucker for a bargain.

    I have found a Nikon to FD adapter so I am hoping to use some Nikon glass with it and I did already have some FD glass.
  10. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    wow... I never see anything other than the Nikon mount selling for used prices... I guess i have to look harder.
  11. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    m42 can't be adapted to Nikon F mount, so that rules out a lot of users. F mount by contrast can be used on basically any current SLR or mirrorless.

    Your original post suggested using a m43 mount for these, I was pointing out why that would not be feasible.
  12. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    That's true about M42. So yes, you are correct about that.
    Although moot, because I do not see why any Nikon user would you need to adapt an M42 screw mount lens to an NF mount if Rokinon already produced the lenses in Nikon F mount.
    Also you didn't say more common, you said "the closest thing to universal" not the more popular or desired mount design. Again I was not saying to eliminate all the other mount offerings; I never even hinted at that, nor mentioned replacing the Nikon F mount offering with anything.. I Clearly said " these Manual SLR lenses should have been offered in an M45 mount, (when I had meant M42) That way they could be adaptable to Soo many different old mounts that Film users still use". The last phrase should have raised an eyebrow that I couldn't have meant a redesign for solely Micro four thirds mount (besides the fact that I first stated before they ever came out with micro four thirds)

    SO yes, the M42 mount is definitely more universal than the Nikon F.
    Remember that its also referred to as the "universal screw mount".
    Also M42 lenses can be adapted to the Sigma dSlR mounts unlike any other SLR lens offerings in 35mm, or below, format.

    Again your incorrect or were possibly confusing the idea of mount offerings with, lenses designed for a type of mount ..
    my first posting only suggests confusion as to the Additional type of mount that lens could be offered in, and that maybe I made a typo, or something is unclear when I typed M45 after using µ4/3 earlier and not m43.
    Even you wrote m43 ... you use a lower case 'm 'rather than the larger 'M' that is associated with the different types of screw lens mounts (eg. M42, M40, M39, M30, M26, M25), and most reading here can concluded you must have meant m4/3, since you did not write it any other acceptable way in that post. The rest would have just asked 'What do you mean m43?'. . Also there was no mention of a lens design or lenses designed different form the Rokinon dSLR line, You were talking about a m4/3 Re-Designed lens as opposed to this dSLR lens line (this original thread posting about the 35mm Rokinon dSLR lens) in an m4/3 mount .. even if I was talking about micro four thirds and for some reason decided to type it as M45 mount instead of m43 (or the correct way of m4/3 or better yet, µ4/3 as I repeatedly used in that post), I WOULD still have been talking about the same SLR lens design (you can tell because I repeatedly wrote SLR and dSLR lens, plus this thread is about a 35mm dSLR lens, which I was referring to when I typed "these lenses") with an m4/3 mount .. wgich would just mean it would be a Physically longer lens if it was offered in a micro four thirds mount (which is already done for other dSLR lenses).

    My biggest befuddlement is that, when I started off by stating " before they even had µ4/3 and there was just 4/3" you had thought, I meant Micro four thirds designed lenses, when you read M45, and I went on to state " they could be adaptable to Soo many different old mounts that Film users still use," rather than think maybe I made a typing error or something else was grammatically amiss.
    Film users cant use µ4/3 lenses. There are no film cameras that would accept them. I am not telling you this film fact about µ4/3 lenses Dara, because as a long time member here and µ4/3 user, I realize you would know this. But I did also assumed the same obvious reasoning, among other obvious things, would have been applied to me. So maybe I shouldn't assume anyone here reading this does know it.

    Any way, I think from now on I will use the term, 'the universal screw mount lens', so even if I make any typos (like hitting the number '5' that is above the '2') or spelling errors, people can still figure out what I mean

    [I think there is no such thing as an m43 mount only an m4/3 mount written by those who can't be bothered to hit the '/' key (or to save time on a tablet/phone. I know it urks me to do it on my tablet) or when written in a URL where the "/" is not allowed & confusing.]

    SO to reiterate and clarify .. I was thinking, and still do, that if, way back when (even NOW), instead of Samyang/Bower/Rokinon offering dSLR lenses in a 4/3 mount or another factory adaptation, in addition to the big four, (N/F, EF, M/A, & PK/A) mounts, they offer a Universal screw mount version.
    I bet it would have sold lots more than just a 4/3 mount version, and it would reach a lot more users than any single mount outside the big four offerings.. Heck they probably could have saved more money and even eliminated the need to tool for one or two other mounts (research permitting).
  13. skellington

    skellington Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 4, 2013
    Atlanta, GA
    Every adapter and mount adds a tiny amount of mechanical misalignment. And the quality / precision of the adapter is beyond the control of the lens manufacturer.

    This might not be a huge deal, but once you've created the mechanical drawings for a given mount, I can't imagine that swapping it out on the CAD designs is that tough either.
  14. fsuscotphoto

    fsuscotphoto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 15, 2013
    St. Cloud, FL
    I don't understand putting up with the weight and the cost of this lens. Sure you can get a booster and the rest, but f/1.4? Why not save the money and use a dedicated lens, plus upping the ISO one stop, or have a one stop longer shutter speed? I thought we got m4/3 to save weight?
  15. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    That's true about CAD. As an experienced CAD Professional myself, I can tell you that is the easy & low cost part. It's the multiple Tooling for multiple mount type parts that can drive up manufacturing costs. Also, I agree about the increased chance for error when adapters are used, but I still think, at the very least, the addition of an M42 mount offering would yield acceptable sales results.
    Yes, for most of us we use µ4/3 to save weight and size, but not all of us.
    As For me , I started with the µ4/3 system so I can use all my Legacy Glass, as they were not adaptable to any dSLR. Although I Love the added Size weight benefit that µ4/3 provides, it's not a sticking point for me; so if I find a lens option in the Focal length/aperture that I want and it's significantly cheaper than any other option, the size or weight is not too much of a consideration point for me. Although I am not a Snob about using quality glass that may be larger or heavier, that's not to say I don't consider S/W of a lens at all. Size/Weight issue, is one of the reasons I was curious as to how my Rokkor 35mm 1.8 would stack up against this Rokinon 35mm 1.4 in an I.Q. Comparison.

    But now with the Notion of a speed booster that betamax suggested, I wonder how it would Compare against my Rokkor 55mm 1.9 lens with the use of a SpeedBooster.
    For those that do not know this lens , the Rokkor 55mm 1.9 lens is smaller, but not lighter than the popular Rokkor 45mm 2.0 lens (Often, mistakenly, called a 45 Pancake lens).
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.