@@DarrenD777 Hi - I had a long discusion with Tom on that issue... in late march - 2000&17 ! my position is , with the Metabones speedboosters and loads of dump adapters, Nikon -nikkor glass is so plentyfull and cheap, looks more "filmic" and mostly completely non electric - less hassle than fly-by-wire Canon-glass ( the non-hardstops are useless in cinematic filmmaking)
Though generally the same overall, I noticed that the Xeen lenses are slightly sharper especially when you look at the edges of the lines on the focus checker. The lines from the Xeen lenses seem more bold and stand out better compared to the Rokinon. But of course the difference is minor. The Rokinon lenses seem to have a greenish color cast whereas the Xeen lenses look to have a more clean neutral color cast. Otherwise I go for the Rokinon lenses looking at the minor differences in quality compared to price. Great video bro. Thanks a mil.
Tom, you really are the best. So much knowledge and experience and yet so humble and willing to share it with us. I’ve said all this before, but I’ve learned so much from you that I wanted to say it again.
It is NOT true that the Xeen and Cine DS lenses have the same image quality. Why did you make such a statement without testing it first. The Xeen lenses are much, much sharper wide open then the cheap Cine DS lenses. Also, the Xeen lenses have a much more true to life color rendition then the cheaper DS lenses. The Cine DS lenses have a lot of color fringing and for some reason the image is more magenta tinted. The Xeen lenses have 11 blades and the Cine DS only 8 so the bokeh looks a bit better on the Xeen.
I will point out, as others have, that the new Cine lenses under the Rokinon name, "Cine DS", have two differences from the regular Cine lenses: First, the lenses have a dual scale on each side of the lens, and second, the aputure and follow focus ring are in the same spot on all the lenses. You will, however, notice a difference in the overall length of your lens with the DS line, which you will not with the Xeens.
I've used the cine lens on a MFT camera with excellent results. When I upgraded to a Ursa 4.6K I was disappointed with the focus breathing on the larger super 35 sensor. The ZEEN worked flawlessly.
Another amazing video. Tom do you conduct training clinics? I have learned so many good habits for content creation and videography from you. Thank you so much for your lessons and tips.
The quality is drastically different. The Xeen lenses are much much sharper. The cheaper versions have a decent amount if chromatic aberration and are slightly soft.
WWpictures100 the quality of the build is drastically different but optically, they are virtually the same, though the xeens are only slightly sharper. There have been many reviews to support this idea. Even Rokinon says the glass is the same, lol!
The Xeen and Rokinon look identical as far as clarity goes, but the Rokinon lenses seem to add a little bit of blue overtones/darker overall, which in post, is very easy to work with. It's subtle, but still noticeable. My partner in film and I went with the Rokinon. Would love to, down the road, get a Xeen or two. :)
@@SteveT__001 using Blackmagic 4k production camera... main feature for me is the greater clarity of the glass, better coating and grinding...focus pull is longer at 200 degrees, easier to find precise focus. Could easily rent the entire system out, with a steadicam vest stabilizer for the heavier camera rig and lens. People recognize the lens, wishing they could own it as I smile proudly, explaining that it has eleven blades, where the Rokinon cine DS lens have only 8... those perfect bokeh bubbles
@@andyyolesen Cool, glad you are enjoying it, I just need to decide what the best focal length is for my purposes with GH5. Are you getting much vignetting? This video shows it quite bad on the 16 and 24mm? th-cam.com/video/zYRBvFNkiJs/w-d-xo.html
Thx Tom, great to see a series showing these comparisons. Although weight and portability has gone to shit you must really enjoy using these higher end Rokinon Xeen Cine lenses on your Ursa.
Interesting comparison. I’ve had the Samyang 24mm but the photo version, and I didn’t like it. It was super soft wide open and even at 2 or 2.8, while the 85 and the 16 performs very well even wide open... In the future I would consider buying the 35.
Someone pointed out that if you go to their website you can see the specs: 8 blade aperture vs 11 blade aperture, but the glass seems to be mostly the same, unless another commenter was right: there's a difference there too? Who knows? But, I agree the vast difference in price is crazy if they perform the same as in this video.
@@DarrenD777 Coatings are different too - see Shane Hurlbut's channel for comparison between Xeen, Zeiss, Canon and Cooke primes, the Xeens make the Canon's and Zeiss lenses look overpriced.
Xeen has a sharper look and cleaner feel. It has a slightly more neutral color cast, while the Rokinon has a slight red tint. Edge fringing and aberrations on corners, especially at fast apertures, make the Rokinon ugly, especially in direct light compared to the Xeen. For the price of the Xeen against other cine lenses, it is absolutely worth it. In retrospect to the Rokinon though, this price difference gives Rokinon the edge. If it is even 90% the quality of Xeen, you'll be happy you paid an eighth of the price.
Thanks Tom. Will you be trying the Rokinon lenses on your new BMPCC 6K? I will have this camera soon and appreciate your advice should you test them with this camera. I will not be able to afford the Xeen lenses as a senior with expensive hobbies.
As an owner of both, I can absolutely see the difference between the Xeen and CIne. A moving shot/shot with moving subject would make the difference much more apparent. The Xeen has less chromatic aberration and is a little sharper. To see this in the first still shots Tom provided, look at the out of focus areas in the background. I know that's a weird place to look for sharpness, but screenshot them, and have a look for yourself. The Cine, to me, has a bit more of a DSLR look, while the Xeen pulls more color detail and has a more cinematic bokeh. If you still have access to the lenses, Tom, try another test with a well lit person as the subject and I promise the differences will become night and day.
I linked the comparison: Switch between 14:16 and 14:27 . See how much cooler the color of the Cine looks in the background on the right. Those are your skin tones getting cooler.
how are they when it comes to flaring, focus breathing, CA, contrast loss when shooting into the light.. I think I saw somewhere that that is where the Xeen do better, but don`t quote me on that...
I love my Rokinon kit but the seen are obviously sexier. The value to me is actually better in the Rokinon because of 3 things. First, they are much lighter. Second, you can buy three for the price of one and lastly they are smaller. If you want to be impressive, get the xeen. You’ll save a minute or two on lens changes but a otherwise, your back will thank you for getting Rokinon.
Tom, good review on the lenses, I see several contradictory opinions on the choice of mount, you mention that you use an Sony A7, (E mount) and use an adapter for a Canon EF lens, because there are more adapters for Canon EF and the shorter total length provides more options in the adapter. Others commented that the Nikon mount is the more universal mount. Any follow up?
Both are very versatile. I think its more of a preference thing. I always buy EF lenses because I have an EF adapter for my Sony's and I come from a Canon background. Its just personal preference. Although EF lenses seem to have a higher resell value I've noticed.
Jim Connor - Because the Nikon mount had the largest distance from sensor to lens, it can even be adapted to Canon, but Canon cannot be adapted to Nikon, so Nikon is "more universal". However, for whatever reason, Nikon glass can't be adapted to other mounts and retain any electronic information, whereas Canon glass can be adapted to other mounts and retain autofocus and/or image stabilization with some adaptors (assuming the lens has autofocus and/or IS, obviously). Frankly, I don't know why Nikon electronic support isn't available because any patents are long expired. Nikon glass, either new or used, tends to be cheaper up front, in my experience. It also sells for less, but I'm not sure whether the buy/sell gap is, percentage wise, greater than that of Canon glass. However, it is arguably not as good as equivalent Canon glass. Whether the cost savings is sufficient is a call you need to make. I started with Nikon glass for my Panasonic because I needed some f/1.4 lenses and the old Nikon AI-S (manual focus) glass because it's super cheap (~$75 for a 50mm lens on eBay). However, I'm seriously thinking about switching to buying Canon when I get a Metabones Speedbooster. Anyway, ymmv...
GlueFactoryBJJ - Thank for for that insightful review, I bought into the Sony Mirrorless series when first released and do not have an inventory of older lenses, but they are such a good value that I have decided to begin to purchase some of these older but excellent lenses.( plus the adapter), Appreciate your effort.
I own a Canon DSLR and I have used Nikon lenses on it with an adaptor - of course, you lose any electronic control, but it was a manual lens anyway; so depending on the use you plan to give it you won't lose much. From what I understand, you cannot use Canon lenses on a Nikon camera (you can use an adaptor, but the lens will be too far away from the sensor; so you won't be able to focus to infinity). What GlueFactoryBJJ mentions about Nikon lenses not being able to be adapted to "other mounts" is new for me, I haven't had that problem (please, which "other mounts" do you mean?) So, leaving that (potientially important) fact aside; I would argue Nikon mount lenses are at least +1 adaptable than Canon. Of course, if you need electronic control and you use mostly cameras with a Canon mount it might be better for you to buy a Canon lens, but from a "neutral" POV, I think Nikon lenses are more versatile.
Hi, thanks for the video. I think colors are much better and natural on the Xeen lenses, look at the greys. Also, there is many purple fringing on the Rokinon lenses. So, I think it's not the same lenses... What do you think? Bests. Leo
Actually both 85mm Xeen and Rok at T1.5 have purple fringing, but when stopped down to T8 that goes away. You can watch @15:00 (or close to that). Plus: some other comments here have said that Rokinon themselves claim that the internal glass is exactly the same for all the Rok and Xeen lenses.
I suppose if you need the quick swaps that the identical body sizes provides, then you gotta spend...otherwise, I actually thought the Rokinon 50mm looked like it had less purple fringing than the Xeen.
Writing in 2020 - yup, glass is the same, but the coatings are better on the Xeen - look for a little more contrast. EF Can Not (!) be adapted to 'Any' camera, ONLY those with short Flange Focal Distance (FFD) - so these are not going on anything with Nikon, Pentax, or PL mounts. PL is safer choice then EF, both for the Locking mount, and the much wider range of adapters to shorter FFD bodies, and the wide range of Focal Reducers that will put Full Frame PL glass in front of Mirrorless bodies. That said, Samyang lenses do have interchangeable mounts,... (And it's off how the same company has different brand names for different markets - Samyang = Rokinon
Both sets of lenses are sharp. That's great. But there are a lot of other things you need to take into consideration. The cheaper Rokinons have pretty severe wide angle distortion around the edges, even on the 50mm. Vertical lines at the edges of the frame will appear curved. Are the XEENs any better? Would love to see a comparison.
Hi Tom, and other posters. Thanks folks, very helpful explanations about mounts. Delighted to have found this channel and web site. I'm so new I'm not even a newbie! Bob.
Very good tutorial Tom 😀.. well done 😎.. I have a question: I do astrophotography and is a pain in the butt to focus this far away (but not infinity ) btween say 10m -infibity there only a 4 mm focusthrow ...😏😣..i eas wondering if a cine lens would be an better option due that they have longer throws or is it at infinity the same ?? Grtzz johny geerts
That's EXACTLY why I'm here too! :-) I think we are on to something. Plus - as I read through the comments I see that many argue that the Xeen lenses are indeed better glass (coatings, grinding, processing, et al) than the cheaper Cine lenses, so I'm inclined to buy a lottery ticket ;-) so I can buy a 24mm (the widest they have)...or an ultra-wide Zeiss brand lens (maybe a T1.3 fisheye?) which tends to be the highest quality glass one can buy.
I haven't used them but I can confidently they don't. Cine lenses (by definition) simply don't telescope. They're designed to be used with matte boxes which are fixed to the camera support and not the camera itself.
@@reanetsemoleleki8219 There are a lot of cheap "cine" lenses that have plenty of breathing (focal length changes as you focus). Maybe someone who has used them knows?
@@bitspacemusic sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were referring to lenses that physically change size. Shane Hurlbut has done focus breathing tests on some of the Xeens, but not the DS's, you should check that out. The channel is called Hurlbut Academy I think.
Interesting points, when you suggest buying EF mount for tjhe Xeens and I can completely understand your points however all my stills cameras are Nikon F mount, my video camera currently is a GH5. I already own a Speedbooster for Nikon glass so that I can use my 24-70, 70-200 and other lenses but do you think I should stick with Nikon mount or buy a Canon speedbooster and get the EF version?
@@SteveT__001 sorry, I was, in a terrible mood, I had had some rough days, and it's all my own stupid doing, so I'll try again. Give me half an hour, and I'll be back with something, coherent
I'm pretty sure that the cine DS lenses all have the focus and aperture rings in the same position. Maybe the lenses Tom has are not the cine DS lenses
Hey Tom! Gret video. I have 2 questions. 1. Do you recommend to get the XEEN cinema lens for something like A7SII? 2. If you can afford only one lens, which focal length will you get? Thank you :)
Hey Tom, I am about to purchase the Cinema DS set but I have a question about the focal lengths. I am using 2 GH5 cameras so I'm locked into the MFT cameras for the moment. I am using a Metabones Ultra .71. My question is, what are the focal lengths that are going to work out best to sync up with full frame or APS-C size cameras? What are the most commonly used focal lengths you use in most of your work? Especially for short films? 24 and 35 seem to make the most sense out of the gate since they would equate to a 35mm and 50mm respectively. Are the 16s or 14s worth getting. Would a 50 or an 85 see more use?
he y tom I see that's a camtree mattebox, but what is the baseplate system you're using there. I'm assuming that's a manfrotto plate that comes with the tripod connected to something else
Tom seems to be able to source out great alternatives to expensive options. NOW I wish he would find us a cheap speedboost for micro 4/3 cameras. In some shooting environments these smaller footprint cameras provide some real advantages. Panasonics do not overheat like some others and while they are not as superb in low light they do offer great low light and with non DCI 4K you are getting great images. Does anyone know of great speedboosters for say Panasonic G85?
You should read through the comments. I thought so to, and some even say that, but others say no. Look at the third one before your comment: that's quite a difference.
Both lenses look the same to me. I own a set of the cine primes and they have a lot of chromatic aberration. Seems the Xeen's are the same with much chromatic aberration. Good review though Tom!
Despite Xeen much more, still go for xeen because of the pro look. A few thousands dollars more to look more pro than your competitors is worth it for the long run. Look and Reputation are worth much more than the few thousands dollar.
as far as focus throw (barrel rotation) I'm looking to find the longest throw possible but with the cheaper than xeen class of cine lenses. any idea how many degrees the standard cine lenses focus throw is? what about the slr magic? I know 300 is the sort of ultimate standard and 180 degrees is also quite good. thanks for any help you can provide.
You mentioned buying in Canon ef mount. Obviously then they would mount to any canon camera ever (C100,200,300, etc). Would it not be equally as wise to buy in Nikon f mount due to flange distance? You would have to buy an adapter if you shot Canon, Sony, Panny, or whatever, but due to flange distance they would be able to mount to anything as long as an adapter was available. I know Nikon isn't in the cinema camera business, and many don't think this way so way UNLESS you shoot Nikon + something else. (BTW I shoot Nikon + Panasonic GH4 which makes sense why I 'd ask this.) Was looking to buy the CINE DS line in F mount so I could use cross platform. I like the idea of the Veydra mini-primies for GH4 & MFT but they would be useless if I ever wanted to use on my Nikon (future purchase is probably D850).
Hello Tom, I have a gh5s with a metabones speedbooster EF to M43. Are these lenses a good match for that setup if I get them with EF MOUNT? I only own canon glass.
hey man, i follow your work i think its great and it's been very helpful. few questions, im on a sony a6500 at the moment running on mostly native lenses for small commercial work - so far so good, and planning to either upgrade to an a7iii or a blackmagic pocket 4k, do you think the rokinon $1700 bundle can cover the earlier parts of the transition? or are they even good to go for the long run
Hi, how are you? I have an XEEN 50mm T1.5 lens and I want to place it in a Canon C200 4k camera but I need an adapter and I don't know which is the ideal adapter, can you please help me?
mps Nikon is the shortest but there aren't as many lenses for that mount and adapters. for example you can't put canon EF lenses on Nikon mount cameras without changing the infinity focus
exacly, you cant put ef lenses on nikon bodies, but the other way round (nikon lenses of ef bodies). thus nikon lenses are the best to adapt, not canon. u get all the third party lenses for nikon mount aswell, so also your lens choice is not limited but extended if you go nikon mount..
and that brings exactly what to our discussion? we are talking adapting lenses. lets say you have an fs5. lets say you want the sigma 18-35. if you buy the canon mount you can mount the lens to any mount except nikon. if you buy nikon mount you can use the lens on any mount - so more versitile. i wrote my initial comment when you said (i am paraphrasing now) "buy canon mount to be able to use it on any other camera" - which is wrong. buy nikon mount if you want to use it on any other camera. the fact that canon has more lenses in their lineup has nothing to to with the ability of adatping them
Buy EF lenses... is my advice to others. Based on my experience/opinion. It's not a scientific fact. Your opinion of buying Nikon lenses is also just that, your opinion. Why I advise others to buy Canon EF lenses? Because there's more of them. More adapters for them. Also those lenses hold their re-sale value better than Nikon. In the end whatever works for you, is what you should do. I own a lot of lenses from almost every company. I own a whole set of old manual Nikkor lenses that are great. But in the end I still prefer Canon EF. You clearly prefer Nikon. Someone else out there will prefer another mount. None of us are right or wrong.
hi what about the mount? can someonegive me advice i have a mini ursa 4k with PL MOUNT. could i use the cheaper cinema lens, is there a recommended adapter haven found one with good review
Thank you for doing this review. You definitely saved me money. Two thumbs up for not sounding like 90% of the over enthusiastic other TH-camrs out there and two thumbs way up for the hat :)
Yes absolutely. Or just a regular EF to E mount adapter. No real need for the speed booster unless you just want it. Buying Canon mount will allow you to use these lenses with just about any camera in the world. (Not literally but you know.)
I think a test on human would reveal more. On a face. Maybe difference cannot be seen because not enough going on in the scene. No color variations and light falloffs.
Nothing beats listening to Tom explain differences in glass with calming, soft music playing in the background. :)
I love the Rokinons. They do well. I just wouldn't shoot them wide open.
The upgraded Cine line - the Cine DS has the focus and iris gears the exact same distance from the lens mount
Clint D'Souza yes so no need to worry about follow focus placement 👍
Is that the only difference between the Cine lenses and the Cine DS lenses?
So which would you recommend, the Cine Lenses or the Cine DS lenses. Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope. :)
I find the DS line better, sharper, lesser chromatic aberration, focus breathing and the look is much consistent trough the line.
Almost, also the focus and T-stop signature are moved to the side of the lenses. Optically there's no any changes
Did you ever make a part 2?
You just saved a lot of people a lot of money :D
ha ! Fool !
@@MikkelGrumBovin Seriously? Tom seems to be serious and the video test seem to support what he said. Is he wrong?
@@DarrenD777 Hi - I had a long discusion with Tom on that issue... in late march - 2000&17 ! my position is , with the Metabones speedboosters and loads of dump adapters, Nikon -nikkor glass is so plentyfull and cheap, looks more "filmic" and mostly completely non electric - less hassle than fly-by-wire Canon-glass ( the non-hardstops are useless in cinematic filmmaking)
Thanks for this Tom. Always enjoy your videos, they are the so informative. Curtis Judd and you both provide the best info and no-nonsense reviews.
Brilliant thank you! The advice on why to get EF mount is fantastic.
I started watching a couple of weeks ago and I've learned so much from you. Thanks!
Thank you for watching and its great to hear that you find my videos educational.
Though generally the same overall, I noticed that the Xeen lenses are slightly sharper especially when you look at the edges of the lines on the focus checker. The lines from the Xeen lenses seem more bold and stand out better compared to the Rokinon. But of course the difference is minor. The Rokinon lenses seem to have a greenish color cast whereas the Xeen lenses look to have a more clean neutral color cast. Otherwise I go for the Rokinon lenses looking at the minor differences in quality compared to price. Great video bro. Thanks a mil.
well I will buy the zeen lenses because it looks cooler than the normal lenses
Great decision!!! Nothing beats the COOL factor...
A lot more potentiel, no doubt. They are not just rehoused !! This guy Tom Antos is too funny.
LOL
Tom, you really are the best. So much knowledge and experience and yet so humble and willing to share it with us. I’ve said all this before, but I’ve learned so much from you that I wanted to say it again.
Thank you!
Tom Antos please keep up the incredible work, and always know how much we appreciate you.
It is NOT true that the Xeen and Cine DS lenses have the same image quality. Why did you make such a statement without testing it first.
The Xeen lenses are much, much sharper wide open then the cheap Cine DS lenses.
Also, the Xeen lenses have a much more true to life color rendition then the cheaper DS lenses.
The Cine DS lenses have a lot of color fringing and for some reason the image is more magenta tinted.
The Xeen lenses have 11 blades and the Cine DS only 8 so the bokeh looks a bit better on the Xeen.
I will point out, as others have, that the new Cine lenses under the Rokinon name, "Cine DS", have two differences from the regular Cine lenses: First, the lenses have a dual scale on each side of the lens, and second, the aputure and follow focus ring are in the same spot on all the lenses.
You will, however, notice a difference in the overall length of your lens with the DS line, which you will not with the Xeens.
I've used the cine lens on a MFT camera with excellent results. When I upgraded to a Ursa 4.6K I was disappointed with the focus breathing on the larger super 35 sensor. The ZEEN worked flawlessly.
Thanks Tom...your tutorials are always so informative. This video answered a lot of questions I had about the Rokinon lenses...tchau.
Another amazing video. Tom do you conduct training clinics? I have learned so many good habits for content creation and videography from you. Thank you so much for your lessons and tips.
The quality is drastically different. The Xeen lenses are much much sharper. The cheaper versions have a decent amount if chromatic aberration and are slightly soft.
WWpictures100 the quality of the build is drastically different but optically, they are virtually the same, though the xeens are only slightly sharper. There have been many reviews to support this idea. Even Rokinon says the glass is the same, lol!
I couldn't notice any difference that would make me pay for the premium lens. I'm happy with my rok 35mm
The Xeen and Rokinon look identical as far as clarity goes, but the Rokinon lenses seem to add a little bit of blue overtones/darker overall, which in post, is very easy to work with. It's subtle, but still noticeable. My partner in film and I went with the Rokinon. Would love to, down the road, get a Xeen or two. :)
bought my first Xeen 24mm cinema lens today...a proud feeling....thx
How are you finding it and what camera are you using it on?
@@SteveT__001 using Blackmagic 4k production camera... main feature for me is the greater clarity of the glass, better coating and grinding...focus pull is longer at 200 degrees, easier to find precise focus. Could easily rent the entire system out, with a steadicam vest stabilizer for the heavier camera rig and lens. People recognize the lens, wishing they could own it as I smile proudly, explaining that it has eleven blades, where the Rokinon cine DS lens have only 8... those perfect bokeh bubbles
@@andyyolesen Cool, glad you are enjoying it, I just need to decide what the best focal length is for my purposes with GH5. Are you getting much vignetting? This video shows it quite bad on the 16 and 24mm? th-cam.com/video/zYRBvFNkiJs/w-d-xo.html
I get the Nikon mount because it has the longest flange to film-plane distance. 5.00-35.00 is an adopter from Nikon F mount to canon EOS mount.
Exactly !
can't wait for part 2
Thx Tom, great to see a series showing these comparisons. Although weight and portability has gone to shit you must really enjoy using these higher end Rokinon Xeen Cine lenses on your Ursa.
thank you for your explanation; very easy to understand. Well to know a expensivest glass will not affect image quality. Hello from Panamá City
So, no part 2?
Ugh love watching your videos Tom. Thank you for doing what you do.
Interesting comparison. I’ve had the Samyang 24mm but the photo version, and I didn’t like it. It was super soft wide open and even at 2 or 2.8, while the 85 and the 16 performs very well even wide open... In the future I would consider buying the 35.
The 24mm is known to be soft.
I wouldn't go near it! Lol
Stick with the Rokinon 14mm, 16mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm.
Very sharp.
@@avalanwa Thank you. I will get the 35 and 50 as soon as I can, and then the laowa 7.5mm and I will be happy.
The difference in performance is so marginal, I don't know how you could justify the vast difference in price.
Someone pointed out that if you go to their website you can see the specs: 8 blade aperture vs 11 blade aperture, but the glass seems to be mostly the same, unless another commenter was right: there's a difference there too? Who knows? But, I agree the vast difference in price is crazy if they perform the same as in this video.
@@DarrenD777 Coatings are different too - see Shane Hurlbut's channel for comparison between Xeen, Zeiss, Canon and Cooke primes, the Xeens make the Canon's and Zeiss lenses look overpriced.
Xeen has a sharper look and cleaner feel. It has a slightly more neutral color cast, while the Rokinon has a slight red tint. Edge fringing and aberrations on corners, especially at fast apertures, make the Rokinon ugly, especially in direct light compared to the Xeen. For the price of the Xeen against other cine lenses, it is absolutely worth it. In retrospect to the Rokinon though, this price difference gives Rokinon the edge. If it is even 90% the quality of Xeen, you'll be happy you paid an eighth of the price.
hey Tom
What Matt Box are you running
I love how it swings away
Regards, Rick
Hi Tom, How do you take care of your lenses? What do you do to prevent fungus growth on your lenses? Storage?
Very well done and useful. Is it possible to do a comparison between Canon 50, 85mm lenses and the less expensive Rokinon 50, 85mm?
Great idea... I will do that in another video.
Thanks Tom. Will you be trying the Rokinon lenses on your new BMPCC 6K? I will have this camera soon and appreciate your advice should you test them with this camera. I will not be able to afford the Xeen lenses as a senior with expensive hobbies.
As an owner of both, I can absolutely see the difference between the Xeen and CIne. A moving shot/shot with moving subject would make the difference much more apparent. The Xeen has less chromatic aberration and is a little sharper. To see this in the first still shots Tom provided, look at the out of focus areas in the background. I know that's a weird place to look for sharpness, but screenshot them, and have a look for yourself. The Cine, to me, has a bit more of a DSLR look, while the Xeen pulls more color detail and has a more cinematic bokeh. If you still have access to the lenses, Tom, try another test with a well lit person as the subject and I promise the differences will become night and day.
I linked the comparison: Switch between 14:16 and 14:27 . See how much cooler the color of the Cine looks in the background on the right. Those are your skin tones getting cooler.
Very good Video, Congratulations from Guatemala!!!
Great video, is there a part two?
Hi Tom, could you describe your rig setup in the footage at 6:33 please.
how are they when it comes to flaring, focus breathing, CA, contrast loss when shooting into the light.. I think I saw somewhere that that is where the Xeen do better, but don`t quote me on that...
Xeens are better in all of those, especially breathing
I love my Rokinon kit but the seen are obviously sexier. The value to me is actually better in the Rokinon because of 3 things. First, they are much lighter. Second, you can buy three for the price of one and lastly they are smaller. If you want to be impressive, get the xeen. You’ll save a minute or two on lens changes but a otherwise, your back will thank you for getting Rokinon.
Tom, good review on the lenses, I see several contradictory opinions on the choice of mount, you mention that you use an Sony A7, (E mount) and use an adapter for a Canon EF lens, because there are more adapters for Canon EF and the shorter total length provides more options in the adapter. Others commented that the Nikon mount is the more universal mount. Any follow up?
Both are very versatile. I think its more of a preference thing. I always buy EF lenses because I have an EF adapter for my Sony's and I come from a Canon background. Its just personal preference. Although EF lenses seem to have a higher resell value I've noticed.
Buy EF lenses. There's more of them. More adapters. Also those lenses re-sale better.
Jim Connor - Because the Nikon mount had the largest distance from sensor to lens, it can even be adapted to Canon, but Canon cannot be adapted to Nikon, so Nikon is "more universal".
However, for whatever reason, Nikon glass can't be adapted to other mounts and retain any electronic information, whereas Canon glass can be adapted to other mounts and retain autofocus and/or image stabilization with some adaptors (assuming the lens has autofocus and/or IS, obviously). Frankly, I don't know why Nikon electronic support isn't available because any patents are long expired.
Nikon glass, either new or used, tends to be cheaper up front, in my experience. It also sells for less, but I'm not sure whether the buy/sell gap is, percentage wise, greater than that of Canon glass. However, it is arguably not as good as equivalent Canon glass. Whether the cost savings is sufficient is a call you need to make.
I started with Nikon glass for my Panasonic because I needed some f/1.4 lenses and the old Nikon AI-S (manual focus) glass because it's super cheap (~$75 for a 50mm lens on eBay). However, I'm seriously thinking about switching to buying Canon when I get a Metabones Speedbooster.
Anyway, ymmv...
GlueFactoryBJJ - Thank for for that insightful review, I bought into the Sony Mirrorless series when first released and do not have an inventory of older lenses, but they are such a good value that I have decided to begin to purchase some of these older but excellent lenses.( plus the adapter), Appreciate your effort.
I own a Canon DSLR and I have used Nikon lenses on it with an adaptor - of course, you lose any electronic control, but it was a manual lens anyway; so depending on the use you plan to give it you won't lose much.
From what I understand, you cannot use Canon lenses on a Nikon camera (you can use an adaptor, but the lens will be too far away from the sensor; so you won't be able to focus to infinity).
What GlueFactoryBJJ mentions about Nikon lenses not being able to be adapted to "other mounts" is new for me, I haven't had that problem (please, which "other mounts" do you mean?)
So, leaving that (potientially important) fact aside; I would argue Nikon mount lenses are at least +1 adaptable than Canon. Of course, if you need electronic control and you use mostly cameras with a Canon mount it might be better for you to buy a Canon lens, but from a "neutral" POV, I think Nikon lenses are more versatile.
Hi, thanks for the video. I think colors are much better and natural on the Xeen lenses, look at the greys. Also, there is many purple fringing on the Rokinon lenses. So, I think it's not the same lenses... What do you think? Bests. Leo
Actually both 85mm Xeen and Rok at T1.5 have purple fringing, but when stopped down to T8 that goes away. You can watch @15:00 (or close to that).
Plus: some other comments here have said that Rokinon themselves claim that the internal glass is exactly the same for all the Rok and Xeen lenses.
Thanks. Just want to say the video looks great and sharp on watching on youtube. Could you show your lighting setup for this interview?
I suppose if you need the quick swaps that the identical body sizes provides, then you gotta spend...otherwise, I actually thought the Rokinon 50mm looked like it had less purple fringing than the Xeen.
You really explain well and clear.
Great review Tom!
Writing in 2020 - yup, glass is the same, but the coatings are better on the Xeen - look for a little more contrast.
EF Can Not (!) be adapted to 'Any' camera, ONLY those with short Flange Focal Distance (FFD) - so these are not going on anything with Nikon, Pentax, or PL mounts.
PL is safer choice then EF, both for the Locking mount, and the much wider range of adapters to shorter FFD bodies, and the wide range of Focal Reducers that will put Full Frame PL glass in front of Mirrorless bodies.
That said, Samyang lenses do have interchangeable mounts,...
(And it's off how the same company has different brand names for different markets - Samyang = Rokinon
if you compare with rokinon ds that will be great thoughtful.bcz they are all identical
Both sets of lenses are sharp. That's great. But there are a lot of other things you need to take into consideration. The cheaper Rokinons have pretty severe wide angle distortion around the edges, even on the 50mm. Vertical lines at the edges of the frame will appear curved. Are the XEENs any better? Would love to see a comparison.
I never seen barrel distortion on Super 35mm (Arri Alexa) with this lens. But I can't speak for larger sensors.
Actually, Nikon F has longer flange and smaller diameter, so it's actually even more flexible and adaptable .-.
Hi Tom, and other posters. Thanks folks, very helpful explanations about mounts. Delighted to have found this channel and web site. I'm so new I'm not even a newbie! Bob.
Enjoyable and informative. Which did you use to record this video?
Very good tutorial Tom 😀.. well done 😎..
I have a question:
I do astrophotography and is a pain in the butt to focus this far away (but not infinity ) btween say 10m -infibity there only a 4 mm focusthrow ...😏😣..i eas wondering if a cine lens would be an better option due that they have longer throws or is it at infinity the same ??
Grtzz johny geerts
That's EXACTLY why I'm here too! :-) I think we are on to something.
Plus - as I read through the comments I see that many argue that the Xeen lenses are indeed better glass (coatings, grinding, processing, et al) than the cheaper Cine lenses, so I'm inclined to buy a lottery ticket ;-) so I can buy a 24mm (the widest they have)...or an ultra-wide Zeiss brand lens (maybe a T1.3 fisheye?) which tends to be the highest quality glass one can buy.
Thought there would be more than just a size difference considering they cost 10x as much!! Happy I went with the Samyang cine DS!
Rokinon DS: 8 blades iris for attractive bokeh
Rokinon Xeen: 11 blades iris for attractive bokeh
Do any of these lenses change focal length as you pull focus from one end to the other?
I haven't used them but I can confidently they don't. Cine lenses (by definition) simply don't telescope. They're designed to be used with matte boxes which are fixed to the camera support and not the camera itself.
@@reanetsemoleleki8219 There are a lot of cheap "cine" lenses that have plenty of breathing (focal length changes as you focus). Maybe someone who has used them knows?
@@bitspacemusic sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were referring to lenses that physically change size. Shane Hurlbut has done focus breathing tests on some of the Xeens, but not the DS's, you should check that out. The channel is called Hurlbut Academy I think.
@@reanetsemoleleki8219 Thanks, I'll check it out. I don't think any cine lenses change size, not the primes anyway.
I bought a Rokinon 35mm t1.5 but not recording with my canon m6 mark Ii. I bought viltrox adapter. Looking for head on how to fix it sir
hey! Thank you for this lenses comparison. Could you make another comparison between the Rokinon and Veydra lenses please?
Interesting points, when you suggest buying EF mount for tjhe Xeens and I can completely understand your points however all my stills cameras are Nikon F mount, my video camera currently is a GH5. I already own a Speedbooster for Nikon glass so that I can use my 24-70, 70-200 and other lenses but do you think I should stick with Nikon mount or buy a Canon speedbooster and get the EF version?
Take wild guess, -
Nah, Fak Canon, they stink!
@@MikkelGrumBovin Great input.
@@SteveT__001 sorry, I was, in a terrible mood, I had had some rough days, and it's all my own stupid doing, so I'll try again. Give me half an hour, and I'll be back with something, coherent
@@MikkelGrumBovin Haha no worries Mikkel :)
I'm pretty sure that the cine DS lenses all have the focus and aperture rings in the same position. Maybe the lenses Tom has are not the cine DS lenses
I don’t think those are the DS lens
thanks bro
Thanks for advice. Really helpful stuff!!
This was very informative! It makes me feel good with the Cine DS Rokinon lenses I purchased! Keep up the great reviews and tests coming! Thank you!
Hi Tom ! Love your work. Wondering is there any how can I use varible ND filter on the lens not the matte box ? Thanks !
Hey Tom! Gret video. I have 2 questions. 1. Do you recommend to get the XEEN cinema lens for something like A7SII? 2. If you can afford only one lens, which focal length will you get? Thank you :)
where is part 2?
You forgot to mention that with the xeen you can facus at 25m keeping the back unfocused , and with the others its only until 12m
Could you provide a source? I'd love to check this out!
Thanks.
Hey Tom, I am about to purchase the Cinema DS set but I have a question about the focal lengths. I am using 2 GH5 cameras so I'm locked into the MFT cameras for the moment. I am using a Metabones Ultra .71. My question is, what are the focal lengths that are going to work out best to sync up with full frame or APS-C size cameras? What are the most commonly used focal lengths you use in most of your work? Especially for short films? 24 and 35 seem to make the most sense out of the gate since they would equate to a 35mm and 50mm respectively. Are the 16s or 14s worth getting. Would a 50 or an 85 see more use?
he y tom I see that's a camtree mattebox, but what is the baseplate system you're using there. I'm assuming that's a manfrotto plate that comes with the tripod connected to something else
Wheres part 2 ?
Tom seems to be able to source out great alternatives to expensive options. NOW I wish he would find us a cheap speedboost for micro 4/3 cameras. In some shooting environments these smaller footprint cameras provide some real advantages. Panasonics do not overheat like some others and while they are not as superb in low light they do offer great low light and with non DCI 4K you are getting great images. Does anyone know of great speedboosters for say Panasonic G85?
Amazing information. Thank you very much.
I wonder how they compare to the Veydra mini primes? Frankly I think the Xeen are just the Cine Lenses re-housed.
You should read through the comments. I thought so to, and some even say that, but others say no. Look at the third one before your comment: that's quite a difference.
are you upgrading to the ursa mini pro?
Both lenses look the same to me. I own a set of the cine primes and they have a lot of chromatic aberration. Seems the Xeen's are the same with much chromatic aberration. Good review though Tom!
My Rok Cine Primes have a ton of CA as well. So are you saying that the Xeens are just as bad?
From what I saw in Tom's video the test shows the same chromatic aberration as the Cine Primes.
In short yes... I would keep what I have. UNLESS I needed the other external features of the Xeen lenses.
Despite Xeen much more, still go for xeen because of the pro look. A few thousands dollars more to look more pro than your competitors is worth it for the long run. Look and Reputation are worth much more than the few thousands dollar.
the smallest are the PL mount and not EF
as far as focus throw (barrel rotation) I'm looking to find the longest throw possible but with the cheaper than xeen class of cine lenses. any idea how many degrees the standard cine lenses focus throw is? what about the slr magic? I know 300 is the sort of ultimate standard and 180 degrees is also quite good. thanks for any help you can provide.
You mentioned buying in Canon ef mount. Obviously then they would mount to any canon camera ever (C100,200,300, etc). Would it not be equally as wise to buy in Nikon f mount due to flange distance? You would have to buy an adapter if you shot Canon, Sony, Panny, or whatever, but due to flange distance they would be able to mount to anything as long as an adapter was available. I know Nikon isn't in the cinema camera business, and many don't think this way so way UNLESS you shoot Nikon + something else. (BTW I shoot Nikon + Panasonic GH4 which makes sense why I 'd ask this.) Was looking to buy the CINE DS line in F mount so I could use cross platform. I like the idea of the Veydra mini-primies for GH4 & MFT but they would be useless if I ever wanted to use on my Nikon (future purchase is probably D850).
and then i read the comments and saw this was already discussed.
and then i read the comments and saw this was already discussed.
Hello Tom, I have a gh5s with a metabones speedbooster EF to M43. Are these lenses a good match for that setup if I get them with EF MOUNT? I only own canon glass.
Thanks Tom for this
But cine Ds wasn't consider
Wondering if you would tell me what mat box was in your video. Thanks
hey man, i follow your work i think its great and it's been very helpful.
few questions, im on a sony a6500 at the moment running on mostly native lenses for small commercial work - so far so good, and planning to either upgrade to an a7iii or a blackmagic pocket 4k, do you think the rokinon $1700 bundle can cover the earlier parts of the transition? or are they even good to go for the long run
Awesome lens review!!
Hi, how are you? I have an XEEN 50mm T1.5 lens and I want to place it in a Canon C200 4k camera but I need an adapter and I don't know which is the ideal adapter, can you please help me?
why get a cine lens if you got a gh5, gh5 have cinema mode and do post production. so what adapter do you need for the rokinon for the gh5?
hey tom! its the nikon mount that is universal, not the canon ;) nikon has the biggest flange distance of them all
mps Nikon is the shortest but there aren't as many lenses for that mount and adapters. for example you can't put canon EF lenses on Nikon mount cameras without changing the infinity focus
exacly, you cant put ef lenses on nikon bodies, but the other way round (nikon lenses of ef bodies). thus nikon lenses are the best to adapt, not canon. u get all the third party lenses for nikon mount aswell, so also your lens choice is not limited but extended if you go nikon mount..
except there aren't as many Nikon lenses as there are canon ef
and that brings exactly what to our discussion? we are talking adapting lenses. lets say you have an fs5. lets say you want the sigma 18-35. if you buy the canon mount you can mount the lens to any mount except nikon. if you buy nikon mount you can use the lens on any mount - so more versitile. i wrote my initial comment when you said (i am paraphrasing now) "buy canon mount to be able to use it on any other camera" - which is wrong. buy nikon mount if you want to use it on any other camera. the fact that canon has more lenses in their lineup has nothing to to with the ability of adatping them
Buy EF lenses... is my advice to others. Based on my experience/opinion. It's not a scientific fact. Your opinion of buying Nikon lenses is also just that, your opinion. Why I advise others to buy Canon EF lenses? Because there's more of them. More adapters for them. Also those lenses hold their re-sale value better than Nikon. In the end whatever works for you, is what you should do. I own a lot of lenses from almost every company. I own a whole set of old manual Nikkor lenses that are great. But in the end I still prefer Canon EF. You clearly prefer Nikon. Someone else out there will prefer another mount. None of us are right or wrong.
Hey! Could you compare the Rokinon and Veydra lenses please? :)
I want buy one of the Xeen Lens for my C100 mark II, I need of an adapter or it can fit directly in the canon EF mount ?
It fits directly on the Canon EF mount
hi what about the mount? can someonegive me advice i have a mini ursa 4k with PL MOUNT. could i use the cheaper cinema lens, is there a recommended adapter haven found one with good review
Thank you for doing this review. You definitely saved me money. Two thumbs up for not sounding like 90% of the over enthusiastic other TH-camrs out there and two thumbs way up for the hat :)
Which rig are you using, Mattebox with 15mm rod tripod holder?
Do these cover full frame on Sony A7s? With adapter
They offer both full frame and crop sensor versions of these lenses. Buy the full frame versions and you're good to go.
Is there much difference between the rokinons and the newer samyang VDSLR II lenses? I bought the 35mm VDSLR II
So even if Im shooting with an A7iii I should buy the lenses in ef mount and then buy a metabones speedbooster (for best image quality)?
Yes absolutely. Or just a regular EF to E mount adapter. No real need for the speed booster unless you just want it. Buying Canon mount will allow you to use these lenses with just about any camera in the world. (Not literally but you know.)
I don't why i am watching this but thanks loved it...
I wish i had a camera
Thanks for the tips: EF mount. I'm planning to buy Ursa Mini 4.6k and was in doubt about which mount to buy. Thanks!
Fool !
@@MikkelGrumBovin what do you suggest then?
Do you need a ef adapter for the lenses
I think a test on human would reveal more. On a face. Maybe difference cannot be seen because not enough going on in the scene. No color variations and light falloffs.
What was the matte box you use for these?
What camera do you use to film this and what lens?
@TomAntos What about PL mount?