• Ultraviolet Photography

[NOT GOOD for UV] Samyang 14mm f/2.8

3 replies to this topic

#1 Bernard Foot

    Bernard Foot

  • Members+G
  • 706 posts
  • Location: UK

Posted 07 April 2021 - 12:40

Here is a simple test of how the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 works with a Baader U. This lens is an ultra-wideangle (rectilinear) lens for full frame – on an APS-C sensor it is not so exciting.

The two images are WBed as for a Focotar-2: I was not able to do a custom WB for the Samyang shot using RawTherapee as RawTherape was reporting no green channel.

The shot using the Samyang required about 40x the exposure for the Focotar-2.

Samyang (cropped to match Focotar-2 image):
Attached Image: Samyang WB for Focotar LoRes.jpg

Attached Image: Focotar WB for Focotar LoRes.jpg

The difference is obvious. The Samyang shot is much more monochromatic indicating that it is passing only a part of the UV range that the Focotar-2 passes.

So I would conclude that the Samyang 14mm is not really suitable for UV photography. (Not surprising as it has 14 elements in 10 groups.)
Bernard Foot

#2 OlDoinyo


  • Members(+)
  • 853 posts
  • Location: North Carolina

Posted 07 April 2021 - 16:19

Indeed. A 14/2.8 that was UV-capable would have been epic news.

#3 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,683 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 07 April 2021 - 18:22

Bernard, given that this is not a technical assessment (like your other work) of the Samyang 14/2.8, I am not sure this is the place for it.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#4 StephanN


  • Members(+)
  • 241 posts
  • Location: Austria

Posted 07 April 2021 - 19:07

View PostOlDoinyo, on 07 April 2021 - 16:19, said:

Indeed. A 14/2.8 that was UV-capable would have been epic news.

Such a lens would make for a very beautiful Christmas present :grin: I've tried the Walimex-version some time ago and got a similar result.