@@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)
@@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? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zYRBvFNkiJs.html
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for doing this review. You definitely saved me money. Two thumbs up for not sounding like 90% of the over enthusiastic other RU-vidrs out there and two thumbs way up for the hat :)
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.
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, 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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 :)
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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, 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?
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
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.
I feel the quality isn’t that good on either one. I prefer to use old distagon, Carl Zeiss, Schneider, Angeniux, old prime Nikon and yet EF Canon. Do not go cheap on glass quality. The lens quality is basically the quality of your image.
Wouldn't most people typically buy the best lenses they can afford? I have a handful of the Cine DS lenses by Rokinon and my experience has been pretty damn good...although, as someone else here mentioned, I wouldn't shoot any of them wide open, either. But they still look great to me at T2.