From: Paul Carmichael <>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
From: Paul Carmichael <>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:54:55 +0100
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: 7tATzSi2csGmTSRLPJtCzAZCozHOncDOZEhR7b18qSs+HJSNQ=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MpVV3OpN6/CeidlLKx7vCwiVHa8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: es-ES
Print Article
Forward Article
El 29/11/17 a las 12:06, Savageduck escribió:

> Even if you take the f/2.8 vs f/1.4 into account, the Vivitar is a marginal
> quality lens, whereas the Samyang, even though it could be considered a
> budget lens, is of far superior quality in both construction and optics. That
> said the obvious answer lies in the speed differences of the two lenses.
> However, if the Vivitar has worked for you, and there are times a more
> compact lens is required don’t let my opinion stop you from using it
> when you need to.

Out of curiosity, I just looked through both here in my office. The Vivitar seems to have 
a slightly wider view. The Samyang just looks "cleaner".