[pleo]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I had the A* and the K 2.5 and the 2.8 - and the Spiratone Plura-Coat (as it seems, branded Porst 1.8/135 in Germany).
I collected all lens Tests form the late 70's to the early 90's and remember many 135mm-comparison Tests.

The Porst is weak at 1,8 to a degree, that you wouldn't use it instead of making soft pics.
Beginning at 2.8 it starts to produce sharp pics - in the Center with the edges falling off.

The A* is a bit soft (less contrast) wide opended with quite good sharpness in the center but light fall-off to the edges.
Stopping down this fall-off was reduced to Zero and sharpness war VERY good from 2.8 on.

The A* is simply sharper than the K 2.5 at same apertures.
The K 2.5 sharper than the 2.8/135 from Pentax.

Some Things that are very special with the A*:
As those 3 *-lenses it has a FREE-design (fixed rear lens element). Due to this design it is very good even at very close distances - where most tele lenses lack a bit.
I used it for some macro-works and the results outperfomed those from true macro lenses (Pentax and Tamron).
It is therefore very special for portrait work too.
The focussing ring is much smoother and with more degree than the competition (not knowing the Samyang though) and therefore much easier and more precisly to focus.
The A* can be used with TC with very good results - you cannot say that for every lens, esp. not for all 2.8-Zooms! There have been tests with regard to the use of TCs and even the 2.8/135 were not really good with them (but the Zeiss 2.8/135 was!)

The price that was posted by Beholder is ridiculous:
Even the F/FA 2.8/135 go more more.....

As for the competition:
In those days even the Zeiss 2.0/135 was not really better in the comparison than the A* - and the CaNikon rivals left behind ....

If sharpness is everything that counts you have to go with other lenses.
If rendering and macro abilities count and you love to focus manually (!?!) the value of the A* is really high.
- and the A* is much easier to handle than any 2.8/70-200 lens!
I'm still very sad that I sold my 3 A*-lenses due to the need of money.

@Beholder
why do you always call for 36 MP-pics?
Not all of us are using those fullframe-bodies!
... with good reason!

[Kerrowdown]

Pictures shot with the A* are scarce, and I think I've seen none of them properly showing how it handles OOF rendering.

Sorry I missed this a while back, here's a handful I found quickly to be going on with.

All these shot wide open at a reported F1.7...

[dadipentak]

here's a handful I found quickly to be going on with

A distinguished performance of your duties as your lady's champion.

[beholder3]

The price that was posted by Beholder is ridiculous:
Even the F/FA 2.8/135 go more more.....

No, it is not. I am laughing my head off at anyone who'd spend more than 250-300 EUR, since the lens seems completely unable to compete with modern glass, even in the function limited manual focus section, which means it has to be substantially cheaper than AF options.

The initial question was "Is this lens really worth 2000$+". The answer is: No. Not even 1/4 of it.

@Beholder
why do you always call for 36 MP-pics?
Not all of us are using those fullframe-bodies!
... with good reason!

Because it is a FF lens and Pentax only has a 36 MPx FF body. If it is unable to perform on a FF 36 Mpx that is good reason to not consider it average middle-class.

As can be seen in this very thread, owners don't dare to post meaningful images other than ridiculous smartphone sized JPGs.

Not a single image posted in this thread which remotely supports that the lens is even close to the performance of the 490 EUR Samyang.

[UncleVanya]

Without comparison images I think it is safe to say only that the price is increased by rarity. The k-3 has higher density pixels than the k-1, but only gives data on the central prob of the frame. I'd be happy with comparison full resolution k-3 shots to give some direct data but full resolution k-1 shots would be preferred.

[Kerrowdown]

A distinguished performance of your duties as your lady's champion

Thank you for your very kind comment.

[cyberjunkie]

Sorry I missed this a while back, here's a handful I found quickly to be going on with.

All these shot wide open at a reported F1.7...

I like the bokeh, and I like very much the picture with the flowers!
The sharpness is not easy to assess, because of the size of the pics... but I like what I see, finally I can examine some meaningful examples shot with the A* 1.8/135mm

No, it is not. I am laughing my head off at anyone who'd spend more than 250-300 EUR, since the lens seems completely unable to compete with modern glass, even in the function limited manual focus section, which means it has to be substantially cheaper than AF options.

The initial question was "Is this lens really worth 2000$+". The answer is: No. Not even 1/4 of it.

Your point about the price is not realistic.
Why on earth AF lenses should cost more than similar MF ones?
I guess that manufacturing objectives with the build quality of the A Star's at present day would be much more expensive than producing an identical lens with the quality standards (and the materials) typical of expensive prosumer AF lenses currently available in the market.
If you deem AF lenses more valuable because they better fit your needs/likings it's perfectly fine to me.
If you express an opinion about their economical value you should also explain why. Manual lenses, like those sold by Zeiss and Voigtlander/Cosina, have an high cost because they are still built more or less the same way lenses were built 40 years ago.
I appreciate a durable mechanical construction with tight tolerances, and if the price is similar I usually prefer a PKA objective to an AF one.
Which implicitly means that I value an MF lens more than an AF one, not one half!
The A Star has two cards up its sleeve. One is very real, it's the quality of its build. The other one is POSSIBLE, and it would be the OOF rendering (call it bokeh, if you like the word).

Because it is a FF lens and Pentax only has a 36 MPx FF body. If it is unable to perform on a FF 36 Mpx that is good reason to not consider it average middle-class.

As can be seen in this very thread, owners don't dare to post meaningful images other than ridiculous smartphone sized JPGs.

Not a single image posted in this thread which remotely supports that the lens is even close to the performance of the 490 EUR Samyang.

Here I am following you.
To fully ascertain the quality of the bokeh, and of course the level of sharpness, high res images would serve the purpose much better.
Especially the latter, we can't tell sharpness with low res pictures.
Though the quality of the bokeh shown in the pictures that have been posted is quite good to my eyes.
I would like to see the same pics shot with the Samyang (which is of course sharper, but I'm not sure it's a bokeh monster).
The cost of the A Star is for the most part due to its rarity.
I still have to understand if the out of focus rendering makes it special, aside from the collector's value, making it a worthy purchase for those who have enough money to spend and want a beautifully made optic potentially capable of great bokeh. I still haven't made up my mind.

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 10-31-2018 at 08:58 PM.

[volley]

The initial question was "Is this lens really worth 2000$+". The answer is: No. Not even 1/4 of it.

Sorry, but this is - with all due respect - nonsense.
The lens (like all "goods", especially with very limited availability) is exactly "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it.

It may not be worth much for you, but that is another question.

[normhead]

Sorry, but this is - with all due respect - nonsense.
The lens (like all "goods", especially with very limited availability) is exactly "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it.

It may not be worth much for you, but that is another question.

Which you will realize when you offer to pay what you think it's worth, and the bidding ends up over asking price because you didn't go for the "buy it now" option. Some guy in his chair deciding what lens is worth is of zero interest.

Back in my early days on the forum, I bid $2000 on an FA*250-600. Looking back, even though I'm now have diminished mobility and strength from getting older, understanding what I know now, I should have bid the 7 to win the auction. I still had 7 good years left and that lens would have been the love of my life. My chance Is gone now. I simply can't manage lenses of that size anymore. DO I wish that I hadn't been so myopic about what the lens would be worth to me? Sure I do. It turns out, the way my photography went, it would have been my darling. Back then I'd barely explored long lenses and had no idea what it was worth. $2000 seemed like a lot. Now it seems like chicken feed, because I know I'd have to pay $15k for a modern equivalent I might not like as much. I missed out.

To me there is one excuse for not buying a star quality lens when you have the chance. And that would be that you don't have the money to spend on that type of item.

[Kerrowdown]

but I like what I see, finally I can examine some meaningful examples shot with the A* 1.8/135mm

Glad to be able to help.

[volley]

Back in my early days on the forum, I bid $2000 on an FA*250-600. Looking back, even though I'm now have diminished mobility and strength from getting older, understanding what I know now, I should have bid the 7 to win the auction. I still had 7 good years left and that lens would have been the love of my life. My chance Is gone now. I simply can't manage lenses of that size anymore. DO I wish that I hadn't been so myopic about what the lens would be worth to me? Sure I do. It turns out, the way my photography went, it would have been my darling. Back then I'd barely explored long lenses and had no idea what it was worth. $2000 seemed like a lot. Now it seems like chicken feed, because I know I'd have to pay $15k for a modern equivalent I might not like as much. I missed out.

To me there is one excuse for not buying a star quality lens when you have the chance. And that would be that you don't have the money to spend on that type of item.

It may be too late for you but there's one available for less than 8k EUR
AF SMC Pentax FA * 5.6/250-600 IF ED #3703657 | eBay

Question is: is it worth that price?:-)

[cyberjunkie]

It may be too late for you but there's one available for less than 8k EUR
AF SMC Pentax FA * 5.6/250-600 IF ED #3703657 | eBay

Question is: is it worth that price?:-)

It seems a lot to me... but in all sincerity I have to say that price dynamics looks really unfathomable to me.
I'll probably never get a grip on them. Internet hype is affecting prices in a major way, and rare, expensive lenses seem to get less affordable with time, even if the user base is restricted.
Back in the old days it was exactly the opposite.
When Pentax decided to leave the LX as a one off tentative, a number of professionals who had turned to Pentax just because of the quality of the LX, went to Olympus or Nikon, selling expensive lenses in the process.
Some of them had already bought A lenses, waiting for a pro body with electric contacts.
When it was clear that it was not going to happen (the Super-A was not what they expected), those lenses were sold.
More or less at that time I acquired the Pentax-A 3.5/15mm, 2.8/20mm, 2/35mm, 1.4/85mm Star, 2.8/200mm Star.
One day I went to Milan, to buy a couple of large format lenses and sell a Leitz 28mm.
I found a beautiful Pentax-A* 2.8/300mm, like new, in its case, with a 2x 'L' dedicated converter and a very expensive Heliopan polarizer (very large, because unlike other filters it can't go in the filter drawer at the back).
I remember I paid it 1.700.000 italian liras. It was still sold new, and the official price was around 14.00.000. IIRC the advertised price had been even higher, about 17.000.000! I guess street price was lower, but not so much, at least not in Italy.
Today the second hand price would be higher, even after the introduction of AF and the release of comparable F Star and FA Star lenses.
The reason is that A Star lenses are very good and some of them are quite rare. Collectors drive up the prices.
At that time professionals were selling their highly expensive lenses because they switched brand, but few amateurs were willing to pay such high prices, so the market followed the rule of demand and offer. Some lenses ended up being sold at 1/8, or even 1/10 of the advertised price, cause nobody was willing to spend more, and no brick and mortar store was willing to immobilise that kind of money for too long...

In hindsight I should have taken the chance to buy a couple more desirable objectives for similarly slashed prices, I distinctly remember when I had the chance to buy the 1.8/135mm and the 4/200mm Macro! Two lenses I definitely can't afford at today's crazy prices

[beholder3]

Sorry, but this is - with all due respect - nonsense.
The lens (like all "goods", especially with very limited availability) is exactly "worth" what someone is willing to pay for it.

It may not be worth much for you, but that is another question.

The threadopener asked about what the lens is worth. The whole point of this thread (any thread) is to gather different opinions. There is no "correct" answer with universal relevancy. One or two extreme fan collectors willing to pay $2000 for a golden plastic smurf figurine or this lens (based on their personal opinion) do not make it worth $2000 to anyone but themselves.
And anyone can write its not worth $5.
Both are valid opinions and certainly none is "nonsense".
The only interesting bit here is to discuss what value the majority/average photographer (in contrast to fan collectors) would assign to the lens. And there the usual way to compare a product with its peers (here we have a superior new product with full warranty for 490 EUR as reference). Which is what I did and a handful of fans do not want to hear.

---------- Post added 1st Nov 2018 at 11:08 ----------

Why on earth AF lenses should cost more than similar MF ones?

Go sell an full working copy DA*300mm lens on ebay and the exact same item with a not working SDM drive plus damaged screw drive. The only difference is AF. The price difference is what the market values the feature AF. I would be surprised if there is no price difference.

If you deem AF lenses more valuable because they better fit your needs/likings it's perfectly fine to me.
If you express an opinion about their economical value you should also explain why.

See above.

Manual lenses, like those sold by Zeiss and Voigtlander/Cosina, have an high cost because they are still built more or less the same way lenses were built 40 years ago.
I appreciate a durable mechanical construction with tight tolerances, and if the price is similar I usually prefer a PKA objective to an AF one.
Which implicitly means that I value an MF lens more than an AF one, not one half!

I think you are not discussing AF vs MF but build quality. And yes I agree that build quality can demand a surcharge. With regards to lens prices I don't expect the broader market to value this at more than +10-15% though. It might even be a downside for some. See the weight discussions.

The other one is POSSIBLE, and it would be the OOF rendering (call it bokeh, if you like the word).

Agreed. But here you clearly need a direct visual comparison against peers. In PK-mount there are Porst 135/1.8 peers costing 250 EUR used and Samyang 135/2 costing 490 EUR new. If someone can show a direct comparison with exact same subject where the A* is much better then this would be fine. Only there is absolutely nothing of this type of evidence.
I have owned both the Samyang and the Porst and can say that their bokeh certainly was nothing to criticise.

[Rondec]

I bought the FA 135 f2.8 because I wanted a light, auto focus lens in this focal length. Obviously it was used, but the cost was about 300 dollars, which I thought was a good deal. I do think the reason for the cost of the 135 f2.8 has a lot to do with the rarity of it. The Samyang 135 f2 is probably sharper and has decent bokeh and is quite a bit cheaper. On the other hand, it won't keep its value the way the A 135 f1.8 will because there are no new copies of the 135 f1.8 being made. I think we all know this, but it is the same reason that a rare stamp from the 1800s will be worth thousands of dollars while a prettier stamp from last year is worth almost nothing.

Kerrowdown has shown that with some skill (I don't manual focus much at all), you can produce excellent images with the 135 f1.8, even wide open. That said, it isn't image quality that is driving this market and if you buy a copy, it is because you want a collectors item and have the money for it, not because you need the image quality it offers.

[jbondo]

Both my K-1's are off for upgrade service. When they get back I'll do a comparo with my A* and the Samyang.


i will say this: I'm on my third copy of the Samyang. The first two had easily visible uneven sharpness between the left and right sides. My third one has a hint of astigmatism. I'm probably unlucky in this respect but none the less, when you are making financial and time calculations, keep in mind that the Samyangs may have the "hidden" cost thus mentioned. My time is valuable, and it's worth a certain amount of money to me to not have to goof around with multiple copies just to get a solid one.