[Kunzite]

I believe he was joking.

It was joke, or sarcasm, but clearly he didn't believed it nor expecting us to.

Tokina won't even rebrand this lens; their choice was to rebrand a Viltrox 85mm f/1.8 (perhaps re-orienting themselves towards mirrorless, and having to use whatever's available even if several levels below Pentax).

[beholder3]

A first review of the HD Pentax-D FA★ 85mm f/1.4 ED SDM AW (in French):

[Test] Pentax D FA ★ 85 f/1.4 HD ED SDM AW | Pentax Klub

English translation (Google) (unfortunately without pictures)

The position of the focus plane in the F1.4 shot for sharpness in the beginning is not a good choice.
https://pentaxklub.com/pk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/pkb_dfa85_f1-4_detail.jpg
I bet lots of superficial watchers will make wrong judgements. The trees appear unsharp simply due to being behind the focus plane. Even the window on the right side is in front of the focus plane and suffers.

The edge of the roof in the middle lower image part shows the astounding shaprness the lens is capable of delivering. But 90% of the image area provided shows unsharp areas which not caused by poor lens performance.
That is somewhat misleading.

[Serkevan]

The position of the focus plane in the F1.4 shot for sharpness in the beginning is not a good choice.
https://pentaxklub.com/pk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/pkb_dfa85_f1-4_detail.jpg
I bet lots of superficial watchers will make wrong judgements. The trees appear unsharp simply due to being behind the focus plane. Even the window on the right side is in front of the focus plane and suffers.

The edge of the roof in the middle lower image part shows the astounding shaprness the lens is capable of delivering. But 90% of the image area provided shows unsharp areas which not caused by poor lens performance.
That is somewhat misleading.

That the trees are out of focus (duh, f/1.4 ) is further evidenced by the teeny tiny green fringes on the white building immediately next to them. But the trees are *clearly* behind the main subject, which is very sharp...
If someone cannot see THAT much they probably aren't* looking at this lens in the first place

*And if they are I'd be happy to take it from their hands after they are thoroughly disappointed. Deeply discounted of course

[Wheatfield]

The position of the focus plane in the F1.4 shot for sharpness in the beginning is not a good choice.
https://pentaxklub.com/pk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/pkb_dfa85_f1-4_detail.jpg
I bet lots of superficial watchers will make wrong judgements. The trees appear unsharp simply due to being behind the focus plane. Even the window on the right side is in front of the focus plane and suffers.

The edge of the roof in the middle lower image part shows the astounding shaprness the lens is capable of delivering. But 90% of the image area provided shows unsharp areas which not caused by poor lens performance.
That is somewhat misleading.

They should have circled the area they focused on to avoid confusion. Like the 50, it's excellent wide open, and spectacular at f/5.6. You can see diffraction rearing its ugly head, well I think I can anyway. F/16 looks a bit less sharp than f/11.

[zapp]

Testing a portrait lens on a brick wall and a water bottle...
Ok, it works, it is sharp, but how does it perform as a portrait lens?

[Kunzite]

Testing a portrait lens on a brick wall and a water bottle...
Ok, it works, it is sharp, but how does it perform as a portrait lens?

Well, it's just a first review... and we have Stephen's samples.

What I don't quite like is that the bokeh looks a bit harsh. That's no fault of the lens, it's the scenery and a bit of noise... still, there are people who would blame the lens.
Otherwise, not bad.

[stevebrot]

I have my picky hat on today. While I am pleased for the early review, someone should remind the author that the K-S1 is not the oldest body that supports KAF4 electronic aperture actuation/control. That honor falls to the K-50. The conflation of CA with purple fringing is forgivable, but only barely; missed focus on a lens test, however, is inexcusable. To be honest, I am still not sure what the intended plane of focus was on the first set of photos, nor am I sure that the image used for the full frame was the same as for the detail or that focus was not adjusted between frames. My advice...fall back to manual focus in live view and don't touch the focus ring until the aperture series is done.

Yes, I am a bit disappointed, but it is only the first review.


Steve

(...to the model, "Souriez pour la caméra, s'il vous plaît"? )

[ffking]

"A new legendary lens."

I'll take that

[Wheatfield]

I have my picky hat on today. While I am pleased for the early review, someone should remind the author that the K-S1 is not the oldest body that supports KAF4 electronic aperture actuation/control. That honor falls to the K-50. The conflation of CA with purple fringing is forgivable, but only barely; missed focus on a lens test, however, is inexcusable. To be honest, I am still not sure what the intended plane of focus was on the first set of photos, nor am I sure that the image used for the full frame was the same as for the detail or that focus was not adjusted between frames. My advice...fall back to manual focus in live view and don't touch the focus ring until the aperture series is done.

Yes, I am a bit disappointed, but it is only the first review.


Steve

(...to the model, "Souriez pour la caméra, s'il vous plaît"? )

I'll try to do better, boss.

---------- Post added Jun 26th, 2020 at 11:29 AM ----------

I'm thinking there will be some mention of the lens not focusing correctly. I will, in fact, double down and say they will claim that after not performing any kind of AF calibration.

I can see this happening.
Or, they might just decide not to review it at all.

[Wasp]

I have never seen a lens with a concave front element.

[beholder3]

I have never seen a lens with a concave front element.

The Otus 85 has it as well. https://images.zeiss.com/consumer-products/images/photography/products/otus/...1.1.11&w=1920&

---------- Post added 26th Jun 2020 at 19:50 ----------

If someone cannot see THAT much they probably aren't* looking at this lens in the first place

Wait, ... have I ever encountered anyone on internet photo sites who was not actually looking for a product but still felt the urge to whine about it? Hm ... Counting ... Counting ... around 17,000 people maybe...

[Larrymc]

What? I heard nothing about that. Source?

Its an attempt at humor.......don't believe everything you read and less than half of what you see and none of what you hear!!

[monochrome]

I have never seen a lens with a concave front element.

The Otus 85 has it as well. https://images.zeiss.com/consumer-products/images/photography/products/otus/...1.1.11&w=1920&

---------- Post added 26th Jun 2020 at 19:50 ----------



Wait, ... have I ever encountered anyone on internet photo sites who was not actually looking for a product but still felt the urge to whine about it? Hm ... Counting ... Counting ... around 17,000 people maybe...

CZ Ultron 1,8 50mm. I have the m42 version. All the manual focus sites that review it remark on the bokeh.

[stevebrot]

I have never seen a lens with a concave front element.

The late-1960s Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8 (second version) has a concave front element and is highly regarded. In terms of current product, the Cosina/Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 in Leica M retains the concave front from the LTM model. I believe several other C/V products also have this feature.


Steve

[normhead]

"A new legendary lens."

I'll take that

Legendary is good.
It's already a legend around here. It's the first lens Tess has ever agreed we should own (if we could afford it) from the preliminary images. They've all been impressive.