[Pentaxor]

.


Marc,

Imagine my torment in late 2007 and early 2008 when I'd go into a local camera store every few weeks to 'browse', and have to stare at (and handle) a near-mint M 85 f/2, sitting there unsold at $340 (IIRC). It just seemed to have such solidity for a relatively small telephoto, I could tell there were thick elements inside, and that SMC coating seemed to glow a certain delicious, deep, blue-purple tint...

The one day I walked in and it was marked down to a more reasonable amount, so it became mine.



There - lens porn for 'ya. Now bid on an M 85 f/2!

M 85 f/2 wide-open, followed by crop:




To the OP - I bought a Vivitar 85 1.4, but the aperture was stuck wide-open, so it went back. I've since read about a lot of problems with that very thing, so if you get one, make sure it's easily returnable. But a good one seems pretty tasty. Although not in the same league as the M 85 f/2.

.

that's a pretty tasty looking lens and very tempting honestly speaking. what camera are you using it with btw? however, the 1 stop advantage and sharpness at wide open of the 1.4 seems to be getting the nod from me. since I had handled a 1.8 (not a Pentax) already, I think I would want to try out something faster. who knows, it might work magic on the K-7. I would get a Rokinon though, since the Vivitar does seem to have some issues. I also read that their lenses don't have a particular serial number on each lenses. which would make QA a little bit of a concern. when I get one, I would post some samples as soon as possible.

[ilya80]

I can only sign at what other have already mentioned here:

M85\2 is a way to go. Incredible value for money.

[Alfisti]

The images are lifeless, sharpish (just) but lifeless ..... flat colour ..... hard to describe. Not seen a single image in 12 months that says "wow".

I believe I don't get what you mean by that. but as much as I had found and gathered from my research, there isn't a single one who complained about the 85/1.4 nor being sold at the marketplace at a consistent basis. the only complaints that I read from are coming from fanboys who never really held the lens.

given the IQ performance, speed and price of the 85 over the 77, the 85 would be the more logical choice, no matter how nice the 77 is. you just can't beat the 250 dollar price tag that comes along with great IQ performance. unless the 77 is being sold at 400 bucks (which I believe would never happen), well that would had been more interesting. the price of the 77 is keeping some people off from getting one pronto. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85 would outsell the 77 in the long run.

[Lowell Goudge]

The images are lifeless, sharpish (just) but lifeless ..... flat colour ..... hard to describe. Not seen a single image in 12 months that says "wow".

I have heard all of this before, perhaps by you and certainly by others, and the question I have is, while I can understand to some extent your comment, are we discussing the image as a function of the photographer or the lens.

One thing to remember here is that many of the people who might opt for this lens over the FA77 at its price are people who are starting out with portraits, and may not have the same skill set as the serious portrait photographer. They may not have the same lighting, or the same eye for lighting.

what truely is needed are a set of shots that compare the two lenses side by side in identical situations. otherwise the argument form both sides will continue for ever.

People have long said it is the photographer not the equipment, Prove that statement wrong.

[Alfisti]

I have heard all of this before, perhaps by you and certainly by others, and the question I have is, while I can understand to some extent your comment, are we discussing the image as a function of the photographer or the lens.

I do not know, that's why i have worded it carefully.

In saying that, see the images above from j99 and the crop from the M42 85/2? Not seen a single crop from these 3rd party lenses that even comes close to that much BITE.

[Lowell Goudge]

I do not know, that's why i have worded it carefully.

In saying that, see the images above from j99 and the crop from the M42 85/2? Not seen a single crop from these 3rd party lenses that even comes close to that much BITE.

the shot from j99 is a SMC-M 85mmF2.

While it is nice and clear, what is your view of the shot posted on the previous page of the thread with a close in at 100% on the face, In my view, much more telling than taking 50% of an image.

[Alfisti]

Sorry yeah, M-85/2.

Your image appears focused on the hat so it's hard to tell but appears nowhere near as sharp as j99's left eye.

[Lowell Goudge]

Sorry yeah, M-85/2.

Your image appears focused on the hat so it's hard to tell but appears nowhere near as sharp as j99's left eye.

but the point is, apparent sharpness is also a function of how close you are, and that is difficult to compare when comparing an in your face portrait, or a crop out of a much bigger image.

what if the distances were the same etc, and the relitive magnification was the same, here from a magnification perspective the two are quite different.

[Alfisti]

Which brings us full circle needing a straight up comparison.

[StephenMerola]

Here are 3 with the Rokinon version of the 85mm f/1.4.

2 are at f/1.4 and 1 at f/1.8

Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 - Stephen Merola's Photos

[Pentaxor]

for the benefit of those of want to see an 85/1.4 versus 85/1.4 comparison, I will provide a link here and see and judge it for yourselves.

here's the link:
>>> Nikkor_Polar_Review (JSVFOTO)


I know it's not a Pentax 85 but a Nikkor lens is used as a comparison against the 3rd Party 85, but atleast we have an idea on how this lens perform in general. though I must say that I'm also interested in comparing a Pentax 85 against a 3rd Party 85 as well. but anyways, if we are going to use other past data of a Nikkor 85 versus Pentax 85 shot comparisons as on how they perform against each other, we could use those as reference on where the 3rd party lies between the 2 other lenses (make it 3 for the Canon) and how the 3rd party 85 performs by virtue of comparison between Nikkor versus Samyang and Nikkor versus Pentax.

btw, the results show that the Nikkor lens is brighter than the Polar, but the the Polar is much more sharper than the Nikkor at wide open. so it depends how you compensate or manage for brightness for the Polar and sharpness for the Nikkor lens. so it's a matter of working out the lens. btw, just to remind you that I'm familiar with the Nikkor 85, and I could attest to it's sharpness. but I wouldn't deny the fact and basing from that comparison that indeed the Nikkor got beat in terms of sharpness by the Polar. that's why the lens caught my attention and got intrigued by it. if there are any questions with regards to bite (sharpness of the lens), I'm sure you'll find a lot of posted photos everywhere on the net, particularly at DPR where people could attest to that and have photos to show as well. sorry I just got lazy from posting the links so you might want to browse it yourselves.

with regards to the shallow DOF of the Samyang at wide open that Marc had mentioned, I think this is where shooting LV (magnified) mode comes in handy. having the K-7 is a luxury I were to say it if you got that particular lens. not to mention that having a better focus split screen and magnifier is also of a major assistance.

[Lowell Goudge]

pentaxor

thanks for the review

if I read it too litterally, the samyang is optically better than nikon.

therefore is all the resentment of an 85mm F1.4 the fact that compared to an F1.8 or F2 lens they are suffering from too many compromises of making it an F1.4, mostly loss of sharpness and internal flair that results in losss of contrast. i.e. less punch?

[jsherman999]

but the point is, apparent sharpness is also a function of how close you are, and that is difficult to compare when comparing an in your face portrait, or a crop out of a much bigger image.

what if the distances were the same etc, and the relitive magnification was the same, here from a magnification perspective the two are quite different.

This is correct, that 85 1.4 shot was from further away. Lowell, for kicks you could try to approximate the settings and distance to subject, and shoot at f/2, and see how things compare. (I doubt anyone will own both the M 85 f2 and Samyang 85 1.4 any time soon )

Maybe try K20D, jpeg 'bright', +2 fine sharpness, and shoot a subject about say 2 meters away - something preferably with eyelashes. Have the aperture at f/2. Try some focus bracketing, and select the sharpest shot later. I think the 85 1.4 might show pretty good results under those circumstances.

[Lowell Goudge]

This is correct, that 85 1.4 shot was from further away. Lowell, for kicks you could try to approximate the settings and distance to subject, and shoot at f/2, and see how things compare. (I doubt anyone will own both the M 85 f2 and Samyang 85 1.4 any time soon )

Maybe try K20D, jpeg 'bright', +2 fine sharpness, and shoot a subject about say 2 meters away - something preferably with eyelashes. Have the aperture at f/2. Try some focus bracketing, and select the sharpest shot later. I think the 85 1.4 might show pretty good results under those circumstances.

I generally leave jpeg settings at neutral, I find that pentax generally delivers what I see at neutral settings, but sometimes boost contrast especially on low contrast days.

This comes back to one of my earlier comments, we really need head to head on identical shots, I have only seen one good comparison, but it left out the 77mm, it only deal;t with 85's and is in the lens review database.

I will post shortly on one of my cat's from 2 meters as you suggest., will try for F1.4 and F2

[photogerald]

The M85/2 looks like an exceptionally sharp lens.