[ppohja]

I'll take it off your hands then

My thoughts exactly.

Often for club gig photography, 85/1,4 is a bad compromise - doesn't get close to the stage, but is way too portrait for the audience. Also it's often not big enough looking - having a hammerlens somehow frees up the space around.

Example pics from the preproduction version look OK.


I could use this one.

---

Last edited by ppohja; 11-14-2017 at 11:46 AM.

[Medex]

My A*135/1.7 costed me less than half this new 1.4 , and is already too often laying on the shelves

would you like to sell it? It would be nice companion to my DIY 140/1,8 anastigmat and 140/1,8 aplanat

[Zygonyx]

Thank you for interest, i'm gonna wait to see if the DFA*85 can "replace" it

[cyberjunkie]

My A*135/1.7 costed me less than half this new 1.4 , and is already too often laying on the shelves

Well, it's f/1.8
It's one of the A Star lenses I didn't buy when the price was not so crazy (along with the 200mm Macro), and that probably I will never own...
I think there is still a use for such fast lenses, even for the f/1.4 Chinese monster, it's just different than in film times.
Those looking for strong separation between planes and indistinct, creamy background would still profit from this kind of objectives, even if the sensor delivers very good high-ISO performance.
I've used with satisfaction one of my two old f/1.8 135mm lenses, and I'm even more satisfied by the quality of a Tokina-made Soligor C/D 2/135mm.
I guess I would be thrilled by the performance of your A Star... but we can't have everything in life
I will keep my eyes open for a second hand Samyang 2/135mm (which, sharpness wise, should trump the A*) or a Laowa 105mm Smooth Trans Focus. Both would be a great addiction to my "portrait lens" line-up.
I used the words "sharpness wise" instead of a less specific quality like "better". I'm quite sure the Samyang would be sharper at the same aperture, but I'm not sure at all it would be generically better. The more I use fast vintage lenses and I enjoy their qualities, the more I understand that the value of a lens is given more by something very subjective like its overall rendition, than by "numbers".
I value "3D pop" and OOF rendition more than absolute sharpness, and I've been very impressed by what the subjects of my portraits care for, and what they don't even notice.
Sometimes I might pixel peep on screen at 100% magnification, or look at a print through a loupe, but those with no technical awareness go straight for the picture with the smoother, creamier background, if the subject/s look more or less the same.

Given the ironic comments I often read about super fast lenses, I can give myself only two answers.
The first is that some photographers might have different tastes and priorities.
The second is that a few of them could be just commenting "in theory", basing their opinions on "numbers", and maybe some of them have never shot pictures with such beasts, let alone having the time and the technical background to know a lens, get around its shortcomings, and find what it can give if properly used.
Sometimes what looks like plain old common sense proves to be highly contentious, in the real world.

Cheers

Paolo

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 11-15-2017 at 05:39 AM.

[RobA_Oz]

Interesting that people ask "what's it for?" because in past times that FL was the default step-up from the almost universal "kit" 50mm. I still have my SMC Takumar 135/2.5 in M42 mount. I used it for all sorts of subjects from portraits to landscapes. Zooms have made us a bit lazy.

[pres589]

I always thought that 85mm was the center of portrait lens focal lengths on full frame. 135 just seems a bit out there.

[Zygonyx]

Well, it's f/1.8
....
Cheers

Paolo

Mine shows f/1.7 wide open on all my Pentax film and digital bodies.
Another reason to keep it probably

[credos4u]

meh... 135mm f:1.8 is sufficient for me... and i wouldnt bash out 3000 bucks for a lens without AF ...

[gaweidert]

I bet that when used in conjunction with an extension tube it would be one heck of a macro setup. If you could mount an eyepiece to it a great small telescope.

[6BQ5]

The margin on this lens must be really high. How many units would Mitakon need to sell to make it worth their time and effort?

[cyberjunkie]

The margin on this lens must be really high. How many units would Mitakon need to sell to make it worth their time and effort?

IMHO, none!
I mean, they need to actually produce a few samples, loan them to testers, and have the reviews published on the Internet (on YouTube it works great, big sites would never review the lens in a reasonable time, and i doubt Mitakon would pay..).
Of course the reviews will be positive, with modern software designing a prime is rather simple.
Building it, containing costs and still keeping tolerances under check, the elements centered, the infinity stop were is meant to be, etc etc, is another thing... but I guess the examples sent for tests will be checked!
If a couple hundreds objectives get sold it would be beneficial, though I doubt a similar project was devised to earn a profit.
It will prove (again) that a Chinese company unknown to most, or disdained by those who knew about the brand, is actually capable to produce "dream lenses" of good quality. It's quite a statement, and probably costs way less than a decent advertising campaign targeted at the main worldwide markets.
Samyang went through all this some time ago, that's why Mitakon can't go for an 85mm f/1.4 or a 135mm f/2. They need to attract attention with something more extreme.
Profits (if any) are made selling very cheap basic lenses, that perform amazingly well considering the price, but won't attract any attention or increase the perceived value of the brand.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mitakon was the maker behind products sold under other names, for example booster converters.
The moment is not very propitious, but I think Mitakon will eventually follow the Samyang way, in due time.

Cheers

Paolo

[UncleVanya]

@cyberjunkie
Products Archive - Mitakon - ZY Optics (Shenyang Zhongyi Optics )
About ZY Optics - Mitakon - ZY Optics (Shenyang Zhongyi Optics )

They market two brands at the moment. They are also better known in the m43 community.

[Digitalis]

I take issue with the tripod ring with this lens, it looks rather flimsy. But they did put some thought into it, it does have native arca mounting plate.

[UncleVanya]

Mine shows f/1.7 wide open on all my Pentax film and digital bodies.
Another reason to keep it probably

Features and Operation of the Ka Mount

It would since f1.8 isn't one of the options in the A series passive encoded connection points. To have a lens register as 1.8 would require the electronic pin and a lens rom to communicate that it was 1.8 not 1.7.

[totsmuyco]

The lens is not for me though I'm happy they considered it available in Pentax mount. That means that some manufacturers still consider Pentax worth looking at.