[reh321]

The Zeiss Distagon T* F1.4 35mm lens is available as an industrial version with M42 mount, easy to adapt.

Is the "industrial version" of this lens markedly better than the Takumar 50mm f/1.4?

[lytrytyr]

Is the "industrial version" of this lens markedly better than the Takumar 50mm f/1.4?

Of course! Just one click with the 35mm, and you're done.
You'd have to go stitching with the 50mm!

[wkraus]

Is the "industrial version" of this lens markedly better than the Takumar 50mm f/1.4?

Given that it sells for 2500 Euros, it had better be...

[Serkevan]

Given that it sells for 2500 Euros, it had better be...

Not necessarily, "industrial" equipment and other specialty stuff sells for a huge premium because it's very low volume and the makers know there are few alternatives. Our lab recently bought a spare part for a machine (a very simple teflon cylinder) and it cost about a hundred bucks, for something we could have 3D-printed for less than 5 with half an hour of design.

[NZ_Ross]

Given that it sells for 2500 Euros, it had better be...

Ross casually flicks through some Leica lens prices...ends up thinking 2500 Euros is relatively inexpensive for a lens

[wkraus]

Not necessarily, "industrial" equipment and other specialty stuff sells for a huge premium because it's very low volume and the makers know there are few alternatives. Our lab recently bought a spare part for a machine (a very simple teflon cylinder) and it cost about a hundred bucks, for something we could have 3D-printed for less than 5 with half an hour of design.

Well in this case it is clearly the same optics as the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 etc. and that one is not too bad. We are using an industrial lens from Schneider-Kreuznach that does 1:1 and nothing else for DSLR scanning, and believe me it it worth the more than 2000 euros that we paid for it.

[Serkevan]

Well in this case it is clearly the same optics as the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 etc. and that one is not too bad. We are using an industrial lens from Schneider-Kreuznach that does 1:1 and nothing else for DSLR scanning, and believe me it it worth the more than 2000 euros that we paid for it.

Yeah, for good lenses 2500 isn't even *that* much (looking uncomfortably at the D FA* 85 here... ), I made it as a general comment

[Lev]

24, 35, 50, 85, 135 would be the ideal progression of DFA* series primes IMHO.

As to what we will get next, only time will tell.

Pentax can be sure they will have my money if I see DFA* 24mm!!

[gatorguy]

Left field 135

I'd love to see a fast modern 135. PLM please.

[TwoUptons]

Pentax can be sure they will have my money if I see DFA* 24mm!!

There is the DFA 21mm Limited coming...

-Eric

[Pål Jensen]

I'd love to see a fast modern 135. PLM please.

Then it must be very fast; at least F:1.8. It will cost north of $2500. But don't hold your breath.
The 135mm is the least popular of all focal lengths after the invention of the short tele-zoom, which everyone and their grand mother owns....

[gatorguy]

Then it must be very fast; at least F:1.8. It will cost north of $2500. But don't hold your breath.
The 135mm is the least popular of all focal lengths after the invention of the short tele-zoom, which everyone and their grand mother owns....

Specifically for my K1. I have it covered in a zoom, but I much prefer the look of good primes.

[pres589]

A funny question that would be all but impossible for a forum like this to answer; which would sell better today; a full-frame 17mm Ltd prime (say, f2.8 with a focus on rendering and compactness) or a 135mm Star prime (with a max aperture of f1.8 and a focus on rendering and wide-open sharpness)?


I think the 17, for Pentaxians, would sell in greater numbers, than the 135. But that's my bias showing.

[Serkevan]

A funny question that would be all but impossible for a forum like this to answer; which would sell better today; a full-frame 17mm Ltd prime (say, f2.8 with a focus on rendering and compactness) or a 135mm Star prime (with a max aperture of f1.8 and a focus on rendering and wide-open sharpness)?


I think the 17, for Pentaxians, would sell in greater numbers, than the 135. But that's my bias showing.

The 135mm would probably be a more useful FL, as 17mm gives a complicated FoV to work with, but then a Star 135 f/1.8 would be a heavy and expensive brick. Did the Sony 135 f/1.8 GM sell well? It's a chunk of lens.

[Pål Jensen]

A funny question that would be all but impossible for a forum like this to answer; which would sell better today; a full-frame 17mm Ltd prime (say, f2.8 with a focus on rendering and compactness) or a 135mm Star prime (with a max aperture of f1.8 and a focus on rendering and wide-open sharpness)?


I think the 17, for Pentaxians, would sell in greater numbers, than the 135. But that's my bias showing.

Technically, we already got the 17/2.8. It is called DA* 11-18/2.8; reputedly it works for FF at 17mm