[frank]

That's because it's so packed with features!

Sometimes more isn't better I guess. I prefer MZ-3 over MZ-S most time 'cause I just can't remember how to set all those functions on MZ-S.

[K-9]

The PZ-1P originally comes with a credit card size cheat sheet that lists all the custom function settings. It's probably often missing if you buy it used.

[k100d]

Sometimes more isn't better I guess. I prefer MZ-3 over MZ-S most time 'cause I just can't remember how to set all those functions on MZ-S.

set it and forget it

[frank]

set it and forget it

But I always forgot it when I wanted to set it

We find something to complain about all the time, don't we

[Blue]

Most people over look the MZ-3 because it wasn't sold in the states and it was produced in smaller number compared to the MZ-5n and MZ-S.

[Pål Jensen]

I'd agree with Steve on this one, we shouldn't put price into consideration when reviewing a lens' quality. Otherwise all those 50/2 and 1855 kit lenses would have a score of 10 .

Well, I don't do that. What I did was giving the lens a rating of 5. That is defined as good. The lens is great at short distances and bad at farther distances; that makes it "good" overall. I believe that a lens at this price point should be great overall and hence score more than 5.

I have edited my review of the lens with more info.

I strongly believe that this lens is one to warn about as it is not an allround lens and there are better alternatives from Pentax....

[Blue]

Well, I don't do that. What I did was giving the lens a rating of 5. That is defined as good. The lens is great at short distances and bad at farther distances; that makes it "good" overall. I believe that a lens at this price point should be great overall and hence score more than 5.

I have edited my review of the lens with more info.

I strongly believe that this lens is one to warn about as it is not an allround lens and there are better alternatives from Pentax....

In essence, you are saying you would give a screwdriver a bad rating because it doesn't work well as a crowbar.

What are most 85mm lenses made and used for? Regardless, things like that can be mentioned in the annotation. Giving this lens a 5 while the 18-55mm has an average of 7.5 to 8 is odd.

[stevebrot]

Well, I don't do that. What I did was giving the lens a rating of 5. That is defined as good...

I see what you are saying and agree that there is considerable "rating inflation" for many of the reviews. On the other hand, I personally don't own ANY lenses that I would rate as low as a 5 and very few lenses in the database deserve that low a ranking. I have only owned a few that would rate that low including the Rexatar 50/1.8 that shipped with my first SLR.

The Rexatar was quite serviceable and I took many very nice pictures with it. It was not, however, excellent in any way. I also had a Tamron Adaptall-2 28-70 for a few days. It also was quite serviceable, but not good enough to stay in my bag. I would rate it a 5 as well. Here is my personal scale:

• 1 -- Unacceptable for serious work (e.g. Holga, Lomo, most box cameras)
• 5 -- Acceptable (e.g. Rexatar, Prinz, Spiratone, many consumer zooms, cheap rangefinders)
• 10 -- Superb (e.g. Most Pentax limiteds, Pentax *, some Zeiss, etc.)

Fill in the blanks for the other numbers.

For the most part, a lens must be at least an 8 to stay in my bag with exception being made for lenses that go with a particular body or possess some special magic. That 8 rating means very good to excellent sharpness, adequate contrast, good to excellent build, and good handling. I only own two lenses in my sig that I would rate above an 8. I will let you guess which those are...

Steve

(End of thread hijack! )

[Pål Jensen]

In essence, you are saying you would give a screwdriver a bad rating because it doesn't work well as a crowbar.

What are most 85mm lenses made and used for? Regardless, things like that can be mentioned in the annotation. Giving this lens a 5 while the 18-55mm has an average of 7.5 to 8 is odd.

No. I rate it as a lens regardless of how it is used. Nowadays lenses can be great at all focusing distances. I expect that at this price point. Short telephoto lenses (I bought it in the film days) are used for general photography; ultra fast ones for low light shooting.

The A* 85/1.4, the K 85/1.8 and the 77 Limited are all great portrait lenses AND general purpose lenses and great wide open as well. Hence, they deserve a considerably higher rating that the FA* 85/1.4. Giving it a rating of 10, one that cannot be improved, is missing the mark as many users have noticed that it noticable better at shorter distances than at infinity. Surely room for improvement?
I did not give the 18-55 a rating of 7.5-8. In fact, I haven't rated it at all. Perhaps it is a good lens all over deserving 5?

To keep in spirit of the topic; the A* 85/14 sold for considerable more used than the FA* 85/1.4 went for new. In spite of the fact that the FA* lenses were available in the shops back then. This was even before the DSLR induced Pentax lens used prices inflation. It is simply a better lens and people prefered it. It is the same as with the LX vs many other Pentax bodies.

[Nick Siebers]

I found an MZ-S at a great price and intended to flip it, but the darn thing is so frickin awesome that I can't bring myself to give it up. So I can believe that an LX's are probably worth what they cost, at least to the right person.

[Blue]

I take into account when rating a lens as to its intended use and target. For example, I rate mirror lenses against mirror lenses. I wouldn't rate the Sigma 600mm f4 tele against the Sigma 600mm mirror for example.

I rated the 18-55mm II and did it against similar lenses. The annotation is there fro a reason. on a scale of 1 - 10, a 5 is viewed as a crap rating by most people. Rating it against the other 85mm f1.4 and similar is acceptable and the numbered rating should mean something in that context.

Perhaps 2 number scales would be better, one for over-all and one for with-in class.

[Blue]

I found an MZ-S at a great price and intended to flip it, but the darn thing is so frickin awesome that I can't bring myself to give it up. So I can believe that an LX's are probably worth what they cost, at least to the right person.

I did that with an H3. I now have 2 and am struggling to sell one of them.


Edit: I don't think anyone has every fessed up as to who got the LXs.

[K-9]

Most people over look the MZ-3 because it wasn't sold in the states and it was produced in smaller number compared to the MZ-5n and MZ-S.

I believe the MZ-3 is exactly the same as the MZ-5n except for a slightly higher top shutter speed.

No. I rate it as a lens regardless of how it is used. Nowadays lenses can be great at all focusing distances. I expect that at this price point. Short telephoto lenses (I bought it in the film days) are used for general photography; ultra fast ones for low light shooting.

The A* 85/1.4, the K 85/1.8 and the 77 Limited are all great portrait lenses AND general purpose lenses and great wide open as well. Hence, they deserve a considerably higher rating that the FA* 85/1.4. Giving it a rating of 10, one that cannot be improved, is missing the mark as many users have noticed that it noticable better at shorter distances than at infinity. Surely room for improvement?
I did not give the 18-55 a rating of 7.5-8. In fact, I haven't rated it at all. Perhaps it is a good lens all over deserving 5?

To keep in spirit of the topic; the A* 85/14 sold for considerable more used than the FA* 85/1.4 went for new. In spite of the fact that the FA* lenses were available in the shops back then. This was even before the DSLR induced Pentax lens used prices inflation. It is simply a better lens and people prefered it. It is the same as with the LX vs many other Pentax bodies.

That's your opinion, as I'm sure if you poll 100 different Pentax users, others will beg to differ. The autofocus is the better option, as you can use that or manual focus. You have the best of both worlds. The sharpness of both cannot be swayed either way as they both have superb IQ. The silver finish that you say wears easily has received only 1 small mark on my lens, and I've used it heavily for about 12 years. I've gotten more wear on some all black lenses I'd had just a few years.

If someone wants stuff farther in the background, why pay $850.00 and buy this when they could spend considerably less for a 100mm lens? This lens was designed with portraiture in mind. As are all major brand 85mm f1.4's. And as a portrait lens, it's unparalleled, as reviewers since it's release have concurred. Portrait shooters really don't have a need to focus at infinity very often. Again, if you're using it for something other than portraits, there's no need to pay the price of this lens. You are the first person I've ever heard of that complained about things further in the distance not being sharp on it. Well, I've got 100's of razor sharp slides from this lens that says otherwise. I use hyperfocal focusing and have always got incredible front to back sharpness.

I don't believe the 77mm is a better lens for portraiture, due to it's focal length. I find I'm often wanting a tad more with the 85mm (my dream portrait lens would be a 105mm f1.4 or f1.8). I also feel the 85mm is overall sharper than the 77mm. Photozone concurs: "Optically it doesn't offer much beyond the mainstream in this class".

For portraits, I feel the FA85 is simply the best made lens, Pentax or other brand.

I highly disagree with your comment that because it sold more than what the FA sold for new because "it is simply a better lens and people prefered it". That's complete speculation. People always love to have the rarer items, regardless if they perform better. This often pushes up prices and makes the lens overpriced. Also, there were still many users who did not want to convert to autofocus back in the mid 90's and the purists only wanted manual focus. There is no way you can draw a line from that to it being the better lens.

And giving it a 5 is perceived as being an awful lens. A 7 is a good lens, a 4-6 is not.

[frank]

I believe the MZ-3 is exactly the same as the MZ-5n except for a slightly higher top shutter speed.

Although MZ-3 looks and works almost exactly the same as MZ-5n (ZX-5n), it actually has the following improvement over the MZ-5n (ZX-5n) (Source from Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page):
1. Faster max shutter speed (1/4000s vs 1/2000s)
2. Faster AF
3. Better battery life
4. Improved mirror box
5. Probably some other hidden improvement too.

[Jonson PL]

I don't believe the 77mm is a better lens for portraiture, due to it's focal length. I find I'm often wanting a tad more with the 85mm (my dream portrait lens would be a 105mm f1.4 or f1.8).

I would love such a lens. I wonder what the internal Pentax roadmap holds.

The Canon EF 100/2,0 USM, is not particularly expensive.