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