[shoplink 35908 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Image courtesy: DC.watch.
Kai tested the new Mitakon ZY Optics 85mm f/1.2 and compared it versus the Canon 85mm f/1.2L lens:
The E-mount Mitakon 85mm f/1.2 lens can be ordered at BHphoto too (Click here) and [shoplink 35908 ebay]Asian eBays sellers[/shoplink].
48 Responses
Does anyone here like this weirdo’s reviews? They are 95% fluff (him posturing and hamming it up as a brat for the camera) and maybe 5% content– of which not much can be said. Those were the best tests of bokeh they could do with a 10 minute video? An idiot dressed up as a banana in a starkly lit bathroom without anything in the background to really show bokeh? Most likely because he thinks bokeh is beneath him, as with everything else. This is the kind of f— off job I’d do for a class I didn’t give a s— about in high school.
One thing is sure though – that’s way more fun than looking at charts.
Yes, I do.
Me Too!
Indeed, just entertainment, not more. Bit like the “angry photographer” on youtube, funny to watch once, but not useful, especially if the photographers do not show pictures they made, or make crappy ones …
It seems you didn’t see that many videos from The Angry Photographer. Most of his videos are full of useful information and he shows quite a bit of his work.
I have seen many of them, but never where he indicates it is its own work. Try to find a website of the guy … If he is a professional as he claims, where is the website???
Believe me, I know quite a few good photographers who don’t have a proper website.
Well, he sounds annoying, but if his reviews are truly helpful then maybe I’ll watch one someday.
oh, lighten up!
not like you’re paying to watch, is it?
Because that’s the only metric I use to judge whether something on the Internet was a waste of my time or not.
In this video, Kai is licking a fish.
ok
Whoo that’s the worst review i’ve seen from them
Btw Mitakon seems to be a very decent performer !
I tried the Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 really amazing lens
I know it is… I’m saving money so far…
That lens is H.U.G.E.!!!!!!!!!
Makes you wonder what the point is with mirrorless, might as well buy a canon?
The point is you can pick a small lens if you want compactness, and a large lens if you want the crazy fast aperture. A Canon will have a clumsy body no matter what lens you put on it.
I agree. However, there are lenses which clearly aimed toward documentary, street or travel photography, like the Zeiss FE 35/1.4. And with this kind of lenses I would say size is a problem. Not so much with a portrait tele.
It is made for DSLRs.
Mirrorless has become so much more than size and weight advantages. The EVF and its wealth of info is gold, not needing to micro adjust your lenses to name a few are priceless. The size and weight advantage is just an added bonus.
Well, that’s a matter of taste. The size advantage is the biggest advantage for me, not just a bonus. The EVF, in it’s current development state, is the biggest disadvantage for me. You see, as always, it depends.
“not needing micro adjust” is more matter of lenses capable of quick small adjustments, canon’s replacing their lenses with STM so you can have it too.
The point is you can go large if you want to and you can go small when you want to. It’s not just big lens or nothing. For just social going out, sometimes I bring the A7s with the 16mm. Not the best quality, But that might be all you need for the occassion. Now do that with a canon 24mm equiv F2.8.
So are you saying that you only ever want to use huge lenses? If so, maybe mirrorless is not for you. In the meantime, some of us quite like the option of having a lighter package to carry around when circumstances suit.
As far as the lens size is concerned, the combination of a 24x36mm sensor, 85mm focal length and f1.2 will always dictate that it will be large, whatever the mount. It might just be possible to design a telephoto design at 85mm which will make the lens physically shorter, but the gain will be modest and the gain might well be outweighed by the extra optical complexity.
this only dictates front lens element be wider than 70.8 mm.
It can be made smaller with diffractive elements.
It’s 85 mm F1.2, you expect it be be small?
The rendering is different enough to easily pick them out on a video on a phone. I suppose each could decide for themselves which they prefer, but I like the Canon, and not entirely because of the bokeh. I wonder if the aperture reads correctly on Sony cameras
That review seems to have set a new low for the ratio of useful information over pratting around.
Only 2% of his video is actually helpful all els is just a stupid waist of time. The bathroom shot is especially stupid.
That’s above average for Kai and his stooges.
I’d say more like 0.5%, but yeah pretty awful video. One of the worst.
Hope that much more people have found that out, No nature shots to see the ring bokeh and so on, really a waste of tieme.
barely nothing shown from the review, those samples are really awful
Would look better on A mount. It’s on the wrong mount!
It might look better, but why would anyone want to build lenses for a dead system?
Because it isn’t dead. You can’t kill perfection.
At least it users have a sense of gallows humour and irony.
More humor than FE users when they go to see the resale value of their gear on ebay.
Yes yes, everyone who’s ever read the comments section on SAR about any article related or unrelated is aware of your deep seated hatred for E-Mount.
I love E mount! I gotta get me some more E mount. I just got another E mount lens today. I have no idea what your talking about. What I can say is A mount is better, but E mount has it’s place.
This is becoming typical of so-called experts. Guys who simply have the time to spin up some self serving pap on hot new gear. Am I jealous? Sure! I’d love to get some major face time spouting my limited observations with my equally dubious buddies featuring the latest gear.
Instead, I look for even the most basic reporting on lens performance, for example, from real photogs who know what other photogs want to know. Thankfully, there are plenty of them out there. You just hafta wait until they get a sample to run through their essential review.
I don’t need super technical measurements to determine good glass. Detailed sample crops from center to corners, build quality and bokeh/flare sampling is a lot to offer. Kurt Munger does this well and reviews from retailers are also pretty useful.
OK, you caught me.
You still need to micro-adjust, if the AF system is PDAF and it’s the lens, that is messed up.
There is no need for micro-adjust if CDAF is used, that is true.
To be honest, I have spent my time worse than watching this. And from the video, the Mitakon doesn’t seem to be worse than the Canon. For 700 you might shoot a Canon FD, thought, but is it worth the difference for a used lens? Anyway, very happy with my Minolta 1.4.
As someone that does reviews and tests a lot of gear. I can’t tell how much of this BS is going on from so called experts. It’s pathetic and honestly I don’t even look like doing them anymore. I do not want to be classified with these bozos.
Seriously has he been in the business for many years , have a outstanding portfolio to back it up. Have they tried either by buying or renting just about every system out there. You want real reviews and honest answers look for a reviewer that is not being paid or given gear and PLEASE listen to real PROs. These guys are video junkies selling ad space or the stores they work for or being paid by subscriptions. Listen to folks that have nothing to gain and with lots of neutral reporting and have the experience to steer you in the right direction.
Rant off but it gets worse every day
http://www.guymancusophotography.com
This lens only works on people with super flat faces
The hood is beautiful.