The new APS-C E-mount Mitakon (or Zhongyi) lenses are now shipping:
[shoplink 35370 ebay]42.5mm f/1.2 on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 35369 ebay]24mm f/1.7 on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
13 Responses
While I applaud Mitakon for their aggressive releases, I just don’t understand the inconsistencies of the designs, or how any company could possibly think that photographers would want one lens with aperture in front of focus ring, and another with aperture in rear of focus ring. Why would any photographer want one lens that had wide aperture on far right, and the new 85mm 1.2 has wide aperture far left?
It’s like Sigma now, releasing lenses that zoom in opposite directions from the rest of the lineup.
Or Tamron releases the SP lineup some focusing Nikon direction, and others focusing Sony/Canon direction.
I avoid those inconsistencies at all costs. Otus, Zeiss and Samyang release lenses that focus in the same direction as the native mount they’re made for. I appreciate the effort to do that, and expect that well thought philosophy to trickle down into the rest of the lens design and manufacturing process.
Don’t see any 42,5/1,2 for Sony E, just 4/3?
Right, only the 24mm lenses are E-mount.
Both listings show already a used one for a significatly lower price. Maybe coincidence, but possibly not a good sign.
Hopefully you’re as good photographer as philosopher 😉
He possibly misused the term philosophy. Because this is not about philosophy at all. It’s about usability and is a serious issue if you use lenses and camera systems across two or more brands.
This will not bother the gear heads who fondle their cameras at home and constantly switch brands, but it will bother photographers who actually go out and shoot with two camera/lens systems concurrently.
That’s at least my opinion.
are you German? they want to harmonize all and put DIN on it.
LOL. Possibly he is.
can anyone tell me why the same lens, in Sony mount costs +100$ more then the one in Fuji mount ? Is it 100$ more expensive to let a machine do an e-mount ring ?
Businessmen in capitalism always charge the price which the market allows them to charge, or at least they try to charge a price of what they think/estimate the market will allow them to charge. Of course the business will fail in case the overall costs are not covered by the revenue, but that doesn’t change the fact, that the costs are irrelevant in regard to what price will be paid by customers.
In other words, any capitalist will always try to make the highest possible profit he CAN, not the profit that he NEEDS to pay the costs.
It is irrelevant if the E-mount version has higher production costs or not.
SLR Magic Hyperprime Perfect COPY :D. 24mm is a 1:1 COPY
Highest aperture value and infinity marks are both either on the right side (Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Minolta), or both on the left side (Nikon, Pentax, Fuji).
The mentioned 85mm/1.2 matches to the Leica/Zeiss/Canon/Minolta standard.
The two Mitakon lenses above mix that up, which is indeed strange and confusing.
The new Zeiss/Sony Distagon 35mm/1.4 is designed in the same confusing way. Leica-like focus direction and Nikon-like aperture direction (the opposite to old Minolta lenses!). It seems Zeiss does mess up things the same way as these Mitakon guys do. Same is true to the Loxia lenses. However, if I think about it, this is possibly the new weird Sony standard and not the fault of Zeiss.
The placement of the aperture ring (front or back) is determined by the mechanical and optical design and production costs, but is not that much of an issue in my book.
I used Nikon SLRs and Leica rangefinders half of my life concurrently and the inconsistent directions fo aperture and focus rings were always a pain in the *ss.
I always asked myself if these two brands are affiliated with each other.