Amin's quick takeaways:
-Size and weight are comparable
-Mitakon has better center sharpness both wide open and stopped down.
-Leica has better edge sharpness wide open.
-Mitakon has overall smoother bokeh, and more even across the frame. With near bokeh, Leica has less blur on the foreground on the sides of the frame (due to field curvature). -Field curvature is very different for the two lenses - see the f/4 shots with the same mid-distance focus target - Leica much more in focus in the foreground on the edges, Mitakon much more in focus in the background on the edges.
-Longitudinal CA is a wash. Both have a fair amount.
-Leica meters 1/3 stop faster but has more light falloff, so less than 1/3 stop faster when you include the edges.
the comparison against the noctilux is very impressive.
the lens falling apart thing is now such a well established running gag it's on par with or exceed the "sigma can't af on canon" thing
SEJohnson83 wrote:
Love my copy. No issues at all. 95% of these shots were with the Mitakon wide open.
www.scottejohnson.com/blog
Really looking forward to the new 85 f1.2 shipping in May. I like the Rokinon, but hate the size and build.
I understand the build comment. I haven't had any issues with mine, though the focus ring can appear to slip faster in some cases after a few years...no major problems though. However, the size: you do realize the Mitakon 85/1.2 is larger in all dimensions and 50% heavier than the Rokinon, right?
I've had mine for a month or so now. It's as good at f0.95 and 1.2 as one can reasonably expect - not super crisp but I think slightly better than a canon 50 1.4 at 1.4. It takes sharpening well if you shoot at low ISO ditto clarity since it isn't ver contrasty. There is a little ca and quite a bit of sloca which can be cleaned up.
It's no substitute for a top normal speed 50 though; it's fine at say f 5.6 but worse than most good 50 1.4s or 1.8s; enough worse so that you would prefer them. But you buy it for the f1.0 range.
I've had mine for a month or so now. It's as good at f0.95 and 1.2 as one can reasonably expect - not super crisp but I think slightly better than a canon 50 1.4 at 1.4. It takes sharpening well if you shoot at low ISO ditto clarity since it isn't ver contrasty. There is a little ca and quite a bit of sloca which can be cleaned up.
It's no substitute for a top normal speed 50 though; it's fine at say f 5.6 but worse than most good 50 1.4s or 1.8s; enough worse so that you would prefer them. But you buy it for the f1.0 range.
i'd like to buy another now
but, i haven't pulled the trigger yet
so few folks report about them here
a lot have been sold
i only "KNOW" of 1 other that fell apart like mine.... because he posted here
but.... who knows
the internet is "SILENT" about this lens except for those who were "PAID" to review it
Clearwater a7r wrote:
i'd like to buy another now
but, i haven't pulled the trigger yet
so few folks report about them here
a lot have been sold
i only "KNOW" of 1 other that fell apart like mine.... because he posted here
but.... who knows
the internet is "SILENT" about this lens except for those who were "PAID" to review itthere's two for sale on the B&S forums lol.
There are reviews out there. I've been looking into this lens, but I'm still uncertain about it.
There are reviews out there. I've been looking into this lens, but I'm still uncertain about it.
the reviews are "old."
none recent.... please correct if i am wrong
and every one of those reviews came after the reviewer had been "provided" a copy on which to comment
as far as i've seen
MY copy was amazing
the images were superb even for a lens costing more
HOWEVER... it QUICKLY FELL APART
loosened up... almost over night
without being abused
the "play" began after 100 shots and got worse at an alarming rate
B&H treated me well (as they always do) and took it back immediately
i'd love to have another copy... but, even at $899.99.... i'm hesitant to do so
Jman13 wrote:
I understand the build comment. I haven't had any issues with mine, though the focus ring can appear to slip faster in some cases after a few years...no major problems though. However, the size: you do realize the Mitakon 85/1.2 is larger in all dimensions and 50% heavier than the Rokinon, right?
Provided a copy to review doesn't mean they were paid for a favorable review. I have an arrangement with Lensrentals, for instance, to get review samples from time to time. Obviously no pressure for a good review of the lens there. I hope to someday get manufacturer provided samples because then I'd be able to get a review out before release of the lens, which is big. However, i don't know of anyone in the industry that gets paid directly by the manufacturers. Lent samples, sure, but nothing beyond that. And the majority of reviewers are just as fair about that gear as any other.
Clearwater a7r wrote:
the reviews are "old."
none recent.... please correct if i am wrong
and every one of those reviews came after the reviewer had been "provided" a copy on which to comment
as far as i've seen
MY copy was amazing
the images were superb even for a lens costing more
HOWEVER... it QUICKLY FELL APART
loosened up... almost over night
without being abused
the "play" began after 100 shots and got worse at an alarming rate
B&H treated me well (as they always do) and took it back immediately
i'd love to have another copy... but, even at $899.99.... i'm hesitant to do so
Jman13 wrote:
Provided a copy to review doesn't mean they were paid for a favorable review..... And the majority of reviewers are just as fair about that gear as any other.
Of course not. How it works is they are lent (sometimes given) equipment to review. The review creates traffic to their sites, which creates click throughs to their site sponsors/advertisers and that's how they get paid.
If they give unfavourable reviews, they lose their access to the equipment to review, which means less new content on their site, which means less traffic to their site, which means less click throughs to Amazon, B&H etc, which means less money.
Everything is great, best ever, with multiple attached links directing the readers to the sellers of said product.
Surely November 2015 isn't the last time someone asked about this lens! I want to buy one but have my doubts about it's quality, largely based on the comments in this thread.
Is todays Mitakon 0.95/50 (mark II or 67mm version) still likely to fall apart as seemed to be the case a couple of years ago?
