Looks like it's going to be a limited production of only 100 lenses for $2,999. That sucks. I was hoping to be able to rent one for review, but with 100 units, my guess is that these won't be on the list for the rental houses.
Looks like it's going to be a limited production of only 100 lenses for $2,999. That sucks. I was hoping to be able to rent one for review, but with 100 units, my guess is that these won't be on the list for the rental houses.
, that's why it's a collector's piece. But coming from Mitakon with questionable construction.... They would be delusional to make it a mass production run with that asking price.
Kinda wonder how much it costs to design and build a lens in China? Wasn't it some 'camera club' that organized and makes the Venus macro lenses?
Making the 135/1.4 a limited production run might be a sly marketing move to ensure sales and maintain a high semi-Otus price point. They could always do a second run later if the first is a success and gains some kind of cult following.
It looks decent based on the sample photos, but I'm not seeing anything that makes me WANT it.
It may just be me reading more into it than the translation allows, but "collector's item" doesn't sound like "built for lots of use" to me, or something that is going to be easily serviced if it breaks.
The extra stop sounds cool, but I'm betting the APO-Sonnar 135 will prove to be the better all-around performer. And you can get it fixed if something breaks.
It's a bit expensive at $2999. Hopefully, that isn't the going rate when it reaches mass production. For that price, I can pick up 3 used Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 or 5 Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f2.0 lenses.
rscheffler wrote:
Kinda wonder how much it costs to design and build a lens in China? Wasn't it some 'camera club' that organized and makes the Venus macro lenses?
Making the 135/1.4 a limited production run might be a sly marketing move to ensure sales and maintain a high semi-Otus price point. They could always do a second run later if the first is a success and gains some kind of cult following.
It looks decent based on the sample photos, but I'm not seeing anything that makes me WANT it.
It's not cheap.. I tried.
First I wanted to do it legit. And I tried to buy the rights to reproduce an optical formula (not gonna say to what lens). Found out they weren't interested in selling me the rights (even though the lens is discontinued and the company no longer makes lenses or anything for photography anymore).
Second I tried to talk to some china optic fabrication companies about making me the elements with a sample lens. And then I also talked to a few companies that specialise in CNC machining complex mechanical parts.
Came to the conclusion that it wasn't cost effective.
One thing I did note though. If the optical elements already existed and I was just buying them. It's significantly cheaper on that end. And once you have a prototype design for the lens barrel, it's cheaper (so basically larger runs are cheaper).
A run of 100 lenses, would only be cost effective to them if they were already setup to manufacture other lenses. OR if their price point was high. At the $3k price point, based on my research, it could still yield profits even if it was made by an individual on kickstarter who didn't have the machines and needed to have custom lenses made.
First I wanted to do it legit. And I tried to buy the rights to reproduce an optical formula (not gonna say to what lens). Found out they weren't interested in selling me the rights (even though the lens is discontinued and the company no longer makes lenses or anything for photography anymore).
Second I tried to talk to some china optic fabrication companies about making me the elements with a sample lens. And then I also talked to a few companies that specialise in CNC machining complex mechanical parts.
Came to the conclusion that it wasn't cost effective.
One thing I did note though. If the optical elements already existed and I was just buying them. It's significantly cheaper on that end. And once you have a prototype design for the lens barrel, it's cheaper (so basically larger runs are cheaper).
A run of 100 lenses, would only be cost effective to them if they were already setup to manufacture other lenses. OR if their price point was high. At the $3k price point, based on my research, it could still yield profits even if it was made by an individual on kickstarter who didn't have the machines and needed to have custom lenses made. ...Show more →
But this is not their first lens so it's not like they don't understand the concept of manufacturing. I think this is a pet project of some rich dudes. 100 copies production run is just to create myth and legend for other collectors; this is a big deal in China. We will not see much pictures from this lens, that's for sure. But whenever we see a picture of whiskers of a cat or a tail of a car, people marvel at its bokeh-licious, etc. Designing these lenses is not about cost-effective.
jonrock wrote:
It's a bit expensive at $2999. Hopefully, that isn't the going rate when it reaches mass production. For that price, I can pick up 3 used Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 or 5 Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f2.0 lenses.
I bet carrying around the 5 Samyang lenses would be lighter as well!
Nikon 300mm f/2.0 was sold for USD 29.000, seems like the 300mm/2.8 was sold for USD 1500. So a factor 19!
Canon EF 200mm f/2 sells for USD 5.700, 200mm f/2.8 for USD 750. Here some difference in quality (IS) is there, but both lenses are mass producted.
Factor 7.
Nikon 300mm f/2.0 was sold for USD 29.000, seems like the 300mm/2.8 was sold for USD 1500. So a factor 19!
Canon EF 200mm f/2 sells for USD 5.700, 200mm f/2.8 for USD 750. Here some difference in quality (IS) is there, but both lenses are mass producted.
Factor 7.
So for me the pricing for this 135mm/1.4 sounds increddible cheap.
When you calculate from entrance pupil diameter it is still cheaper than the mass produced 300mm/2.8.
But OK, it is still too much for me.
Well, yes, I know Canon and Nikon quality, but I'm not sure about this Mitakon. These Mitakon is notorious for falling apart. Paying $3000 for that kind of lens is a no go.
Even if this is a Canikon the weight doesn't make sense (heavier than Canikon 200/2) to really consider. If it's much lighter, I would put down my deposit. And only shady business would impose $500 non-refundable deposit...
I got to play with the 135/1.4 today, as well as the 35/0.95 and 25/0.95. The 135/1.4 is absolutely ginormous and hard to focus because the focus ring is huge. Meanwhile, the 25/0.95 for m4/3 is positively tiny, and fairly good. Full report with full size image samples here: http://admiringlight.com/blog/hands-on-mitakon-booth-135mm-f1-4-35mm-f0-95-25mm-f0-95/
uhoh7 wrote:
And that Zeiss is not outrageously expensive, to my surprise.
Do you have that one, Charles?
Having just shot a dim indoor event MF, I admit AF would have made my life easier
Hi Charlie,
Yes I do have the ZA 135/1.8 and it is an awesome lens. Regardless what offerings comes from Sony/Zeiss this lens is here to stay The lenses can be bought relatively cheap as most people are off loading their ZA range.
The lenses can be bought relatively cheap as most people are off loading their ZA range.