First Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 image samples (not soooo bad!)
While we are waiting for the late August announcement that will bring us some new NEX lens from Sony let’s take a look to that new 35mm f/0.95 Mitakon lens with E-mount. Someon at Mflens forum found those pics made with the production version of the Mitakon lens. Those are all pics taken at f/0.95 aperture with the NEX-5n. Click on the pics to open the full size image.
P.S. You can find plenty of Mitakon lenses on eBay (Click here). And they outsource to SLRmagic too. Example:
SLR Magic 35mm f/1.7 MC (here on eBay).
SLR Magic Toy Lens 28mm Bokehmorphic lens (here on eBay).
SLR Magic HyperPrime 50mm f/0.95 (here on eBay).
SLR Magic 28mm f/2.8 lens (here on eBay).
pepe
11 months ago |Purple fringing is very much aggressive. Visible even in those small samples. Though f1.4/f2.0 should be better.
Wonder, how it will behave on a NEX-7?
NEXfive
11 months ago |I’m not buying a super fast lens for stopping down.
IHUR
11 months ago |CA is common on ultra fast lens. Even leica lenses suffer from it. However, for me, wide-open aperture is more to be used in low light condition, where CA doesn’t show up as often.
Dan@THEME
11 months ago |She is very cute, the bokeh is terrible.
zstan
11 months ago |the bokeh looks okay to me. not many lenses can render a whole tree to be creamy smooth.
Sky_walker
11 months ago |Every single lens I have can do this easily.
This lens have worse bokeh then my 10 euro worth Helios build in USSR decades ago. Heck: I don’t have any lens that comes close to how horrible bokeh this lens have.
Sam
11 months ago |The bokeh is terrible. reminds me of some cheap sigma lens bokeh
CK Dexter Haven
11 months ago |I quite like the bokeh. Sorta like an old Petzval kind of thing. Atmospheric and painterly. “Good” bokeh doesn’t necessarily mean perfectly round shapes. No ‘nissen’ — a good thing.
passer-by
11 months ago |Agree, the woman is creamy.. hehehe
Valdemar
11 months ago |“not bad”? I can see lack of sharpness and chromatic abbr. in the 3rd pic, full size must be horrible for anything than thumbnails. Plus bokeh is busy and poor at its best.
Unless it recovers greatly when stopped down once or twice, there’s not much hope for this one right now.
admin
11 months ago |I epxected it to be much worse!!! This is not Zeiss
RTI
11 months ago |Admin, if you looked more attentively you’d see that in the first image there are different focus points, take a look at her face, feet and the chain in front. Unless you see some real full sized pictures I’d avoid posting “looks good” on any site, obviously the images have been processed. Multiple layers and masks…
Ashutosh
11 months ago |It could be due to field curvature ..
Joe
11 months ago |LR4 does a wonderful job getting rid of CA. I have CA all the time with a 85mm f/1.4 Z, I would expect a 0.95 to have CA. It can be fixed. Sure Jpeg’s straight from the body suffer, but what’s the point in having a body that can shoot raw if you can’t post-process if you need it?!?
Garron
11 months ago |Bokeh sucks on this -> it is harsh and does not render smoothly at all. Micro contrast is only so-so, colour not bad. This is a mid-tier lens to me.
While everyone has different requirements when getting a fast lens, for me bokeh is paramount. Personally would opt instead for 24mm Zeiss if I used A-Mount (even if the focal length is somewhat different).
Anfernee Cheang
11 months ago |Hello everybody, you may find more samples in this link:
http://forum.xitek.com/thread-1034213-1-1-1.html
There are plenty of pictures and comparison between it and CZ 35mm/F2. Again this is only in Chinese so please view it via google translation. Enjoy!
Dan@THEME
11 months ago |Looking better, thanks for the link!
Chad
11 months ago |Thanks for the link! These shots are much more useful and make some of the commenters here sound like blabbering know it alls.
Bokeh is much creamier than the Zeiss 35 and 24 at f/1.7 and f/2 – huge difference really. Not impressed by the center sharpness wide open but I wasn’t expecting a miracle at this price point.
Overall, looks like a good choice for a bokeh monster.
PhotoNut
11 months ago |Sure, but the Zeiss is a full frame lens.
I so want to find an affordable fast 35mm for my full frame. In my quest to find this I spent more money buying both 24 and 28mm f/1.8 lenses from Sigma which are pretty nice although a bit too large for my tastes. But in the end, 24 & 28mm != 35mm.
Why or why, does SONY not offer *any* affordable 35mm lens for full frame? The only new choice is SONY 35mm f/1.4 which goes for > $1,200
The old Minolta 35mm f/2 lenses are even going for astronomical prices on Ebay. Many are being put up for $700 and up. That is crazy when you can pickup a Nikon or Canon 35mm f/2 AF lens for under $300.
Same problem with fast 85mm. There is none that is affordable and available from SONY. Only choice for new is the 85mm f/1.4 ZA at $1,500 or so. Or a questionable used Minolta 85mm f/1.4 for $800 to $1,000.
I’m eying the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 AF HSM but worried about SLT and future compatibility, build quality/AF accuracy and it is very likely that the EXIF information will always be wrong in Lightroom (another pet peeve of mine against non-Minolta/Sony lenses).
For now I have the manual focus Samyang 85mm f/1.4 which is picture perfect except I can hardly get it to focus correctly wide open. In low light where I would expect to use the lens even more, my success rate to have in-focus eyes is like 25% which is too low so this lens hardly ever gets used. That experience soured me about non-focus confirmation manual lenses from Samyang and so I will not be considering the highly rated Samyang 35mm f/1.4 either.
Sky_walker
11 months ago |Bokeh creamer then in Zeisss?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Thanks for the laugh.
Yes, DoF us more shallow, but bokeh is total crap comparing to Zeiss.
Maxwell
11 months ago |Not bad at all.
I don’t know the price, but a lens like this could be usefull
for e.g. video shooting in extreme low light.
The bokeh looks ok for me, take a look at the URL/link Anfernee posted.
lollo
11 months ago |I agree, the girl is not bad at all….
harvey
11 months ago |the photographer could keep his cam level, that’s what she does…
chris
11 months ago |IMHO, the bokeh is better with the CV 35/1.2 and the Zeiss C/Y 35/1.4 – and both of them can be had for the same as this lens. I’d take the Sony E-Zeiss 24/1.8 over this as it has better bokeh as well, along with AF.
J
11 months ago |I don’t have to look at any other samples to see that the out of focus characteristics are going to have to be managed. It doesn’t mean the lens is worthless, just worth less. I agree that trees can’t be obliterated into mush, but I have options that do much better. The rendering of the cars and even the buildings in some of the shots simply are not pleasing. I will pass on this one.
Joe
11 months ago |I don’t know what y’all are complaining about. Sony isn’t putting out lenses at a torrent pace. Third parties are putting out super-primes and the DoF is going to be horribly small for f/0.95. I’m sitting here with my A-mount body and a choice of two, maybe three lenses the past year from Sony, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina collectively and none of them I would seriously consider buying, even if I had the money (OK maybe the 500mm f/4 if I had the money and no bills and time to shoot something worthwhile with it). I’m trolling eBay looking for a Maxxum film body someone forgot to take their lens off of.
Be happy there are third parties actively making lenses for your mount.
J
11 months ago |Critique is not complaining. If the lens meets your needs, by all means go for it. I appreciate when my enthusiasm for a new product is tempered by someone else’s observations. It has saved me money in the past. I would rather be an informed buyer than not. Rendering of out of focus area is important to me. To my eye (and others) there are red flags in these images. .095 is intriguing and to some will be important enough to overlook other characteristics. That’s the way informed buying works.
Joe
11 months ago |You make a great point about the visible IQ. I’d probably buy this lens to shoot in the dark, which would be a better use of the wide open aperture and would minimize the fringing.
Maybe I need to clarify my point better. I go to this site, click to make a comment and the first 10 I read are “this lens sucks”. OK, fair. The lens sucks, in your opinion. Maybe the 5 samples they gave you didn’t take full advantage of the strengths of the lens. Shame on them for not thinking that far ahead.
I am of the mindset that the more the 3rd parties make lenses, good and bad, the better it is for us as consumers. It forces them to raise quality and lower prices. If Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, and Sony all released 85mm f/1.4′s for the Nex, the big winner would be the consumer, who would have 4 more options for a native 85mm f/1.4 than they do now, regardless if one had CA, or one was vignetting, or soft in the center and so on.
J
11 months ago |I agree on the “it sucks” comments and you won’t ever catch me doing that. The overall worth of any product is personal. I really don’t like the image that I see in this article and I can go into more detail about why, but I won’t say it sucks or that there is no purpose for the lens. For me these images are enough to disqualify it for me because these images do a good job at demonstrating what is important to me. Bokeh is subjective, but there are objective reasons that can be pointed out as to why the lens fails that test in at least a classical description of what defines good bokeh.
Joe
11 months ago |Yeah, I can see that. See, I am a bit different. I’d probably rent it at least once just to see what kinds of crap I could get away with at 0.95. I have a feeling I wouldn’t use this as my go-to lens. I would see how dark my office could get and I still could handhold at ISO 200.
J
11 months ago |I did look at the other samples and they do look better, but they demonstrate what I meant when I said that you would have to control the setting with this lens. Keep the background relatively uneventful and you can use it. Even in the other samples though it doesn’t take much in the background to start getting annoying (to me).
That said, it would be interesting to see someting that really required the large aperture. It is odd (and not fair to the lens) that the first samples posted are arguably irrelevant to how the lens would be used. The images are well done in regards to framing, etc. I would say they look professionally done. The photographer should have known better and if these were released by Mitakon, someone should be fired.
Leica Milch
11 months ago |bokeh sucks hard, has the same touch like some old cctv lenses
Sam
11 months ago |totally agree. looks like some cheap $20 cctv lens repackaged
Boooe
11 months ago |Please tell us where we can buy CCTV 30/0.95 lens than covers APS-C at $20…
Chi L
11 months ago |I looked at the EXIF info and it seems to have been processed in Photoshop CS2. I hope there wasn’t any post processing involved. I really want to see the pics in it’s original form.
Radmer
11 months ago |Second picture form the left: F0.95, ISO 200 @ 1/1250 sec. in bright sunshine.
Would have thought a lens at F0.95 would be a little faster.
Do the F0.95 automatically guarantee a faster lens (for example over all other F1.4 lenses on the market)?
Richard Saunders
11 months ago |“Do the F0.95 automatically guarantee a faster lens (for example over all other F1.4 lenses on the market)?”
No, not necessarily. You would need to measure light transmission, which is a function of the number of elements and the types of coatings used. That is why T-stops are a much better measure than F-stops.
Muffin
6 months ago |it’s broad daylight – they are very likely using a ND filter to block the light and bring the shutter speed down.
mochapaulo
11 months ago |May be Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 is preferred. Certainly more expensive but the value is much more guarantee in the second hand market.
kchepegram
11 months ago |images with this lens look great for this price point and build… where’s the f/0.95 for alpha mount?
overall, this girl is hella cute
Robert Bell
11 months ago |Yeah that bokeh is ugly!
Kevin
11 months ago |eye-stabbing-bokeh action, but to be honest i’m not sure if that matters. subject and lighting is pretty decent and in-focus parts are pretty good.
wondering what the price will be.