Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 for Fuji - KEVIN TITUS

This lens has come across my searches a few times now. I'm considering it.

Currently I shoot the 16mm 1.4 l 35mm 2 l 90mm 2.

Bought the 90mm for portraits and I actually use it more for landscapes. The 35mm f0.95 I'd like for portraits but I'll also be shooting still life.

What do you guys think about the f0.95?

After reading this review I was completely blown away by the photos. I'd like to do the same as this photographer. They are really fantastic.

https://www.kevintitusphoto.com/blog/2017/7/9/lens-review-mitakon-35mm-f095-ii

Since I have the 35mm F2 it's a difficult decision. I don't really want a 23mm. The F2 is a great lens and I use it almost daily.

I just recently made a post about the lens, see here.

I'm very happy with it and the handling is great but takes a bit of getting used to due to the Aperture ring being "at the wrong end" of the lens.

Haven't used it much for portraits yet since my girlfriend doesn't like posing but the sharpness in there even at the largest aperture and the oof rendering is beautiful as well.

Wide open you'll have to deal with some coma (see the train station photo in my post), but that's about it.

ragbasti wrote:

I just recently made a post about the lens, see here.

I'm very happy with it and the handling is great but takes a bit of getting used to due to the Aperture ring being "at the wrong end" of the lens.

Haven't used it much for portraits yet since my girlfriend doesn't like posing but the sharpness in there even at the largest aperture and the oof rendering is beautiful as well.

Wide open you'll have to deal with some coma (see the train station photo in my post), but that's about it.

Great review.

I'd actually be shooting ONLY wide open.

MMitchellorg wrote:

I'd actually be shooting ONLY wide open.

And the lens does really well wide open. As I said, the only weakness I could find is some coma. If you want to go for portraits, then I doubt you'll have many small in-focus light sources to deal with.

As for the 35/2, I tried it out for a weekend and it is a really nice little lens but that's about it for me. I don't use the 50mm equivalent very much and much prefer the 23/2 as my all-purpose walk-around lens.

If it's a focal length you use a lot, there's no problem to have more lenses in that range.

Despite already having the 7artisans 35 1.2 (which I use quite often on my X-T1) I also bought the Fuji 35 2.0 for bad weather, and circumstances where I'd have to handover the camera to someone else a lot. And no, I don't shoot the 7artisans at f/1.2 all the time; typically I'll use 2.0 as my base setting indoors, but open up or close down when I want to. The 2 lenses have a very different signature.

Same goes for the lens you consider. Even if you'd use the Mitakon at f/2 it would draw the image differently than the Fuji-lens.

To make images like those in the review blog posted, you would need to use lighting more than anything else. f0.95 won't magically make portraits flattering and well lit.

Edit: not saying that you should not get the mitakon, just saying that lighting and colors of the model's clothing and color work in post is what makes these samples so attractive, less so the DoF imho.

Banderras wrote:

To make images like those in the review blog posted, you would need to use lighting more than anything else. f0.95 won't magically make portraits flattering and well lit.

Interesting Banderras.

I thought that the aperture being more open would cause a more shallow depth of field like the photos in the review.

I can create those photos at F2 by using more light?

This is great news for me and saves me the $500!

There's many ways to make your subject pop, and it can also be achieved at f/8.

Shallow depth of field is one method. Fill flash is another. Careful play of light and shadow, composition, etc are yet other methods.

If the shallow depth of field is a tool you like to use, nothing wrong with a fast lens. There's of course other options, e.g. a Lens Turbo + a classic 50 1.4 lens will result in a similar DOF as the Mitakon 0.95.

Actually I use a 50/1.2 and a lens turbo ... works magic

Sjak wrote:

There's many ways to make your subject pop, and it can also be achieved at f/8.

Shallow depth of field is one method. Fill flash is another. Careful play of light and shadow, composition, etc are yet other methods.

If the shallow depth of field is a tool you like to use, nothing wrong with a fast lens. There's of course other options, e.g. a Lens Turbo + a classic 50 1.4 lens will result in a similar DOF as the Mitakon 0.95.

Sjak - mostly looking for something much like the first photo on the site. Her eyes are in focus and her body slightly back is all out of focus with some nice nature fall off.

Like Banderras mentioned how could I archive this result with my F2 lens?

I can do the same at F/8? I'm surprised!

MMitchellorg wrote:

Banderras wrote:

To make images like those in the review blog posted, you would need to use lighting more than anything else. f0.95 won't magically make portraits flattering and well lit.

Interesting Banderras.

I thought that the aperture being more open would cause a more shallow depth of field like the photos in the review.

I can create those photos at F2 by using more light?

This is great news for me and saves me the $500!

Shallow depth of field - no, subject separation and pop - yes, flattering portraits - also yes. Again, buying this lens is prob a good idea if you have experience with manual focus on people, or want to learn and deal with that. I am just saying that to make these kind of portraits you either have to be extremely lucky to get great natural light at location at the right moment, or more likely you need to bring the light with you. Also do some pp for colour pop & contrast.

If you study the photos in that review they all have different DoF and yet all look flattering - single ladies waist/shoulder level have just the face & ears in DoF, 2 ladies and single lady full body have full body DoF. What does it tell you? Moreover they are posing in a way that the faces are parallel to the focusing plane, while bodies are at an angle, resulting in a gradual focus falloff. Further, you can play with the bokeh by choosing the distance between the subject and the background. Note that you can have too much bokeh, just like too little, there is a balance which depends on the f number, focal length, but also on the distance to the subject from background/foreground, and the angle at which the background/foreground is positioned to the focusing plane.

You can get similar DoF results with your 35mm f2 but with tighter compositions, albeit with a slightly different perspective. e.g. roughly waist level f1 = shoulder f2, shoulder f1 = headshot f2, very roughly.

I am sure you have plenty of your own results, but here are some of mine from a touit 32mm f1.8.

f1.8

Here the Dof is not enough for both eyes because the face is at an angle to the focusing plane, so the DoF is not the problem here, but the light, lack of colour to contrast her lips and eyes and obviously the setting in the car are.

f2.8

This is at f2.8, drop it one stop and the DoF would be similar to a waist level portrait on the f1. Here the body is flat with the face and focusing plane, so no amount of DoF control would make it look like the portraits that you linked to. I still love these photos because they are of my friends.

Point is, there is much more to a pretty subject separation than a one or two f stop difference. You can have too little, but equally too much, therefore you need to learn and plan.

JayPhizzt wrote:

MMitchellorg wrote:

This lens has come across my searches a few times now. I'm considering it.

Currently I shoot the 16mm 1.4 l 35mm 2 l 90mm 2.

Bought the 90mm for portraits and I actually use it more for landscapes. The 35mm f0.95 I'd like for portraits but I'll also be shooting still life.

What do you guys think about the f0.95?

After reading this review I was completely blown away by the photos. I'd like to do the same as this photographer. They are really fantastic.

https://www.kevintitusphoto.com/blog/2017/7/9/lens-review-mitakon-35mm-f095-ii

Since I have the 35mm F2 it's a difficult decision. I don't really want a 23mm. The F2 is a great lens and I use it almost daily.

I have one and it's a great little lens! Sharp, beautiful colors and a wonderful creamy bokeh. You get more of a "vintage" look to the images with it. The only real optical flaw is that it suffers from a lot of flare. It's very different from the Fujinon 35/2 or any Fuji lens for that matter.

Aside from that it has great build quality(all metal) and a very smooth focus ring. Personally I'm not a fan of the stepless aperture ring, but I shoot at 0.95 about 99% of the time anyway For video a stepless aperture ring is probably good, though.

Do you own the 35mm F2? Can you get the same results depth of field wise with the F2 lens?

Sjak & Banderras told me above that I should be able to if I have enough light.

MMitchellorg wrote:

Sjak wrote:

There's many ways to make your subject pop, and it can also be achieved at f/8.

Shallow depth of field is one method. Fill flash is another. Careful play of light and shadow, composition, etc are yet other methods.

If the shallow depth of field is a tool you like to use, nothing wrong with a fast lens. There's of course other options, e.g. a Lens Turbo + a classic 50 1.4 lens will result in a similar DOF as the Mitakon 0.95.

Sjak - mostly looking for something much like the first photo on the site. Her eyes are in focus and her body slightly back is all out of focus with some nice nature fall off.

Like Banderras mentioned how could I archive this result with my F2 lens?

I can do the same at F/8? I'm surprised!

Mitchell, sorry for the confusion. I mention "pop", a generic term for methods to draw more attention to your subject in your images. What I meant is that there's various methods to make a subject pop.

Shallow depth of field is just one method to achieve pop.

It is also one of the methods used in that pic of that lady. Obviously, at the same focal length, a wider aperture will achieve a shallower DoF. So the specific effect you mention cannot be achied at f/8. But be aware that the photographer also used some other tools, in addition to the shallow depth of field. Just the shallow DoF will not immediately give you the exact same result. Careful use of light and shadow, composition, and also a few editing tricks (such as brightening the eyes) lead to this final image, not just the shallow DoF.

Of course, nothing wrong with getting the Mitakon (be sure to get the Mk II!), or e.g. a vintage 50 1.4 + a focal reducer such as the Lens Turbo II (which is made by the same company as the Mitakon btw) Just be realistic in your expectations: it will not immediately give you this example as a result. But I am sure you will enjoy the lens, the learning curve and creative possibilities it will allow you.

MMitchellorg wrote:

Do you own the 35mm F2? Can you get the same results depth of field wise with the F2 lens?

Sjak & Banderras told me above that I should be able to if I have enough light.

That is not what I told, my apologies if my earlier explanation was confusing. Please see my added post

It`s a magnificent lens, very sharp in the center wide open. Aside from beautiful bokeh, amount of light it gathers really helps keeping ISO down in low-light situations.

Here`s a quick comparison of mine against Canon 5D Mark IV (full frame) + Sigma 50mm f/1.4, with some more images down the thread.

And here you can find some bokeh balls in comparison to Fuji`s XF 23mm f/2.

Family will be visiting from the States in the summer and I'm still debating whether to have them bring me the Mitakon or not. The truth is that I'm more than pleased with the 7artisans, couldn't care less about the f0.95 and appreciate the form-factor and 'feel' of the 7artisans.

The main reason I keep going back to the mitakon is that it's meant to be better optically.

It's a tough choice!

This lens was already on my list, but I believe it might have just got bumped up a couple of pegs.  I just wish it was a touch cheaper (but that's how I feel about everything I suppose).

getout87 wrote:

This lens was already on my list, but I believe it might have just got bumped up a couple of pegs. I just wish it was a touch cheaper (but that's how I feel about everything I suppose).

At 500 + it's an expensive Chinese lens.

I'm so conflicted. I don't need it but it would be fun to shoot with.