[Brightcolours]

It renders pretty nicely. Can't help but think that I'd rather choose a Canon EF 85mm f1.4 L IS USM which also renders pretty nicely, which weighs 385 grams less (1355 vs 970 (with hood), includes in lens IS and has a MRSP that is $300 less. Luckily the Pentax K1 II price makes up for that last niggle.

[robbiec]

300 difference (at initial pricing) and we have AW level sealing (you can hold it under a running tap), our Shake Reduction gives 5 stops and 85mm is in the goldilocks zone. We also have Pixelshift to enhance the resolving power, and I will try this out with the Astrotracer function.
If you goto the special site and look under the development (engineers) tab, they did call out one specific 85mm lens as their benchmark, namely one with an 86mm front element, which to me sounds suspiciously like the OTUS. Good high level benchmark. But it's down to personal preference, you enjoy and like your Canon stuff, I enjoy and like my Pentax stuff. It's good to have choices.

[Kunzite]

The Canon is a 4 stars lens. Nothing wrong with using a "lesser" (but still very good) lens, of course, but this is about a D FA*.

[thxbb12]

On their product page: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/star_lens/special/sp_dfa85-14/
One just wonders why they chose these 3 poor photos to illustrate this "lens with superb imaging performance"....

[robbiec]

On their product page: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/star_lens/special/sp_dfa85-14/
One just wonders why they chose these 3 poor photos to illustrate this "lens with superb imaging performance"....

To show what normal photographers do. No use having images from an absolute Master of their craft as then it is the photographer on display and not the lens.
+ we don't actually know when they were taken, Japan has / had a lockdown too.

[Brightcolours]

The flower image from that page shows not so soft "soft bokeh effect" on the background with close focussing, ironically. Not unusual with this kind of lens, but just ironic to post that image next to where they brag about soft bokeh effect.

For the rest, I agree with that it is about the lens, not artistic merit. Most of the time, manufacturer's sample images for lenses get criticised, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, it makes no difference.

[Kunzite]

The flower image from that page shows not so soft "soft bokeh effect" on the background with close focussing, ironically. Not unusual with this kind of lens, but just ironic to post that image next to where they brag about soft bokeh effect.

I disagree. The bokeh is as soft as it gets, given the scene.

And it isn't ironic at all - there is no point in using a scene which would get soft bokeh with any lens, say uniformly green foliage or portraits with distant, completely OOF background.
They're making a point there.

[Brightcolours]

The flower image from that page shows not so soft "soft bokeh effect" on the background with close focussing, ironically. Not unusual with this kind of lens, but just ironic to post that image next to where they brag about soft bokeh effect.

I disagree. The bokeh is as soft as it gets, given the scene.

No, it doesn't.

[Kunzite]

No, it doesn't.

Of course you would not admit it.

[thxbb12]