MS Optical Sonnetar 25mm f/1.1 lens for Pentax Q mirrorless camera

Pin It

This is a prototype of the Sonnetar 25mm f/1.1 lens for the Pentax Q mirrorless camera by MS Optical. Miyazaki san, the man behind MS Optical, has created some unique lenses in the past (for example the Perar Super Triplet 28mm f/4 and the 3.5/35mm f/3.5 lenses for Leica M-mount). Read the entire story at the Japancamerahunter (more pictures available on their flickr stream).

The Sonnetar 25mm f/1.1 lens was briefly listed on eBay for $650.

Here is another picture of the lens mounted on a Pentax Q body:

MS Optical Sonnetar 25mm f/1.1 Pentax Q lens

This entry was posted in Pentax and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Harold Ellis

    another video lens with “thrice” the normal price and poor corner performance

    do they really believe to get rich over such product?

    • AlexW

      The designer, Miyazaki Sadayasu, is a retired optics designer, and I don’t think he’s in it for the money since his lens releases are always very limited in number.

      All of his past creations are either his own design or inspired by/based on lenses created by Zeiss, Leica, and other rangefinder brands.

      Here is his Super Triplet Perar 35mm 3.5 Mark II for the M-mount that is based on the Tessar formula. I believe only 200 were made with the other lot of 200 or so lenses ruined by the earthquake.

      http://www.japanexposures.com/2011/05/25/ms-optical-super-triplet-perar-3-535-mark-ii/

      Here is another triplet lens design, the MS-Optical Perar Super Triplet 28mm F/4, with 10 aperture blades and the front element exposed. Each lot consists of 180 lenses or so, and I’m not sure how many lots were manufactured.

      http://www.japanexposures.com/2011/05/25/ms-optical-super-triplet-perar-3-535-mark-ii/

      Here is MS-Mode-S 50/1.3 lens that is based on the Sonnar type with 12 aperture blades and compatible with both the Nikon S mount and the Leica M mount (with included adapter).

      http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/MS_Optical_R%26D

      Judging by the consistent praise and quality of his limited lenses, the new Pentax Q MS Optical Sonnetar 25mm f/1.1 could be quite interesting.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      One has to be completely ignorant to expect a camera system that’s made to be pocketable to produce images that are comparable to advanced systems.

      It’s like whining about a Corolla/Civic/Lancer for not being a classy ride.

      • RobA

        I believe users want to make pictures, not just images.

        Car metaphors are fraught with danger. A Lancia Delta Integrale is the size of a Corolla. Are you saying it’s not a “classy” ride?

  • jarda

    I believe you are wrong. Check something about the manufacturer…
    http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/02/ms-optical-japan/

  • http://snailartphotography.daportfolio.com/ benjamin

    140mm eqv at f/1.1? cool…

    • Harold Ellis

      what is cool about it when it have DOF like f5.6?

      • http://snailartphotography.daportfolio.com/ benjamin

        well.. considering my 135 f/2.0 and d700 (or 85 f2 and d7000 for a slightly more accurate comparison ) dont sit nicely in the palm of my hand..

        on a separate note, he should come up with a fast 50 eqv for the nikon 1 system

      • http://twitter.com/#!/ZDP189 ZDP-189

        You still think photography is all about shallow DoF?

        • BP2012

          No it’s not but it’s usually very important when you want to hide unnecessary details.
          BTW it’s possible with 140mm f/5.6 to get shallow depth of field if your subject is not more than 3m away. Limiting, but possible.

        • Harold Ellis

          of course it is not. But i want to have option when i need to.
          but i will let people buy overpriced compromised junk, it supports economy

          • http://snailartphotography.daportfolio.com/ benjamin

            the option is called the DSLR. this system exists as a totally different concept. no point putting other things down you know..

  • BP2012

    Is this 25mm (140mm equivalent) or 25mm equivalent lens?
    Anyway sounds like a great lens, but it’s overpriced a lot.
    Cmon, Q is not a pro camera.

    • Mistral75

      The lens’s focal length is 25mm. Mounted on Pentax Q it gives the same angle of view as a 135/140mm on a 24×36 camera.

  • http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ktf_turbo ktf design

    I will test the M4/3 version of this lens next Sunday.
    Although sale is undecided, I am going to publish a report after a test.

    myblog:C-mount Lens Gallery

    • jarda

      Nice blog, but I very much doubt it is the same lens. Similar at best.

      • http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ktf_turbo ktf design
        • jarda

          It looks quite different. You cannot say all 25/1,1 are the same, as you cannot say that all 50/1,4 lenses are the same.

          • http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ktf_turbo ktf design

            This lens is using the same optical system as Sonnetar.

    • http://photorumors.com PR admin

      let us know please

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/sooperkuh/ ausserirdischegesund

    Is this a Sonnar type lens (the name is very similar, and I suppose Sonnar is a Zeiss trademark)? Sonnars are the best lenses to me.

    • http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ktf_turbo ktf design

      This is Sonner type lens .(4 groups 5 elements)

      • ausserirdischegesund

        That’s good! Certainly intersting if it arrives in m43 mount.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ZDP189 ZDP-189

    I love it! There’s something magical about the idea of handbuilt cult lenses in small runs.

    I’d buy the Perar 28/4 MC, but I’m not ready to spend big bucks on a Q mount lens until the format has proven itself.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      Do you ever expect something on the Q mount to be “worthy”? Of course they will infinitely improve it but why do you think larger sensor cameras technology will be frozen in this moment in time? They will improve too.

      At the end of the day relative differences (due to sensor size, etc.) will remain at any given point in time.

  • Chris K.

    So sorely tempted! Actually the smaller sensor makes it more tempting, the very shallow DoF of my m43 sensor shooting at < f/1 makes for challenging focusing in low light.

    But I can't quite justify to myself the cost of a Pentax Q.

    There's one more listed right now on eBay for $680. Gah, so tempting!

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      A f/1 lens on a mFT (not m43) camera will give the DOF of a f/2 lens on full frame. And the FF+f/2 lens will give better image quality than the mFT+f/1 too, unless it’s very poorly made.

      And there are even f/0.95 lenses on FF. To match one you’ll need a f/0.48 lens on mFT.

      If you want shallow DOF (along side good image quality), go larger.

      • http://twitter.com/#!/ZDP189 ZDP-189

        We have some philosophical differences, but they are mostly differences of preference.

        With a manual focus lens on a digital camera, I look for a greater depth of field, not lesser. I would rather focus imprecisely but quickly and have a greater chance of my subject being in focus than spend six or seven seconds setting up a masterpiece and have my subject shift imperceptibly leaving just his ears in focus.

        Like you, I was initially dismissive of the Q mount. Part of my bias was due to the ugly styling and partly due to the compact camera sized sensor. Then I came to realise that it would make a versatile pocket camera and would also make a good platform for inexpensive C-mount lenses.

        The deeper depth of field, crop factor and sensor shift stabilisation makes it potentially good at long lensing in a compact body. These attributes also allow it to be shot in low light and rely more on the wide aperture than on sensor signal-to-noise ratio and in camera post processing noise suppression.

        My final remaining misgivings are the high pixel density and the price of the body. I hope that as sensor technology improves, the Q mount will come into its own, for now it remains usable, but not as good as its price point demands.

        And it still looks butt ugly.

      • Chris K.

        geno, I would actually find a DEEPER DoF valuable for low-light shooting.

  • Chris K.

    Also wondering, it sounds like Japancamerahunter is implying that these lenses will be mass-produced (truely a prototype rather than a limited-run handmade lens.) Any idea whether these lenses will make it into regular production?

    Would love to see pictures taken with this lens wide open.

  • RobA

    I believe those who are disparaging of this lens and the format are stuck in a mindset that rejects anything not made by the big two manufacturers and less than the size and weight of a housebrick as something that can’t possibly be useful for making pictures. If it’s not for you, why do you take so much time and trouble to repeat selective and simplistic arguments against it? We see this in other photo or even computer forums: it is not genuine enquiry or advice, it’s just trolling to put down anyone not like them.

  • http://Adventuresinq.com WanderingMonki

    I think I’m the first person to purchase this lens as a customer. Quite a bit of images @adventuresinq.com

  • Back to top