drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
When I sold bicycles, we used to say to customers that bikes could be strong, lightweight, and cheap; pick any two (of these descriptors).
Looking for a short tele that is fast, compact, and affordable reminds me of this mantra. Sure, you might be able to find something that fits the bill for you, but it strikes me that you are going to have to make a compromise somehow.
Looking for a short tele that is fast, compact, and affordable reminds me of this mantra. Sure, you might be able to find something that fits the bill for you, but it strikes me that you are going to have to make a compromise somehow.
jslash6
jeffrey lash
wondering if anyone has any impressions on the Komura 80/1.8. i'm too looking for fast tele and am torn between the Nikkor or Komura. the Canon would be nice but might break the bank.
I found the build quality on the Komura 135/3.5 was not as good as the Nikkor or Canon. The aperture blades on mine came apart, and they bent beyond repair. The "rivets" popped that held them in place. I know this happens on lenses, but it's the only one that ever did that to me. The Komura 200/4.5 is "decent" but not a great performer. Bought as a curiousity.
Of course, the 85/1.8 could be a different. I would not pay the outrageous prices often seen on Ebay for it.
Of course, the 85/1.8 could be a different. I would not pay the outrageous prices often seen on Ebay for it.
ferider
Veteran
I got it at a decent price, Brian, not from Kevin.
Should be a clean Ernostar, maybe even a copy of the original. I know the 100/2 is. I'll see and report.
BTW, I have diagrams for most of the Komura lenses now, if anybody is interested.
Cheers,
Roland.
Should be a clean Ernostar, maybe even a copy of the original. I know the 100/2 is. I'll see and report.
BTW, I have diagrams for most of the Komura lenses now, if anybody is interested.
Cheers,
Roland.
Krosya
Konicaze
So, by the same logic,- Zeiss ZM, Hexanon, Nikkor etc lenses are not as sharp? Simply because people are willing to pay more for Leica?
Did you and your friends have bad samples? Maybe. Or maybe they were not able to focus accurately. I dont know. Plus you cant compare old lens to late Summicron - how about compare it to Summicron from the same era.
But I remember we had same argument about Canon 50/1.2 LTM lens. Me and many others posted many photos from that lens that show how good it is. I may not have your experience, but I can show actual photos that speak for themselves. Web images or not. I'd really like if you posted a photo from a fast lens, like Noctilux or Summicron 90/2 wide open that YOU took and YOU think is sharp. Yes it would be a web image, but better than nothing. I'd like to see what you consider sharp, as it seems that what I find sharp, isnt sharp to you. How about it?
ferider
Veteran
Hmm. Sharpness is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Here is a 90/2 v3 picture wide open (shown before):
BTW, that lens is almost in the OP's budget, around US 600 for a good copy.
Same lens at infinity:
I wouldn't say it's sharper, probably more contrasty (micro and macro), but that's very film dependent, too. So from a web post, other than a feeling of OOF performance, it's hard to judge if it's "sharper" than a good WWII Sonnar or J9. We would argue around 30-40 lp/mm vs > 70 lp/mm; impossible to see even in a 800x600.
The following PS job makes it a bit easier, 75/1.4 @ f4 or so (my daughter shooting at Pt. Reyes lighthouse):
For most well calibrated 85/90 f2 lenses you can really only tell "sharpness" from a 300dpi print 5x7 or more.
Cheers,
Roland.
Here is a 90/2 v3 picture wide open (shown before):
BTW, that lens is almost in the OP's budget, around US 600 for a good copy.
Same lens at infinity:
I wouldn't say it's sharper, probably more contrasty (micro and macro), but that's very film dependent, too. So from a web post, other than a feeling of OOF performance, it's hard to judge if it's "sharper" than a good WWII Sonnar or J9. We would argue around 30-40 lp/mm vs > 70 lp/mm; impossible to see even in a 800x600.
The following PS job makes it a bit easier, 75/1.4 @ f4 or so (my daughter shooting at Pt. Reyes lighthouse):
For most well calibrated 85/90 f2 lenses you can really only tell "sharpness" from a 300dpi print 5x7 or more.
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
dberger
Established
The Komura 80/1.8 is a very good lens, right up there with any medium-long, f1.8-f2 lens of its time. I have never had any mechanical problems with Komura lenses -- I have quite a few -- and the 80/1.8 is built as well as, or better than, any of them. BTW, I have 2 versions, 1 Komura and 1 labeled tele-kinegon, with different barrel cosmetics but otherwise the same.
As I prefer the looks of the Nikkor 85/2 and slower 90mm Elmarit, I use the Komura 80/1.8 less often. The Canon 85/1.8 is also a better lens overall, and the Canon 85/1.9 is just as good (and the late black version is just as light-weight).
The main drawback to the Komura 80/1.8 is that it is very difficult to find, and when found, it is very expensive (I got lucky, and was in the right places at the right times for the ones I have). For the price, I don't think anything beats the Nikkor 85 in the fast 85mm department, and they show up often enough on ebay that one could be had for a good price. For the usual price of a Komura 80/1.8, you can get the Canon 85/1.8, if you can find it.
cheers,
David
BillBingham2
Registered User
Gautham,
Price out the J-9 and just send me twice the cost. I will not send you anything other than a thank you. Then take the rest of your funds and get a black Nikkor 85/2. You will be much happier and so will I. It, like all other Nikkors are so worth the price.
Komura made a lot of fine glass, but hard to find, but you can if you stay with it.
B2 (;->
Price out the J-9 and just send me twice the cost. I will not send you anything other than a thank you. Then take the rest of your funds and get a black Nikkor 85/2. You will be much happier and so will I. It, like all other Nikkors are so worth the price.
Komura made a lot of fine glass, but hard to find, but you can if you stay with it.
B2 (;->
jslash6
jeffrey lash
David,
Thanks for the info, I'll keep all that in mind. The only resource I've found selling all these particular lenses is Kevin's Cameras and a good looking Komura is going for about as much as a gnarled looking Canon. I'm sure the Nikkor is a better value so I might just pull the trigger on one of those as soon as I save up some extra duckets. Thanks again.
Jeffrey
roundg
Well-known
Steinheil 85mm 2.8 they are well built. light weighted and not expensive on ebay. U should be able to find an excellent one around 100-150USD.
Gaspar
Established
I just got the steinheil 85 f.2.8 from a fellow rff and the results are very nice. It is light and cost me a very reasonable $85. I am sure it is not as sharp as more modern lenses but for a portrait lens, does sharpness really matter that much???
Merkin
For the Weekend
I completely misread Ernostar as Emostar. My first thought was 'why would anyone want a lens that comes from the factory with broken glass you can cut yourself with?'
lawrence
Veteran
I agree -- 90mm tele-elmarit is cheap and very good. The only RF tele I own or need.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Same thing I found yesterday looking for the Nikkor - few others on camera west, and ebay - all chrome. Unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to specify what mount it is and without a picture of the rear or the "C" on the barrel, I'm having a fun time trying to figure it out.
How much heavier is the chrome than the black Nikkor out of curiosity? The prices for the black Nikkors seem firmly in 90 Summicron territory.
Cheers,
-Gautham
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Part 1: No, but they're sharper than Jupiters. That is one of the reasons they cost more. Another is that they're consistently sharper.
Part 2: Again, no. First of all, a web image isn't 'better than nothing'. It's worse, as it can actually be misleading: see Roland's post. The real test of sharpness is shooting test targets, which I used to do because I was paid to do it. Shoot any test target wide open with a Jupiter and just about any other lens; look at the target under a microscope; and then come back and try to continue the argument.
While you're at it, do the same with your Canon 50/1.2.
What limits sharpness in most of my shots is the fact that I'm hand-holding. I don't shoot pics to show off sharpess.
Finally, sharpness simply doesn't matter in many shots.
Tashi delek,
Roger
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
You might be able to find a used Leica 90/2.5 Summarit for around $700. A bit more than you want to spend, but new, pretty compact and light, and reasonably fast.
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
Two months ago I picked up a chrome nikkor with caps, case, hood, and finder for $250. You may be able to save some $$$ by going with a chrome lens. I can't compare it to the black version, but compared to my earlier 90 summicron it is much lighter. It is shorter too, even shorter than the 85/2 canon I have.
Sonnar2
Well-known
A black Canon 85/1.9 is hard to beat in size and weight, even it's a bit longer than the 85/1.8 (but more sleek and even more lightweight)
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Many thanks to all of you for your help. I managed to find a 90 Tele-Elmarit for a really, really good price at PHSNE and sold the Canon 85 and a lot of other gear so I even managed to get some spending money for other lenses. I appreciate all of your lens recommendations and enjoyed hunting through flickr streams (for those of you with them) for samples.
Cheers,
-Gautham
Cheers,
-Gautham
ZeissFan
Veteran
Roger is correct. You can have small and light but not fast.
And the 85/2 Nikkor is a very heavy lens -- large too. Same goes for the Carl Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar (on which the Nikkor was based).
The Soviet lens isn't small, but it's fast and light in weight.
Faster speed almost always means a larger front element, larger size and more weight. That's just the reality of optics.
And the 85/2 Nikkor is a very heavy lens -- large too. Same goes for the Carl Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar (on which the Nikkor was based).
The Soviet lens isn't small, but it's fast and light in weight.
Faster speed almost always means a larger front element, larger size and more weight. That's just the reality of optics.