Canon LTM 85/1.5 under-rated?

[uhoh7]

A few guys here have and really like the lens, I know.

"huge and not very sharp untill stopped down"

a buzz killing comment, hehe, for the first Japanese High Speed Portrait lens.

I managed to find a version 2 and it just arrived.

I'm starting to think this lens does not get the love it deserves.

I at 1.5 it is not technically sharp---but this is a portrait lens, and at that speed I'm looking for great atmospsherics. Here some of my first shots:

as you stop down it gets sharper:

around f/4:

F8 infinity:

F5.6: medium distance

100

Perhaps part of the issue is there are not many using the lens on a regular basis, but a better description might be:

creamy wide open, very sharp at f/8, 700+ grams.

Anyway I like it so far TY Mr Itoh!

 

[raid]

 

[raid]

On the EP-2 wide open

On the EP-2 wide open

 

[raid]

On the EP-2 wide open

On the EP-2 wide open

 

[raid]

This lens is sharp, but focusing is not easy. The EP-2 with its 10x magnification made it easy.

 

[uhoh7]

It's a handful, no doubt

it's effectively a 120mm for me, so I can't go too slow on the shutter. It exhibts a vareity of behavior wide open, sometimes showing the "glow" like the 50/1.2, other times bitingly sharp.

If there is any strong light source the contrast is strong even wide open, but flattens in softer light.

Likewise there is quite a bit of variation in bokeh, depending on light, the nature of the background and the stop.

the nose

dusk, over my jeep hood

100

all these at 1.5

 

[raid]

There is a 3D effect in the above images.

 

[ampguy]

looks like a good lens, and these are great portraits, but I don't see any magic or excellence here, over say a J3 @ 1.5, 105/2.5, or even Konica 57/1.4. Perhaps I am missing something?

 

[raid]

looks like a good lens, and these are great portraits, but I don't see any magic or excellence here, over say a J3 @ 1.5, 105/2.5, or even Konica 57/1.4. Perhaps I am missing something?

The lenses you have mentioned have a great reputation; the Canon 85/1.5 does not. Here, people are trying to show that the Canon 85/1.5 is "not so bad" after all. No mentioning of "magic" or "excellence above ..." was claimed by anyone. The question is ... "is this lens a dog or not".

 

[Mackinaw]

......The question is ... "is this lens a dog or not".

I don't know if I'd call it a dog but I don't think it's Canons best 85mm. While I never owned a 85/1.5, I did have access to one in the mid-80s and took several rolls of pics with it on an M3. Pictures, wide-open, were decidedly soft, too much so for my liking (though it did sharpen up nicely by F2.8 or so). Of course this was on film. Perhaps the image would look different with a digital camera with a smaller sensor.

Jim B.

 

[uhoh7]

I don't know if I'd call it a dog but I don't think it's Canons best 85mm. While I never owned a 85/1.5, I did have access to one in the mid-80s and took several rolls of pics with it on an M3. Pictures, wide-open, were decidedly soft, too much so for my liking (though it did sharpen up nicely by F2.8 or so). Of course this was on film. Perhaps the image would look different with a digital camera with a smaller sensor.

Jim B.

In terms of pure sharpness, obviously the 85/1.8 is the masterpiece--I also have this lens, and it's great.

I also have a very clean copy of the 1.9, which is really good too, but almost as heavy as this one.

The 1.5 seems to get very sharp at f4, and frankly from that point on it seems just as sharp as any of the 85s--note mountain shot.

But 1.5 is quite a bit more light than 1.8 and the dof gets, well VERY tight when you are close in. So this lens is unique compared to the others.

The "soft wide open" charge is just way too simplistic. "Hard to shoot wide open" might be more accurate--and expected

In fact it CAN deliver very impressive performance wide open, but factors of light, focus, and distance to subject play into it- not to mention a very steady hand, esp with 1.5x crop.

N48--I may have to try the clearviewer--which one do I get?

 

[Mackinaw]

........The "soft wide open" charge is just way too simplistic. "Hard to shoot wide open" might be more accurate--and expected........

I don't agree with you on this one. The 85/1.5 I had access to was just plain soft wide-open.

I also currently own a 75/1.4 Summilux so know how difficult it is to get proper focus wide-open when using a short telephoto lens. No contest here, my Summilux is light years better than the 85/1.5 I used so many years back.

I also had a chrome 85/1.9 that I sold to Raid a few years ago. I liked this lens a lot but it was just too heavy. I would love to own a black-bodied 85/1.9, which is much lighter, but, unfortunately, also very scarce and expensive.

Jim B.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Raid

Thanks Raid

I didn't realize the lens had a bad reputation. Seems like an A-OK lens to me, and I agree with others, that what was once "softness" is all too often inability to focus, or rangefinders being off a bit, while magnified live view focusing can help overcome that.

The lenses you have mentioned have a great reputation; the Canon 85/1.5 does not. Here, people are trying to show that the Canon 85/1.5 is "not so bad" after all. No mentioning of "magic" or "excellence above ..." was claimed by anyone. The question is ... "is this lens a dog or not".

 

[uhoh7]

I don't agree with you on this one. The 85/1.5 I had access to was just plain soft wide-open.

I also currently own a 75/1.4 Summilux so know how difficult it is to get proper focus wide-open when using a short telephoto lens. No contest here, my Summilux is light years better than the 85/1.5 I used so many years back.

I also had a chrome 85/1.9 that I sold to Raid a few years ago. I liked this lens a lot but it was just too heavy. I would love to own a black-bodied 85/1.9, which is much lighter, but, unfortunately, also very scarce and expensive.

Jim B.

Let's see some wdie open shots with the summilux for comparison

everything wide open:

100

do we consider this soft at f/1.5 85mm?

bokeh:

also: I have not touched the contrast in these. Would we consider these low contrast?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Big, soft lenses are great for the right subject: early 90 Summicrons and 85/2 Jupiters, for example. But it's a joke to pretend that they're as sharp as (for example) the later Summicrons, even before aspherics. Personally I prefer Thambars because they're supposed to be soft.

Cheers,

R.

 

[uhoh7]

Big, soft lenses are great for the right subject: early 90 Summicrons and 85/2 Jupiters, for example. But it's a joke to pretend that they're as sharp as (for example) the later Summicrons, even before aspherics. Personally I prefer Thambars because they're supposed to be soft.

Cheers,

R.

Oh, this Canon 85 is sharper than ANY summicron at f/1.5, my friend That I can say for sure. At F2, hehe, not so much. At F8--I doubt you could spot any difference in sharpness without intense peeping. I might be wrong--but this thing has some SERIOUS resoultion at F8. At infinity.

Another interesting fact:

How many of these were made?

2433

That makes this a considerably rarer lens than the 85/1.8, which surprised me.

It's just too bad there isn't a late all black version that weighs 300 grams

PS Now, N48 has the primo hood, but I have too many girlfriends What I found is the T-60 2 and the S-60 and the Nokton 50/1.1 hood all work fine with the 85/1.5
RE Clearviewer----TY so much for links.

So how easy is it to alternate shooting with and without the CLVR? Double sided tape has me imagining......

here pretty dim 1/80 1.5 handheld

100

 

[Nokton48]

85mm F1.5 Canon Nex3 ISO 3200 1/200 Manual.

85mm F1.5 Canon Nex3 ISO 3200 1/200 Manual.

F1.5 opens up a world of opportunity that isn't available at F2.

I will never part with mine, it constantly surprises and delights me. When you get to know it, it can be very sharp. It's not a dog, it's misunderstood.

When I want to use something that is supposed to be soft, I put Rodenstock Imagons on my cameras, from my Nex, to my 8x10 Sinar Normas. But Imagons are not light suckers, so not sure if that's in any way relevant to this discussion?


UhOh,
The tape is the stuff you use to hang pictures on your walls. Double sided adhesive foam 3M tape. East to peel off if you don't like it. If you don't want to use the clearviewer, you just flip it and store it out of the way. Or remove the popup hood entirely, it simply "clips on" (although I taped mine to the LCD panel with Lowell gaffer tape, so it won't "pop" off).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oh, this Canon 85 is sharper than ANY summicron at f/1.5, my friend That I can say for sure. At F2, hehe, not so much. At F8--I doubt you could spot any difference in sharpness without intense peeping. I might be wrong--but this thing has some SERIOUS resoultion at F8. At infinity.

Sure, no argument about any of it. It's just that 'underrated' and 'overrated' are two sides of the same coin. Like any lens, it's great for some things, not so great for others.

From many of the pictures posted here, it's a great lens, with the sort of 'glow' that is, in fact, a variety of softness. A point is rendered as a point, with a halo -- the classic description of a soft-focus lens, usuallly achieved by undercorrected spherical aberation. That's what I'm seeing in the sharper pictures here.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ampguy]

Here is what I think might be a better lens than the 85/1.5 - it is a shorter focal length, but dof is still very thin, due to very close focusing (mine focuses to about 10", don't know if it was modified or not - Hexanon AR 57/1.4 (no hood needed).

 

[ampguy]

Ok

Ok

I'm not sure what is meant to be in focus in those flower pics, but a lot of the flowers are not in focus.

The 105/2.5 Nikkor "Vaporizes" backgrounds in a similar way, fwiw.

Nex3 EI 800 85mm F1.5 wideopen@1.5 minimum focus distance.

Raid made this comment earlier in another thread - It "Vaporizes" the Background.

Quite cool and unique.