A small, light and fast 85mm

Yes- it's "Conservation of Inconveniece" at work. The J-9 can be fast, small (compared with a Canon 85/2, 85/1.8, or 90 Summicron), and light but finding a good one is hard- or be good at shimming lenses. Late model Black Nikkor 8.5cm f2 are lighter than the chrome versions, but expensive and rare.

The 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit is not much bigger than the 90/4 Elmar and is very sharp. It would be the one I grab in this situation.

My 1975 J-9 after Shimming,
Wide-Open
picture.php


Stopped down a little,
picture.php

Not bad for a $35 lens, "new old stock". Except the part of making the shim and getting it right.

Conservation of Inconvenience
 
Last edited:
The tiny Canon 100mm/3.5 beats them all.
1. It is super sharp

2. It is cheap.

3. It is very well built.

4. It is tiny sized.
 
Did you buy a lens?

Did you buy a lens?

gnarayan said:
I'm particularly fond of 85/90s and use an 85/f2 on my OM bodies most of the time. I'd like something around that length in LTM or M mount. So far my solution has been the Canon Serenar 85/1.9 but it gets very little use because its big and does not balance well on my M6TTL. Not a fan of its long focus throw either. So what <$500 alternatives exist with around the same aperture and focal length that are smaller, lighter and have a shorter focus throw than the Canon?

Cheers,
-Gautham
Click to expand...

I own the C/V 75 2.5, Nikkor 85 2.0 (chrome) and the Leitz 90/2.8 Elmarit first version. All 3 are very good, just different. The C/V is tiny and light. The Elmarit long and light. The Nikkor is chunky.

Why I have all 3 lenses is a mystery to me. At least 1 & probably 2 need to go. Send me a PM. All of these lenses will be well within your budget.

Cheers!

Wayne
 
ZeissFan said:
Roger is correct. You can have small and light but not fast.
Click to expand...

Says a man who has never shot with the OM 85/2...

Small and light and fast are of course relative, but it really isn't hard to get smaller and lighter than the Canon 85/1.9 Serenar I had because that thing was designed as a big heavy object to club people over the head and incidentally could be used on a camera.

I did come to the conclusion that there just was not anything quite like the OM 85 in LTM or M, but the 90 TE isn't much slower and I liked the look of the samples I saw with it. I'd thought I'd not be able to find it in my budget but got a good deal at the PHSNE show. Otherwise I figured I'd look for the 75/2.5 since the Nikon 85/2 seemed like a heavy lens as well. So far my shoulder things I made the right choice.

Cheers,
-Gautham
 
I second the recommendation for the Voigtlander 75mm 2.5 Color Heliar. Sharp, tiny, light, and inexpensive. My favorite CV lens.

Joe
 
An 85mm lens for an SLR will be lighter than the same for most RF's. The barrel of the RF lens has to be longer as the distance between the camara's mount and the film plane is shorter than that of the SLR. You need about an about extra 20mm of metal in an RF lens to make it up. So an Nikkor 85/2 F-Mount lens is smaller and lighter when compared to the RF mount lens.
 
In terms of size where speed isn't an issure my vote is for the Canon 100/3.5. I kept telling this for years.

But very often 85mm is better than 100, and, in principle, it makes lenses shorter and smaller. The smallest 85mm lenses all have Ernostar designs (5 or 4 elements) and therefore short lengths. Elmarits as well as Sonnars and Hexars. Some are SLR lenses some RF. The Nikkor could be lighter if the later black version were anodized alloy instead of brass. (there isn't much difference to the chrome version). But back in 1956 this wasn't much an issue.
I haven't seen a second 85mm lens which is exacly the size of a 50/1.8 as the Zeiss 85mm/2.8 Sonnar for the Rolleiflex SL35/350. This is the only one. Amazing lens, unique.
So it was Olympus who as the only manufacturer made a lightweigt 85/2 Ernostar lens. As can be expected with this design, it's a f/2.8 lens opened one step too fast. But not bad, nevertheless. You don't need to take architecture wide open, do you?
One of my favorite fast SLR telephotos is a 100/1.8 Komura (M42 preset), the king of Ernostars. Far better wide open than the Olympus, to speak the truth. It's very short for a 100mm SLR lens, and amazing lightweight for the focal length/speed ratio, but alas, it's a 100, so it can't be featherlite and shorter than it is. And, which is really sad, FOURDOTFIVE FEET close distance. Sadly they didn't made a 85/2 RF in alloy mount. Komura could have done it, but they didn't.
If weight AND speed are equally important, go for a PEN F and a 60/1.5 (equivalent for a 85/1.5 in full frame format). It's a Gaussian lens. A 60mm can be reasonably short even with this design. There is no SLR in the world so close to RF than the PEN F series, plus you come as close as 1ft with a standard lens. Come closer, better pictures, you know it. For portraiture, you have to crop 1/3 of the full frame format anyway, so you don't miss much with half frame format.
 
Last edited:
A couple of additions to Frank's post:

The "thin" Tele Elmarit is a 4 element 4 group design. More of an Elmar/tessar on steroides.

The black Nikkor 85/2 is lighter than the chrome one. Somebody measure the chrome one please, I'll put my black one on the scale tonight and will compare to the Zuiko 85/2 if desired. Note however, that Nikkor 85 lenses were changed in an evolutionary way, so some similar looking lenses might be heavier than newer ones.

Not sure about their weight (yet) but there are Komura 80/1.8 and 100/2 RF lenses. I am waiting for my 80 at the moment .... I also have a Komura 135/2.8 Ernostar in the mail.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Ferider, my concern were design names not marketing names, like the one Leica uses. It's just a pure fact that Ernostars can be build very short, and therefore lightweight. Just like telephoto designs.

Just a few:

Canon 85/1.9 black (LTM), 409g
Canon 85/1.8 black (LTM), 437g
Canon 100/2.0 black (LTM), 487g
Canon 100/3.5 chrome (LTM), 187g (sadly this don't count for speed)
Canon 85/1.5 chrome (LTM), 758g (sadly this don't count for low weight)
Nikkor 85/2 chrome, LTM, 515g
Nikkor 85/2 black, S-mount, 337g (don't have it in LTM, because even more expensive)
Jupiter-9 85/2, black, LTM, 316g (sadly this don't count as a lens beeing properly in focus either in low distance or infinity)
Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8, Rollei QBM (SLR), 195g (this don't count for speed either)
Soligor 85/1.5, M42 preset (SLR), 644g (again this don't count much for low weight)
Takumar 83/1.9, M42 preset (SLR), 307g, close to the winner (this is an excellent lens and Sonnar design, BTW...)
Takumar 105/2.8, M42 preset (SLR), 267g (similar in outline as the above but a much simpler design)
Carl Zeiss Jena 75/1.5, alloy, Exakta mount (SLR), 421g - not bad for this old lens
Taika Harigon, 58/1.2, Exakta outer bayonet mount (SLR), 458g - sadly 58mm is a bit too short for most people to call it telephoto, but in fact it is
Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon F (non-AI) SLR mount, 435g - heavy, expecially when compared to the Biotar, but equally good
Pentax Soft Focus, 85/2.2, K-mount (SLR), 233g - sadly this don't count for a general usage lens
Komura 100/1.8, preset, M42 fix adapter (SLR), 416g - the winner in the superspeed class
Olympus 85/2, OM-mount (SLR), 263g - the winner in the f/2 class
Olympus 60/1.5. Pen F mount (SLR), 283g - the winner in the halfframe class
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Frank ! And also for the weight of the Nikkors.

I understand your point about designs. Don't mean to be a pain, but the thin Tele Elmarit has no cemented doublet or triplet.

Cheers,

Roland.

Sonnar2 said:
Ferider, my concern were design names not marketing names, like the one Leica uses. It's just a pure fact that Ernostars can be build very short, and therefore lightweight. Just like telephoto designs.

Just a few:

Canon 85/1.9 black (LTM), 409g
Canon 85/1.8 black (LTM), 437g
Canon 100/2.0 black (LTM), 487g
Canon 100/3.5 chrome (LTM), 187g (sadly this don't count for speed)
Canon 85/1.5 chrome (LTM), 758g (sadly this don't count for low weight)
Nikkor 85/2 chrome, LTM, 515g
Nikkor 85/2 black, S-mount, 337g (don't have it in LTM, because even more expensive)
Jupiter-9 85/2, black, LTM, 316g (sadly this don't count as a lens beeing properly in focus either in low distance or infinity)
Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8, Rollei QBM (SLR), 195g (this don't count for speed either)
Soligor 85/1.5, M42 preset (SLR), 644g (again this don't count much for low weight)
Takumar 83/1.9, M42 preset (SLR), 307g, close to the winner (this is an excellent lens and Sonnar design, BTW...)
Takumar 105/2.8, M42 preset (SLR), 267g (similar in outline as the above but a much simpler design)
Carl Zeiss Jena 75/1.5, alloy, Exakta mount (SLR), 421g - not bad for this old lens
Taika Harigon, 58/1.4, Exakta outer bayonet mount (SLR), 458g - sadly 58mm is a bit too short for most people to call it telephoto, but in fact it is
Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon F (non-AI) SLR mount, 435g - heavy, expecially when compared to the Biotar, but equally good
Pentax Soft Focus, 85/2.2, K-mount (SLR), 233g - sadly this don't count for a general usage lens
Komura 100/1.8, preset, M42 fix adapter (SLR), 416g - the winner in the superspeed class
Olympus 85/2, OM-mount (SLR), 263g - the winner in the f/2 class
Olympus 60/1.5. Pen F mount (SLR), 283g - the winner in the halfframe class
Click to expand...
 
> Jupiter-9 85/2, black, LTM, 316g (sadly this don't count as a lens beeing properly in focus
> either in low distance or infinity)

If the J-9 is not in focus at any distance, the main shim is off. Both of mine required an adjustment to the main shim, after which they were in focus across the range.

It's more difficult when it is in focus "somewhere in the range". that means the rear module has to be moved to correct the focal length, and then you have to set the main shim.
 
ferider said:
Thanks, Frank ! And also for the weight of the Nikkors.

I understand your point about designs. Don't mean to be a pain, but the thin Tele Elmarit has no cemented doublet or triplet.

Cheers,

Roland.
Click to expand...

It's a telephoto design. Like the Canon 100/3.5 but some years later. The Canon was patented even in Germany 1951. Bad for Leica.

As for the Nikkor 85/2, one has to compare same mounts. The mounting part of the chrome LTM Nikkor has most of the weight. The black Nikkor S-mount has a hollow part there. It's reasonable short and small but still heavy for the (small) volume, typical for a mounting made of brass. For beauty, I'm the last person on earth to doubt on it. In fact, the black 85/2 Nikkor is a reason to buy a cheap S2 and to discover the world of NIKON RF -- even for a CANON and PENTAX fan (naturally "Nikon hater") like me...
 
Last edited:
I am thinking that a Black-Dial Nikon S2 would make a great rear lens-cap for the Sonnar.

I have three Nikkor 8.5cm F2's. One early on in S-Mount, that stops down to F16, no click stops. It is heavier than those that followed. I also have an LTM lens and a 'C'ontax mount lens. They are my favorite short telephoto's. The Canon 85/2 outweighs even the early one by quite a bit. The Canon was much better than expected, given it's "so-so" reputation and early replacement by the 85/1.9.
 
Be sure to post some pictures taken with the new lens.

The Smallest 85 that I own is the Tele-Arton 85/4. It is tiny. And I can use it on an RF and on an SLR.
 
On my scale, 85mm Nikkor:
Chrome Nikkor S-mount: 425g
Black Nikkor S-mount: 325g

My 1957 Nikon Manual lists the black 85/2 at 11 5/8 ounces (329g) and the same lens in LTM as 12 7/8 ounces (365g)
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The Smallest 85 that I own is the Tele-Arton 85/4. It is tiny. And I can use it on an RF and on an SLR.
Click to expand...

Whilst it's not the smallest, the Rollei Planar 80mm f/2.8 HFT is certainly very light too. It can also be used on an RF as well as on an SLR (with a optional focusing helicoid).

As for the Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 in LTM, the Chrome one is 570g; the Black one is 400g.

CHeers,
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom