akk2
Established
85/4 is good but there is better choice.
Last edited by a moderator:
keepright
matthew
I'm finally mostly happy with my report on this lens.
http://www.thewsreviews.com/2011/01/zeiss-485-tele-tessar.html
An excerpt for people who don't like strange links:
"I rarely write disclaimers for my reviews, but I have to say upfront that this isn't an overly glowing report despite the unquestionable technical excellence of its subject. I do really like using the lens and seeing its results, but the 4/85 just isn't a landmark lens. It doesn't make or break the system; I doubt that anyone has ever bought a rangefinder just so that they can use it. … I'd miss the tele-tessar quite badly if it was gone, as it's an excellent Carl Zeiss lens, but it's not one that I can be passionate about."
Sounds exciting, doesn't it?
(But for the sake of suspense, I'll add that the excerpt isn't from the conclusion.)
http://www.thewsreviews.com/2011/01/zeiss-485-tele-tessar.html
An excerpt for people who don't like strange links:
"I rarely write disclaimers for my reviews, but I have to say upfront that this isn't an overly glowing report despite the unquestionable technical excellence of its subject. I do really like using the lens and seeing its results, but the 4/85 just isn't a landmark lens. It doesn't make or break the system; I doubt that anyone has ever bought a rangefinder just so that they can use it. … I'd miss the tele-tessar quite badly if it was gone, as it's an excellent Carl Zeiss lens, but it's not one that I can be passionate about."
Sounds exciting, doesn't it?
(But for the sake of suspense, I'll add that the excerpt isn't from the conclusion.)
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Excellent review Matthew.
As a fellow owner of the least exciting lens in history, I fully agree with your conclusions.
The 85's hood is a bit annoying;
I normally just use a 35/50 hood and shove it, like other lenses, into pouches without caps - a singular advantage of rigid hoods.
I got mine as a travel lens - the 90mm Summicon being a bulky heavy thing was normally the first item to be left out.
The 85 f/4 has seen more use and makes a good lightweight pairing with the 21 and 35 C Biogons.
It and the 35mm work well with a polariser (E67 + 43/49 ring and peep through MATE ring #14286)
As a fellow owner of the least exciting lens in history, I fully agree with your conclusions.
The 85's hood is a bit annoying;
I normally just use a 35/50 hood and shove it, like other lenses, into pouches without caps - a singular advantage of rigid hoods.
I got mine as a travel lens - the 90mm Summicon being a bulky heavy thing was normally the first item to be left out.
The 85 f/4 has seen more use and makes a good lightweight pairing with the 21 and 35 C Biogons.
It and the 35mm work well with a polariser (E67 + 43/49 ring and peep through MATE ring #14286)
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
Nice review. Makes me happy I bought the Leica 90 Macro. Too bad the good deals on them have dried up.
keepright
matthew
Thank you both for your kind words. I appreciate the feedback.
Frozen, your 'least exciting lens' comment made me laugh. That's not easy to do first thing in the morning.
Tim, that look like an amazing lens. I try not to read other reviews when I'm formulating my own, but I had to laugh when I looked at another lens in about the same focal length that said essentially the same thing: "optically perfect, not that exciting". I won't mention its brand, but it rhymed with 'bike-a'. Neat stuff.
Frozen, your 'least exciting lens' comment made me laugh. That's not easy to do first thing in the morning.
Tim, that look like an amazing lens. I try not to read other reviews when I'm formulating my own, but I had to laugh when I looked at another lens in about the same focal length that said essentially the same thing: "optically perfect, not that exciting". I won't mention its brand, but it rhymed with 'bike-a'. Neat stuff.
italy74
Well-known
To be honest, and generally agreeing on the fact F/4 may be a slow aperture, I think that both the Tessar 85 / 4 AND the 90 F/2.5 (which Kanzlr seemed not to like) are two nice alternatives with a very good imagery. Especially against the Summarit I had the impression that, despite 1 1/3 stop faster than the 85, it's still snobbed by people but I didn't get why. "Only" because a used Apo 90 costs a few hundreds dollars / euros more ? What else am I missing here ?
nex100
Established
If Zeiss color and look is what you are looking for, you can try the converted m mount 90mm F2.8 Sonnar from Japan Exposures. Smallest and lightest and is relatively faster than the Tessar. This lens will compliment the 50mm F1.5 C Sonnar to complete the 'Sonnar' line.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Any new opinions on this lens?
back alley
IMAGES
thinkin' about buying one?
kshapero
South Florida Man
yes, thinking. hearing mixed reports
bennyng
Benny Ng
The only gripe I have about this lens is that Zeiss could have done a double bayonet mount to make the hood reverse mountable. It's actually quite a tidy little package.
Cheers,
Cheers,
keepright
matthew
Mixed in what way? I'd love to know what you're hearing.
My impression of the lens is that it's technically excellent, but like all telephotos on rangefinders, it's something of a fish out of water.
My 85/4 is a utility lens that expands what I can do with my Ikon, and that gives me more opportunities to use the entire system.
This past weekend I was at a large street festival, among other things, and having the 85 that isn't ideally suited to a rangefinder let me use my rangefinder for the whole day. I ran through 12 rolls of film, and the three that I needed my 85 for made it possible for me to use my Ikon for the rest. If I didn't have the Zeiss 85/4, I would have had to switch to a Nikon for the entire event.
shambla
Member
I picked up a mint condition used Tele-Tessar 85mm a month or so ago. Not used it more than 25-30 times during the 6 or 7 films I shot since then (all Ilford HP5+), but when I have used it the results have been excellent - very sharp even wide open and lovely contrast and tonality with HP5+.
Like others have said, it's a lovely lens optically (and standard zeiss build quality) provided you don't mind the f4 max aperture - I only use it for landscapes, so for me it isn't an issue at all. The only issue really for me is simply that it isn't a focal length I use that often, so I can't get that excited about it.
Like others have said, it's a lovely lens optically (and standard zeiss build quality) provided you don't mind the f4 max aperture - I only use it for landscapes, so for me it isn't an issue at all. The only issue really for me is simply that it isn't a focal length I use that often, so I can't get that excited about it.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Just picked up a mint chrome one for cheap. Can't wait.
Pioneer
Veteran
"I can't get no respect"
"I can't get no respect"
The lens is a bit of a Rodney Dangerfield in my view, it does not get any respect for what it really is. At f4 it is not a fast lens, but you can easily shoot it and get great photos from f4 onwards. It is a Tessar lens so it will have some light fall off in the corners when wide open, but I really don't see that as a fault, it makes for great portraits. It is small and light, but with the hood on it becomes longer. It came out around the same time as the Zeiss Ikon 85/2, and though the faster lens did not last very long on the market people wondered why have both. The photos are so good they are accused of being "boring", though I do have a hard time figuring out why great is boring.
The great majority of my use for it is with kids sports. It is almost the perfect lens to get close without losing the environment. I also use it to take photos of the hummingbirds who visit my back deck, though I more frequently use my Tele Rollei for that since I got it (when my head is down I guess they think I'm not looking).
I am never disappointed with the results. I like it on my ZI and on my M9.
EDIT - I forgot, I also use it quite a bit for street shooting. I know that most people don't think of it that way but I am not an "in the face" photographer so being 9 feet away versus 3 feet away makes me feel more comfortable. Plus I like the look of mild compression I get. I am probably the only one who does this, the way I read things, everyone goes out with a 35 and likes to get really close.
"I can't get no respect"
The lens is a bit of a Rodney Dangerfield in my view, it does not get any respect for what it really is. At f4 it is not a fast lens, but you can easily shoot it and get great photos from f4 onwards. It is a Tessar lens so it will have some light fall off in the corners when wide open, but I really don't see that as a fault, it makes for great portraits. It is small and light, but with the hood on it becomes longer. It came out around the same time as the Zeiss Ikon 85/2, and though the faster lens did not last very long on the market people wondered why have both. The photos are so good they are accused of being "boring", though I do have a hard time figuring out why great is boring.
The great majority of my use for it is with kids sports. It is almost the perfect lens to get close without losing the environment. I also use it to take photos of the hummingbirds who visit my back deck, though I more frequently use my Tele Rollei for that since I got it (when my head is down I guess they think I'm not looking
).I am never disappointed with the results. I like it on my ZI and on my M9.
EDIT - I forgot, I also use it quite a bit for street shooting. I know that most people don't think of it that way but I am not an "in the face" photographer so being 9 feet away versus 3 feet away makes me feel more comfortable. Plus I like the look of mild compression I get. I am probably the only one who does this, the way I read things, everyone goes out with a 35 and likes to get really close.
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
i did a brief trial with it when it came out, several years ago. It is a good performer, like most of the Zeiss ZM lenses, BUT, and that is a big but, it is a f4 lens. I did talk to Zeiss before it was announced and I did warn them about the f4.0 - suggesting that they make it a f2.8, even with the penalty of larger size and weight, but to no avail. The non-revesible hood is also a problem - it adds substantially to the size. It would not have been a huge deal to do a reverse bayonet so that it could be attached this way - or even doing a screw mount instead with a interior thread.
I did shoot it against the VC Apo lanthar 90mm f3.5 and there was no real difference between them as far as I could see - and considering that you can get a AL 90f3.5 for less than 1/2 the cost of the 85f4, the choice was simple.
I did shoot it against the VC Apo lanthar 90mm f3.5 and there was no real difference between them as far as I could see - and considering that you can get a AL 90f3.5 for less than 1/2 the cost of the 85f4, the choice was simple.