Canon 85mm f/1.8 LTM lens

[bennyng]

Hi guys,

Shot a complete roll using Fujicolor superia 200 recently with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 LTM at f/1.8 on the Zeiss Ikon to see the results. Here are some of the pictures.

The rest of it can be found here..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ngminchai/sets/72157606925814769/

I'm not sure how it works, but the original size files are there too if you can access them. These 500 pixels images are too small for any comparison.

All pictures were directly scanned from negative by the lab (yeah I know it's horrible, but at least it's consistent across the frame). No crop, color adjustments or sharpening.

Cheers,

 

[bennyng]

Here's a few more in portrait format.

At infinity, the depth of field is good enough to get everything in focus. At close range, the out of focus area is nice and smooth.

Overall, this lens handles quite well on the Zeiss Ikon as it has the 85mm frameline as well.

Cheers,

 

[Spider67]

Verrry nice pics. First impression: A superb lens.
Ho is the handling? As much as I know they are heavy and a bit bulky.

 

[Krosya]

Great Results! Looks like a very nice lens.

 

[gohaj]

nice photos!

 

[Sonnar2]

Let's drive up the prices a little... 😉

my pictures with the lens are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/14734139@N00/tags/rfcanon8518/

 

[raid]

how does this lens compare side by side with the 85/1.9

I compared one 1.9 lens with one 1.8 lens and I could not see any differences. The 1.8 lens costs much more, and its online reputation is better.

 

[Erik L]

I think it looks a bit "modern". looks like the Zeiss is a great platform though.

 

[Sonnar2]

The design has an amazingly modern approach for it's time (1961): just 5 isolated elements, very similar to the ASPH-Summicron 90/2 (1990) except it has no aspherical surface. And it was patent protected by CANON.

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

If I didn't already have a 100 F:2.0 . . . I'd have to find one f these.

 

[raid]

Let's drive up the prices a little... 😉

my pictures with the lens are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/14734139@N00/tags/rfcanon8518/

Frank,

How do the 1.9 and the 1.8 differ in optical design?
While online reports favor the far more expensive 1.8 model, I cannot recall reading a side a by side report of the two lenses.

 

[sleepyhead]

I compared one 1.9 lens with one 1.8 lens and I could not see any differences. The 1.8 lens costs much more, and its online reputation is better.

I own the Canon 85mm f/1.8 as well as a late black (rare) Canon 85mm f/1.9 (I know, I'm a nut-case), and I've compared them (not scientifically, but shooting side by side on the same roll of film). Here are my observations:

Sharpness/contrast: wide open, the f/1.8 is sharper and and more contrasty than the f/1.9, but the f/1.9 is not a soft lens. By f/2.8 the difference is pretty much gone, and at f/8 I do not see any difference. (These observations are using a 10x loupe on the lightbox.). The f/1.9 is perhaps a bit less contrasty stopped down than the f/1.8, but its not something that jumps out at you. For portrature with shallow depth of field, the slightly softer f/1.9 might actually preferable to the sharper, harsher f/1.8 lens. For landscapes, where one would probably stop down quite abit, I doubt a difference in sharpness would be observed.

Bokeh: the bokeh of the f/1.8 REALLY is very smooth and pleasing (I realise this is largely subjective), but I would NOT say that the f/1.9 has "bad bokeh" - it simply isn't as smooth as the f/1.8. I've taken pictures of my kids with the f/1.9 with complicated tree branches and leaves in the background, and in NONE of the shots from the f/1.9 did I think that the shot was in any way detracted by the bokeh.

Flaring: I have the hood for the f/1.8 but not for the f/1.9, but never use either with a hood anyway. I've not intentially tried to flare either lens by including the sun in the frame, or had harsh light directed on the front element, so I can't comment on this, only that I've never had any flare with either.

Ergonomics: the f/1.9 is about a centimeter longer than the f/1.8, but thinner, and about 100 grams lighter. The former takes 48mm filters, the later 58mm. Neither has the fine ergonomics of say the current 90mm Elmarit-M, but I prefer the size of the f/1.9 because its thinness is easier for me to grip. On both Canons, the front part of the lens rotates as you focus - this makes using polarizer filter pretty much impossible, and also is abit annoying if you decide to change apertures after focusing. The long focus throw on both Canons makes them quite nice to focus wide open - I have had no trouble on 0.72 Leica Ms with either of them.

Conclusion: draw your own 😉 I've kept both lenses because I got them both quite cheaply over the years and somehow I can't let them go.

'Hope some of you find this post interesting.

 

[Sonnar2]

Frank,

How do the 1.9 and the 1.8 differ in optical design?

Hi Raid, don't you know my website? It's at one of my oldest pages-
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_2e.html#CANON_RF_1.8-85mm

The pictured hood is the T60-2, quite common and cheap, but not 100% correct. It was made for the 135mm SLR lens, but works with the 85mm. For collecting purposes, T60 would be more correct.

And thanks, sleepyhead. One has to add, the 85/1.8 is also 1/2 inch shorter and lighter in weight than the chrome 85/1.9

 

[Sonnar2]

"Poor" people who can't get ahold of the rare RF lens should try a FL 85/1.8 SLR lens for a Canon AE-1 or something. The FL lens had an identical design.

 

[Sonnar2]

I just acquired a late black 85/1.9 lens which is considerable lighther in weight than the most common chrome versions and has the late type of coating. I will do a comparison as soon as I find time to do.

 

[bennyng]

how does this lens compare side by side with the 85/1.9

I just acquired a chrome version of the Canon 85mm f/1.9 lens. It's a real heavy weight! I will also do a comparison as soon as I find time.

Cheers,

 

[bennyng]

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_2e.html#CANON_RF_1.8-85mm

The pictured hood is the T60-2, quite common and cheap, but not 100% correct. It was made for the 135mm SLR lens, but works with the 85mm. For collecting purposes, T60 would be more correct.

Seems like there are quite a few differing opinions on the correct hood in the Canon 85mm f/1.8. I had the impression it was the T-60-2 as well. One of the shops in Japan was refering to a Japanese Canon RF accessories book and confirmed it. However, I also heard that the S-60 should be the correct one. It's really confusing.

But to be honest I've used the lens on several occasion in the sun without any hood and have no issues so far.

Cheers,

 

[stesm]

I don't know which hood is "correct", but can tell you the external dimensions are the same. The difference is internal. The T-60 hood has a 8mm deep shoulder in it. Both will hold series 8 filters behind the ring.
View attachment 63045

 

[Bill58]

I've got a huge peice of chrome plated "lead pipe", otherwise known as the 85/ 2.0, I'd luv to trade for a 1.8 or 1.9. Hahahaha. Any takers?

 

[Erik L]

I've got a huge peice of chrome plated "lead pipe", otherwise known as the 85/ 2.0, I'd luv to trade for a 1.8 or 1.9. Hahahaha. Any takers?

i dont see the appeal of the f2 version, id rather have the jupiter 9. its lighter