neonart
Established
I was looking for a longer lens for some specific portraits, and fooling around on eBay I found a Serenar 85mm ƒ2 with case, finder, caps, filter, for under $200 shipped. I figured it was worth a shot. Anythting else would have been at least 3x as much and probably f2.8 or f4.
Here's my impression, hopefully it helps someone looking into an affordable portrait length lens.
This copy was from 1949-1951 based on the serial and in incredible shape. To my surprise (with LTM to M adaptor) it focused spot on on my M240 at all apertures. ƒ2 is somewhat dreamy, but plenty sharp. ƒ4 is surprisingly sharp. Bokeh is cool, but it's no 'Lux.
It's a heavy lens! 20.5 oz (580g). Focus is slow, but thats a good thing for this focal length. I found it focuses just great with the rangefinder. Did not feel the need to use live view.
Below are some samples. The first at ƒ2, focused on "Radio Flyer", no post. The second at ƒ4, some post. The last is a crop from another shot at f4 that shows this 65 year old lens still has teeth! Note these have some compression as 1200px JPGS. DNGs are better.
Here's my impression, hopefully it helps someone looking into an affordable portrait length lens.
This copy was from 1949-1951 based on the serial and in incredible shape. To my surprise (with LTM to M adaptor) it focused spot on on my M240 at all apertures. ƒ2 is somewhat dreamy, but plenty sharp. ƒ4 is surprisingly sharp. Bokeh is cool, but it's no 'Lux.
It's a heavy lens! 20.5 oz (580g). Focus is slow, but thats a good thing for this focal length. I found it focuses just great with the rangefinder. Did not feel the need to use live view.
Below are some samples. The first at ƒ2, focused on "Radio Flyer", no post. The second at ƒ4, some post. The last is a crop from another shot at f4 that shows this 65 year old lens still has teeth! Note these have some compression as 1200px JPGS. DNGs are better.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Those look great, I have a 3.5 or 4.0 100mm Serenar that was so cheap I just bought it. I didn't need it but what the heck. I have a couple of other leitz lenses from the some time and of similar focal length and the Serenar is the best of the lot. As you know it would be very easy to fix anything to do with focus on these lenses, but mine hangs up at 6.5 feet or maybe it is 8 feet. Some day I'll have the focus part done, but for now I just use it for over 8 feet.
I can't say the same for my 35mm f 3.5 Serenar. It is sharp enough but it has perpetually haze and the Bokeh is not good.
I can't say the same for my 35mm f 3.5 Serenar. It is sharp enough but it has perpetually haze and the Bokeh is not good.
f16sunshine
Moderator
It's one of those lenses.
Performance is so nice. Ergonomics make it unpopular.
I've owned it twice and probably will again!
Nice samples!!
Performance is so nice. Ergonomics make it unpopular.
I've owned it twice and probably will again!
Nice samples!!
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I bought one here on RFF for use with my M9. A favourite lens. Imagine it would be even easier to use/compose on the 240, where you're not limited to the tiny 90mm frameline. Love the bokeh which is sometimes just wacky. And it's a great conversation piece. Using it with my M9 at the Toronto Zombie Walk, someone approached me and asked if I was using a toy camera!
peterm1
Veteran
I used to own one of these lenses many years ago. I bought it because of its reputation for image quality which incidentally is confirmed by your samples - well done by the way. I loved mine for its heft (but not when I had to carry it) but unfortunately mine did not focus well at normal shooting distances for portraits and the like. As I was using an M3 and M4P I eventually had no option but to sell it. But golly it was beautifully made. You are lucky indeed that it focuses accurately and well. I still own, and now and then use, a black and chrome version of the 135mm f3.5 lens, the chrome version of which is very similar to your 85mm lens. I had both versions of the longer lens but eventually sold the solid chrome one because the later black and chrome one was lighter. My 135mm lens is also a cracker. There is no doubt in my mind that in this era Canon made a number of lenses that easily challenged Leica's. Incidentally i also tended to use mine with an accessory finder although strictly speaking this was not necessary.
oltimer
Well-known
This is one of my favorite lens used on my 7z. My all round favorite old time lens is the Asahi 83mm 1.9 made in 1953 in a 37mm mount. I have adapters that I use it on my Pentax K's.
neonart
Established
Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for bringing up the ergonomics.
Yes, the rotating front portion of the lens with the aperture ring is weird and inconvenient at times. Since I usually set aperture prior to focusing (I'd guess most do) it's not a deal breaker. But if you decide to change it mid-shooting you have to pull the camera from your face and look to see where to turn (possibly moving focus).
Surely there are better lenses for someone who depends heavily on this focal length. However, for someone looking to try some portrait work, especially with a vintage feel, the Serenar 85 is worth the gamble.
Yes, the rotating front portion of the lens with the aperture ring is weird and inconvenient at times. Since I usually set aperture prior to focusing (I'd guess most do) it's not a deal breaker. But if you decide to change it mid-shooting you have to pull the camera from your face and look to see where to turn (possibly moving focus).
Surely there are better lenses for someone who depends heavily on this focal length. However, for someone looking to try some portrait work, especially with a vintage feel, the Serenar 85 is worth the gamble.