Finally and official statement by Zeiss on the 85/4

[joachim]

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewAllE/529A495DB287B5B5C12574C2003F8E6A

Finally. I started wondering whether it was all just a leak and not really intended for public consumption yet. New picture but no data which I haven't seen so far. So weight and size still unknown.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Now that's interesting! The list price seems reasonable too ... under $1000 CDN once you back out the VAT.

 

[nyx]

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081

 

[joachim]

Hmm, this is larger and heavier than the Sonnar 90/2.8 for the Contax G. It is a lot longer. See

http://contaxcameras.co.uk/gseries/glenses/sonnar90.asp

and

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081

So the M-mount seems to add quite a bit to the weight and size or am I missing something?

Ta
Joachim

 

[Krosya]

From the Zeiss site:
"Thanks to its small size, this lens is ideal for portrait and landscape photography. "

Can anyone tell me what does it's size have to do with being ideal for portrait or landscape photography? Travel - maybe, but portrait and landscape? As I see it - another flop from Zeiss. Why can't they just copy and maybe improve either Jupiter -9 for thier 85/2 lens or M-Hexanon 90/2.8? And keep the price down?
Sorry, but no matter how stellar this lens may be - I see no reason AT ALL to buy it!

 

[noimmunity]

The dimensions are not bad but just average. I was hoping the tradeoff in aperture would translate into an exceptionally compact lens.

Length is a full 95mm long (ZM measurements include the flange), only 5mm less than the Sonnar 85/2 (!). Not so bad for a 90, but is it really the "extremely compact" size that Zeiss claims?

The dimensions are similar to the M-Hexanon 90/2.8 ... And the CV 90/3.5 would probably be similar without the hood.

Weight at 310grams (11 oz) is okay, but nothing special.

Filter size is 43mm, kind of the odd size out in the ZM line up, but convenient for pairing up with the 35s in the ZM lineup.

It will be fun to see images from this lens when it finally comes out.

 

[enochRoot]

the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm long. if anything, that dimension is for a fully extended lens. the 85/2 is actually shorter than the 90 summicron. and for the record, the photo of this new one is not to scale. just check out the size of the flange. and finally, not sure why they photographed this w/ the barrel fully extended either. it makes it look longer than it actually would be to carry around.

 

[Paul T.]

FWhy can't [Zeiss] just copy and maybe improve Jupiter -9 for thier 85/2 lens?

good joke!

 

[joachim]

good joke!

Paul, I think you need to explain to Krosya how the Contax and the FSU cameras & lenses are related for him to understand the joke he made.

 

[jaap]

It's a nice little lens But they better had made the sonnar 90mm f2.8 (G-series) In M mount. That thing is sharp at f2.8

 

[dberger]

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewAllE/529A495DB287B5B5C12574C2003F8E6A

Finally. I started wondering whether it was all just a leak and not really intended for public consumption yet. New picture but no data which I haven't seen so far. So weight and size still unknown.

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/9e6b7b49e7bedbc0c12574c0004bf081

Hmmm . . . very Heliar-like. The images this lens makes should be quite nice indeed.

Cheers,


David

 

[JRG]

The FOV is shown as 29 / 25 / 17 (D/H/V) degrees. If the reference is 24mm (V) x 36mm (H), then my HP calculator says that the focal length is closer to 82mm than to 85mm.

A piddling point, I know! 😀

 

[Turtle]

Excellent. If it performs well I will sell my Elmarit M, which altho perfectly wonderful, produces less contrast than my other ZMs and I want them to be matched. I wont miss the stop for scenics. Hmmmm, but the built in hood on the elmarit M is nice....

 

[Roger Hicks]

Doesn't look like a tele design to me.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Platinum RF]

It looks like an old long lens design, The black late Canon 100/3.5 is about $120 why Zeiss 85/4?

 

[percepts]

the 85/2 sonnar is not 95mm long. if anything, that dimension is for a fully extended lens. the 85/2 is actually shorter than the 90 summicron. and for the record, the photo of this new one is not to scale. just check out the size of the flange. and finally, not sure why they photographed this w/ the barrel fully extended either. it makes it look longer than it actually would be to carry around.

It does look like the lens is extended but the focus mark is on infinity. Maybe its a prototype they loosely assembled for the photo in a hurry since now the speculation has started, they will deflect a lot of enquiries by putting up the specs.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I love the internet. If people spent as much time shooting as they do complaining about the size and weight of lenses that they've never handled, the world would be a much better place.

 

[peter_n]

Looks like it has a nice short focus throw. However I think I'll stick with my Nikkor 85/2.

 

[enochRoot]

It does look like the lens is extended but the focus mark is on infinity. Maybe its a prototype they loosely assembled for the photo in a hurry since now the speculation has started, they will deflect a lot of enquiries by putting up the specs.

you're right...i didn't notice that. kooky.

 

[JRG]

I love the internet. If people spent as much time shooting as they do complaining about the size and weight of lenses that they've never handled, the world would be a much better place.

Maybe. But going out to shoot is not an option at the moment: I'm stuck at my desk, waiting for yet another teleconference to commence. So, why not pass the time pondering a new lens from afar?