Finally and official statement by Zeiss on the 85/4

[jaap]

Obviously they would do something different than relaunce that beautiful sonnar 90 F2.8 again. (85mm F2.8 Contax/yashica mount).

 

[Photon42]

Obviously they would do something different than relaunce that beautiful sonnar 90 F2.8 again. (85mm F2.8 Contax/yashica mount).

what makes you believe that?

 

[ZeissFan]

If you take a step back, you can see that Zeiss is slowly releasing its classic Contax offerings back onto the market. The 21mm and 35mm C-Biogons, the C-Sonnar, the f/2.0 85mm Sonnar.

The f/4.0 Triotar was the budget offering in Contax mount to the f/2.0 Sonnar in 85mm. This time around, rather than come back with a triplet (the Triotar), Zeiss's lower-cost alterntive to the Sonnar is the Tele-Tessar, presumably a more advanced lens than the Triotar.

That said, I took my Triotar out for a walk this week and as much as possible, tried to shoot it wide open. I was shooting color print, so it wasn't possible to shoot every shot wide open as I don't have an ND filter in 40.5mm. Performance was exceptional, and I'll post some photos, once I finish scanning everything.

But as expected, everyone wants something different. I find the Triotar an excellent compromise in price and weight to the Sonnar. I have come to the same conclusion for the Tele-Tessar, although I want to try the lens before saying more.

 

[Turtle]

I think is is reasonably clear that this is a travel lens a reflected by the aperture. Many people use RFs in this more general role and so its less than ideal suitability for portraits is not a major issue for many. If I was seriously interested in shooting portraits, a RF with 85/90 would be last on my list of kit to use! Seems they focused on price, size, performance with more of a travel/landscape/places function in mind. I bet it is crisp as hell wide open too, so worries about having to stop it down are likely unfounded (as with 21 4.5, 35 2.8 etc). Often the way with slow lenses in that they often perform as well at their max aperture than a faster lens stopped down to the same aperture, assuming they are of a first rate design, rather than one with a few elements and made to a real budget.

I think a collapsible f4 would have been cool. still, it does appeal as the price is good and the performance is likely to be truly superb in its intended role. The elamrit Ms are coming down in price though.

 

[ferider]

such strong negative reactions to this lens is surprising.
no one is being being forced to even consider buying it.

1) because I had hoped for an 85-90/2.8 Sonnar. I'm disappointed.
2) because (like with the C-Biogon) Zeiss marketing tries to make you believe this is a compact/"travel" lens, which is just simply hype.

Just like with the C-Biogon, you can get smaller, better, cheaper from CV.

Roland.

 

[enochRoot]

hey roland, why do you keep saying it's not a travel lens? seems pretty compact to me. remember the 95mm is with both caps. i would guess it's only 70mm long when mounted without caps.

 

[ferider]

Nobody can comment on optical performance, obviously.

But for sure, the competition (90/2.8 (Tele)Elmarit, M-Hexanon, Apo-Lanthar, 75/2.5 Heliar, 90/4 C-Elmar and Rokkor, Summarit 90/2.5, the list goes on ....) are pretty damn good lenses.

Not saying it is big. Just bigger than the Tele Elmarit (v2), Heliar, and Rokkor. 43mm filter thread ....

Interestingly, the lens design is almost identical to the 50/3.5 Collapsible Heliar, supposedly the sharpest 50 of all times. Since it comes from the same factory, one could expect stellar resolution from the new Tessar.

It could turn out to be the best 35mm landscape lens out there.

We'll see ....

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[Solinar]

If you take a step back, you can see that Zeiss is slowly releasing its classic Contax offerings back onto the market. The 21mm and 35mm C-Biogons, the C-Sonnar, the f/2.0 85mm Sonnar./QUOTE]

Also, once I saw the number of elements and the way they are grouped, my bet is that Zeiss is aiming for more classic signature with this lens.

If I didn't already have an 85/2 Nikkor and just recently purchased a first version Elmarit - I'd seriously consider getting one - based on the Heliar-like design.

 

[jaap]

what makes you believe that?

Wouldn,t that be the most logical choice ? To take the sonnar f2.8 of the shelf?

 

[ZeissFan]

The f/2.8 Sonnar was an SLR lens, I believe. It's not a matter of simply refitting the lens elements to a different barrel.

 

[jaap]

The Contax G 90mm and the C/Y are opticly at least for 99% the same imho

 

[ZeissFan]

Those were made by Kyocera.

So you take them off the shelf. What shelf? Kyocera's shelf? How any of the lens blanks are left? Let's say there are 100 matched elements.

You still have to design a lens barrel, aperture mechanism and assembly process to refit a limited supply of lens elements so that when you run out of lens elements, you now have to make more ... to the identical specification of the original lens.

From a financial standpoint, that's illogical.

It makes better sense to create a new lens from the ground up that isn't limited by the mechanics or supply of a previous product.

Optically the same and spec-wise identical are two different things when it comes to manufacturing.

 

[joachim]

Those were made by Kyocera.

So you take them off the shelf. What shelf? Kyocera's shelf? How any of the lens blanks are left? Let's say there are 100 matched elements.

You still have to design a lens barrel, aperture mechanism and assembly process to refit a limited supply of lens elements so that when you run out of lens elements, you now have to make more ... to the identical specification of the original lens.

From a financial standpoint, that's illogical.

It makes better sense to create a new lens from the ground up that isn't limited by the mechanics or supply of a previous product.

Optically the same and spec-wise identical are two different things when it comes to manufacturing.

Zeiss is about to (re-)release a tweaked version of the famous CYMM Distagon 21/2.8 in ZF, ZK and ZE mount. So there seems to be a "shelf to pull stuff" from. Most likely a shelf of ideas.

Many people here think, why did Zeiss not start with the Sonnar 85/2.8 (CYMM mount) or Sonnar 90/2.8 (Contax G), do a an update and ask Cosina to produce this? Alternatively, if they wanted something new, which is designed from the ground up, why did they not design a f/2.8 lens? You are right still they need to design a new barrel but so they did for the 85/4 as well. I think for an 2.8 lens there would have been much more of a market. The spec of the old lenses show that a 2.8 lens would have been only insignificantly heavier and larger. I think that is the key point.

On the other hand if you want the Tele Tessar and can afford it, buy and enjoy it. I am pretty sure it will not disapoint if the f/4 spec doesn't bother you. If you get one and report back here, I am sure many, me included, will be happy to read it. So far, despite not being interested (now) in upgrading from my Contax G Sonnar, to me the 85/4 is one of the more interesting anouncements fro Photokina. Is seems quirky in a nice way.

 

[Doug]

It does seem quirky and interesting, and probably kept to f4 to better control aberrations that might crop up with this classic construction if higher speed were attempted. This is not quite a Heliar, though the overall effect should be very similar, the difference showing in the negative-positive front pair rather than the Heliar's positive-negative.

I bought a 50mm Heliar Classic for an interesting and different look, and for the same reason picked up a used Pentax K-mount 4/100mm macro that is a Heliar design as well. Like the classic Planar, the Heliar is a near-symmetrical construction, and thus more suitable than usual for macro applications.

I'll be looking forward to seeing some user samples from this interesting new Tele-Tessar!

 

[Photon42]

Wouldn,t that be the most logical choice ? To take the sonnar f2.8 of the shelf?

Sure. I understood you don't believe in this and I wanted to know, why.

Regards
Ivo

 

[jsuominen]

It was a Zeiss (optical elements) Cosina (mechanical parts) and Rollei (manufacturing) lens.
But only about 500 pieces were made.

Hmm, according to this thread only 90 pieces of Planar 80/2.8 were made (40 in black and 50 in silver):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22770

 

[ZeissFan]

As I thought about this while replacing the trap in my bathroom sink, I considered the question: "Why not an f/2.8 Sonnar?"

And then it seemed obvious: It's too close in speed and performance to the f/2.0 Sonnar. A Japanese f/2.8 version of the Sonnar would be much cheaper than the f/2.0 German-made lens, and that would eat into sales of the German lens.

Could Zeiss make an f/2.8 lens in Japan? Most certainly, they could. But who then would purchase the much more expensive f/2.0 Sonnar? Probably not enough to justify its continued production.

Way back when the system was first conceived, and plans were being drawn up for lens production, they probably could have thought about a less-expensive f/2.8 85mm Sonnar. But it appears that Zeiss took a no-compromise approach to this lens in its effort to produce an f/2.0 version.

If they had produced the f/2.8 Sonnar, would users then be asking, "Why not an f/2.0?" Well, probably, because it's not about what we can get, it's often about what we want, even if we don't plan to buy it.

TRIOTAR: My general feeling about this lens is that it was a lower-cost alternative to the Sonnar, just like the 5cm/50mm Tessar was a lower-cost alternative to the 5cm/50mm Sonnar.

And so there are compromises in performance. However, for a triplet, it's outstanding. I have an Elmar that I will shoot this week to see how it compares with the Triotar.

In the meantime, results from the Triotar. Go to the bottom of the page for this week's shots (in color).

 

[veraikon]

@jsuominen thanks for the link and the clearance.

 

[Dan States]

Perhaps market research found that Japanese collectors, who are Zeiss' top market, prefer the concept of a Tele Tessar. Keep in mind that none of these lenses would exist if not for that market.

Best wishes
Dan

 

[joachim]

And then it seemed obvious: It's too close in speed and performance to the f/2.0 Sonnar. A Japanese f/2.8 version of the Sonnar would be much cheaper than the f/2.0 German-made lens, and that would eat into sales of the German lens.

But how about the 35mm? There is a Zeiss 2.8 and 2.0 lens. They are extremely close in price.