jawarden
Well-known
I'm doing some casual shopping for a lens. I have a Zeiss Ikon with the 28mm Biogon and the 50mm Sonnar. I'd like to add something a bit longer, say 85 or 90mm.
Zeiss makes a ZM 85mm which I'm sure would be fine but at f4 it's probably too slow for me. F2.0 or 2.8 would be better, and comparable quality to the Zeiss lenses I already have would be important. So, can you steer me in the direction of a lens (say around $1K or so)?
Thanks!
Zeiss makes a ZM 85mm which I'm sure would be fine but at f4 it's probably too slow for me. F2.0 or 2.8 would be better, and comparable quality to the Zeiss lenses I already have would be important. So, can you steer me in the direction of a lens (say around $1K or so)?
Thanks!
rolfe
Well-known
The thin 90mm Tele-Elmarit is good -- just be sure you use a deep hood with it as it can be prone to flare without one.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Nikon 85mm f2 in ltm.
Also, it's a Sonnar design.
Also, it's a Sonnar design.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I own one of these (as well as the original chrome Elmarit) and I agree with the above comment. My little Tele-Elmarit often goes with me, while the larger Elmarit stays home, owing to the small and handy size of the former. I can't comment on the Nikon 85/2, as I've not used it. But if f/2 is being considered, then the 90mm Summicron is also worth considering.
cassel
Well-known
I've had only the 90mm Elmar in M-mount (too slow for your requirements) but it is very good and tiny! (my was from the CL series)
Faster lens I recommend are the Canon 85mm LTM (both the f1.5 and f1.8)
My 1.5 was much better than most would predict or expect even wide open- mine was the last version. I currently have the newer F1.8 in Black and while mine has focus problems- needs repair- I can see just by the handling and quality why it is a much-desired lens. Both are well under $1000.
I've also shot with the 85mm Nikkor f2.0 - the early 50's chrome version - super heavy but decent performance.
My wildcard is the Steinheil 85mm f2.8- cheap but surprisingly good- cheap enough to try for fun!
Faster lens I recommend are the Canon 85mm LTM (both the f1.5 and f1.8)
My 1.5 was much better than most would predict or expect even wide open- mine was the last version. I currently have the newer F1.8 in Black and while mine has focus problems- needs repair- I can see just by the handling and quality why it is a much-desired lens. Both are well under $1000.
I've also shot with the 85mm Nikkor f2.0 - the early 50's chrome version - super heavy but decent performance.
My wildcard is the Steinheil 85mm f2.8- cheap but surprisingly good- cheap enough to try for fun!
kxl
Social Documentary
The ZM Zeiss 85/2.0 Sonnar would be perfect, but it's NOT around $1k or so.
Longer than 50mm, my two affordable lenses are the CV 90/3.5 APO Lanthar and the Nikon 105/2.5.
Longer than 50mm, my two affordable lenses are the CV 90/3.5 APO Lanthar and the Nikon 105/2.5.
ferider
Veteran
Lots of other vintage possibilities, but to match your budget and other lenses, either the thin 90/2.8 Tele Elmarit, or the last pre-asph (v3) 90/2 Summicron (an Ernostar, and quite compact).
Roland.
Roland.
jawarden
Well-known
Thanks a lot for the suggestions so far. Already I have some research to do.
uhoh7
Veteran
The TE 90 is OK, but does pale to a number of alternatives.
CV 75/2.5 is superb.
75 Summarit is excellent, as is the 90.
If you don't mind the weight, as mentioned the nikkor 85/2 is very good, also the Canon Ltm 85/1.9 or better yet and still in your budget, the stellar Canon LTM 85/1.8, perhaps the best Canon LTM lens ever made.
But older glass always has more risk of calibration issues.
ZM 85/4 and CV 90/3.5 both very very sharp.
CV 75/2.5 is superb.
75 Summarit is excellent, as is the 90.
If you don't mind the weight, as mentioned the nikkor 85/2 is very good, also the Canon Ltm 85/1.9 or better yet and still in your budget, the stellar Canon LTM 85/1.8, perhaps the best Canon LTM lens ever made.
But older glass always has more risk of calibration issues.
ZM 85/4 and CV 90/3.5 both very very sharp.
mdarnton
Well-known
The best 85-90 I ever had, and I've had a few, was the 85/1.8 Canon.
raid
Dad Photographer
If you don't mind spending a good amount, the Summilux 75/1.4 is a superb lens.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
There is nothing lacking with the ZM 85/4 when it comes to quality.
Check it's MTF graphs they completely blow away the other lenses you have.
jawarden
Well-known
It's been while since I thought about MTF charts but don't you have to stick to similar lenses for that type of comparison to make sense? I would expect the 85/4 to have a 'better' MTF than a wide/fast lens because its a slower, longer focal length lens from the same manufacturer. But in reality all three of these lenses are excellent as far as I can tell; it's just the speed of the 85/4 that holds me back.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 Heliar? Has some great reviews. I looked at one when I had my M6TTL but couldn't afford it at that time.
jawarden
Well-known
Hey Paul, thanks for the suggestion. I hadn't thought of Voigtlander but I'll check it out.
jawarden
Well-known
Thanks Raid. And wow - yes that's way beyond the $1K-ish budget
I think I will use this focal length about 10% of the time so I don't want to over spend on a per-image basis. But if I win the lottery . . .
YYV_146
Well-known
Thanks Raid. And wow - yes that's way beyond the $1K-ish budget
I think I will use this focal length about 10% of the time so I don't want to over spend on a per-image basis. But if I win the lottery . . .
Try the last pre-asph version of the Leica 90mm F2. I've been through most of Leica's teles and the 90mm Summicron-M is an excellent lens. Be sure to get the 55mm version since the 49mm old version will drive you nuts with the hood blocking the aperture ring.
Sharpness is only noticeably worse than the ASPH 90mm F2 at F4 and under and close-ups. For practical intents and purposes the lens is plenty sharp, with beautiful Bokeh. Used copies can readily be found at around $1,100 - 1,300, so it also fits the budget.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks Raid. And wow - yes that's way beyond the $1K-ish budget
I think I will use this focal length about 10% of the time so I don't want to over spend on a per-image basis. But if I win the lottery . . .
I have used some great tele lenses at low prices.
1. Canon 85/1.9 ltm: $200
pros: superbly built; sharp; cheap.
cons: heavy; long focus throw
2. Steinheil 85/2.8 ltm: $100
pros: super cheap; sharp; light.
cons: none
3. Canon 100/3.5 ltm: $200
pros: tiny; very sharp; light.
cons: tiny
A more costly group of tele lenses:
4. Nikon 85/2.0 ltm $400
pros: very sharp; superbly built; "it is a Nikon!"
cons: heavy;often it is overpriced
5. Nikon 105/2.5 ltm $400
pros: very sharp; superbly built; awesome lens;
cons: heavy
6. Leica Summicron 90/2.0 with built-in hood (first model) $500
pros: inexpensive; very well built; sharp after 2.8; great for portraits at 2.0
cons: heavy
If you will use such a focal length 10% of the time, the above choices will definitely do.
jawarden
Well-known
I appreciate the time you put into your response! Just from this thread so far I'm spending most of my time learning about the Nikon 85/2.0 on the less expensive side, and the v3 90/2 Summicron on the high end. They both look like great choices.
In addition to my 10% use of the lens I'll likely be using film exclusively for indoor portraits with natural light, so high iso and wide apertures. I've never had such a specific use for a lens in my life
mfogiel
Veteran
Think what you need this lens for.
There are hardly any bad 85/90mm rf lenses around - it is much easier to make a good tele than a good wide angle. In RF shooting, I have found that I use apertures wider than f 4.0 seldom - the reason is, that when you shoot landscape you want sharpness and textures, and when you shoot a portrait, f4.0 gives you enough dof to cover minor focusing errors. Shooting close portraits wide open has the additional benefit of rouund OOF highlights and smoother shape contours, so an f 4.0 lens is more than appropriate. If you like it biting sharp, go with the Tessar, if you like it sharp but normal, there is an Elmar C 90/4 you can get on the cheap.
There are hardly any bad 85/90mm rf lenses around - it is much easier to make a good tele than a good wide angle. In RF shooting, I have found that I use apertures wider than f 4.0 seldom - the reason is, that when you shoot landscape you want sharpness and textures, and when you shoot a portrait, f4.0 gives you enough dof to cover minor focusing errors. Shooting close portraits wide open has the additional benefit of rouund OOF highlights and smoother shape contours, so an f 4.0 lens is more than appropriate. If you like it biting sharp, go with the Tessar, if you like it sharp but normal, there is an Elmar C 90/4 you can get on the cheap.