The 85/2 Ai is a 5 element in 5 group Planar similar to the later 105/2.5, 135/2.8, and 200/4.
You got very lucky getting the Black 8.5cm F2 for the price of the chrome versions. All the versions are good.
You got very lucky getting the Black 8.5cm F2 for the price of the chrome versions. All the versions are good.
james.liam
Well-known
The 85/2 AIS isn’t one of the more acclaimed 85s. Bjørn Rørslett, who’s pretty objective on these things (not an anything else, however), doesn’t think much of it. One of the weakest of the lot.
The 85/2 is not as sharp as the 105/2.5 Planar formula lens. I've shot them side-by-side- back when a Nikon E3 was my primary DSLR, and could see the difference in sharpness on that camera. It was designed to be softer, a feature that many portrait photographers preferred.
It is sharper than most J-9s used wide-open.
It is sharper than most J-9s used wide-open.
james.liam
Well-known
Rørslett opines the 85/2 renders images that are “dull and lifeless and images took on a gray cast as well” from all the samples he’d tested.
I don't know what he uses for a metric. I've never found that to be a problem with my two copies of the 85/2 that I've owned.
Maybe he was photographing the same wandering ghost that I came across.
Same wandering ghost with the Planar formula Nikkor 105/2.5, at F2.8.
Maybe he was photographing the same wandering ghost that I came across.
Same wandering ghost with the Planar formula Nikkor 105/2.5, at F2.8.
I've had several 105s over the years. A few months ago when I acquired the 85 I did a side-by-side with the 105/2.5 AIS (at the same time as with the 85/2 S-mount) and kept the 85 AI, sold the other two.
Bjorn may not acclaim it, but others do.
Bjorn may not acclaim it, but others do.
Maybe he is trying to keep the price down.
I used to buy all the J-3's I wanted for $50 each.
Nikkor 85/2, wide-open on the Df.
Bokeh shot.
I have a lot (defined as > 100) of lenses. Most of these were bought for ~$100, when I see a good lens with perfect glass at that price- tend to grab it. Figure I'm not going to lose any money on it. Unless I give them away.
Lenses that others have raved about that I would not suggest: Nikkor-S 5cm F2 and Nikkor-S 5.8cm F1.4. Both low-production, and early. Optically, the Nikkor-H 50/2 and Nikkor-S 50/1.4, I think are better.
Others- The Nikkor-Q 200/4, the later compact 200/4 is much better. The Nikkor-Q 135/2.8, the newer 135/2.8 compact planar is much better.
Nikkor 28/3.5 and 35/2.8- bought dirt cheap, but don't get much use except as body caps. I also have a lot of Nikon cameras. I was given four Nikon F's in the last couple of years, including two Celestron Modified Mirror-up bodies.
45/2.8 GN-Nikkor, a nice Tessar and small, but optically "okay". But finding one for $10, grabbed it.
I used to buy all the J-3's I wanted for $50 each.
Nikkor 85/2, wide-open on the Df.
Bokeh shot.
I have a lot (defined as > 100) of lenses. Most of these were bought for ~$100, when I see a good lens with perfect glass at that price- tend to grab it. Figure I'm not going to lose any money on it. Unless I give them away.
Lenses that others have raved about that I would not suggest: Nikkor-S 5cm F2 and Nikkor-S 5.8cm F1.4. Both low-production, and early. Optically, the Nikkor-H 50/2 and Nikkor-S 50/1.4, I think are better.
Others- The Nikkor-Q 200/4, the later compact 200/4 is much better. The Nikkor-Q 135/2.8, the newer 135/2.8 compact planar is much better.
Nikkor 28/3.5 and 35/2.8- bought dirt cheap, but don't get much use except as body caps. I also have a lot of Nikon cameras. I was given four Nikon F's in the last couple of years, including two Celestron Modified Mirror-up bodies.
45/2.8 GN-Nikkor, a nice Tessar and small, but optically "okay". But finding one for $10, grabbed it.
https://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?/nikon/nikon_lenses/telephoto/85mm-f18-nikkor-hc-r54/
The K version (rubber inset focus ring) of the 85/1.8 will focus closer than the Nikkor-HC version that was tested.
The Nikon/Nikkormat Manuals, especially later editions-
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikk...er-1974-Hardcover/233575155729?epid=117126730
Lots of good information on these lenses. But be careful, you will end up using it as a "Bucket List" of lenses to own.
Nikkor 85/1.8, K version factory Ai converted. At F2.8.
To me- the Bokeh on the 105/2.5 and 85/2 is smoother. Some people like edgier bokeh, it works in many shots.
I'm keeping both.
The K version (rubber inset focus ring) of the 85/1.8 will focus closer than the Nikkor-HC version that was tested.
The Nikon/Nikkormat Manuals, especially later editions-
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikk...er-1974-Hardcover/233575155729?epid=117126730
Lots of good information on these lenses. But be careful, you will end up using it as a "Bucket List" of lenses to own.
Nikkor 85/1.8, K version factory Ai converted. At F2.8.
To me- the Bokeh on the 105/2.5 and 85/2 is smoother. Some people like edgier bokeh, it works in many shots.
I'm keeping both.
Many people rave about the 85/1.8, but I’ve never tried that one. I have a similar philosophy, if it’s a price I can’t pass up, I’ll give it a go. But I tend to move out the ones I know I am unlikely to choose when gathering up gear for an outing. The GN Nikkor fell into that category. So I’ve owned hundreds of lenses but typically only have tens at any given time. 
one reason why I kept the 85/2 over the 105/2.5; size and weight. When I was younger I didn’t give that a second thought but it’s a major factor today. That would likely mean the 85/1.8 would be on the sales shelf if I ever did acquire one.
one reason why I kept the 85/2 over the 105/2.5; size and weight. When I was younger I didn’t give that a second thought but it’s a major factor today. That would likely mean the 85/1.8 would be on the sales shelf if I ever did acquire one.
james.liam
Well-known
I don't know what he uses for a metric. I've never found that to be a problem with my two copies of the 85/2 that I've owned.
Maybe he was photographing the same wandering ghost that I came across.
Same wandering ghost with the Planar formula Nikkor 105/2.5, at F2.8.
Images seem to agree with the notorious Bjørn. I will say it isn't dreadful but reminds me of the colors I used to get out of the 85/1.4 AFD, which is to say too cool/blue.
The image with the blue tint- from the 105/2.5, and more due to lighting.
The images from the 85/2- are well balanced. The white dress shows up as white.
The 105/2.5 Ai (Planar), in direct sunlight.
Schneider 50/1.9 Xenon, on the Df. My Df is also my Deckel mount digital camera.
The lens reviews on https://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?/nikon/nikon_lenses/ do not have sample images to illustrate the opinions put forth.
These are with the 85/1.8, K-Series, factory Ai converted.
At F2.8,
I like this lens, but prefer to stop it down- F4 -
The 85/2, gives the rendering I like when used wide-open.
My Daughter looks good in blue. I went to a Blondie concert when the song was new.
F5.6, also a good flare test. I have the deep hood made for this lens on it.
This is at F1.8,
and F4,
Background calms down.
Some images to illustrate the color balance from the Zeiss would give useful information.
The images from the 85/2- are well balanced. The white dress shows up as white.
The 105/2.5 Ai (Planar), in direct sunlight.
Schneider 50/1.9 Xenon, on the Df. My Df is also my Deckel mount digital camera.
The lens reviews on https://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php?/nikon/nikon_lenses/ do not have sample images to illustrate the opinions put forth.
These are with the 85/1.8, K-Series, factory Ai converted.
At F2.8,
I like this lens, but prefer to stop it down- F4 -
The 85/2, gives the rendering I like when used wide-open.
My Daughter looks good in blue. I went to a Blondie concert when the song was new.
F5.6, also a good flare test. I have the deep hood made for this lens on it.
This is at F1.8,
and F4,
Background calms down.
Some images to illustrate the color balance from the Zeiss would give useful information.
james.liam
Well-known
hap
Well-known
Nice color ....from those zeisses.
james.liam
Well-known
Indeed.
I've had the ZF 2/35, 1,4/35 and because of them, started drifting off from AIS lenses as a result. Also use several Leica R's and they too are simply a notch or 3 above the Nikkors. When I switched from Nikon digital, the only lenses I kept were the NOCT, 16/3.5 and 8/2.8. Now use the ZM 2,8/35 on my M's and ZF 2,8/25 for the FM2. Colors are incomparable.
Here's one from the R 35 Summicron @ f/8 on Ektachrome, click on it for a larger view:
Attachments
The colors out of the Zeiss lenses are good, on the warmer side.
The out of focus areas show over-correction for spherical aberration (Donuts) and residual astigmatism (Swirliies). Field curvature in a lens tends to minimize astigmatism, but brings in other issues.
What it all means- hard to get recommendations for buying a lens. The best advice, narrow a selection down, buy the lens for the lowest price possible, borrow it, or rent it- try it out for yourself. You can usually resell a used lens for what you paid for it. Sometimes more. I remember- the lot of Nikon lenses picked up on Ebay for $400, a pancake 50/1.8, 24/2Ais, 35/2Ai, 85/2Ai (Mint), and 105/2.5Ai. Another good way to try out lenses.
The out of focus areas show over-correction for spherical aberration (Donuts) and residual astigmatism (Swirliies). Field curvature in a lens tends to minimize astigmatism, but brings in other issues.
What it all means- hard to get recommendations for buying a lens. The best advice, narrow a selection down, buy the lens for the lowest price possible, borrow it, or rent it- try it out for yourself. You can usually resell a used lens for what you paid for it. Sometimes more. I remember- the lot of Nikon lenses picked up on Ebay for $400, a pancake 50/1.8, 24/2Ais, 35/2Ai, 85/2Ai (Mint), and 105/2.5Ai. Another good way to try out lenses.
james.liam
Well-known
Zeiss lenses are quirky for sure. At close range, field curvature of the 25 is extreme (but close focusing). The 28 isn’t much better. Just love the color and overall look. Never dull or muted, high contrast and micro-contrast. In fact, the 2/35 was one of the best 35 SLR lenses I have ever used. Real 3-D pop.
Paradoxically, the ZF/ZE 1,4/85 was not a great performer. Preferred the Nikons instead.
Paradoxically, the ZF/ZE 1,4/85 was not a great performer. Preferred the Nikons instead.
Nikkor 50/1.2 AIs, Shot at night, 1/200th second, at F2. This carnival ride was fast moving.
One of the few AIs lenses that I own, bought 5 years ago. The AIs version of this lens has 9 aperture blades, I think the AI version has 7.
Back to Leica Mount lenses....
Zeiss made two Uncoated (pre-war prototypes) 13.5cm F4 Sonnars in Leica Thread Mount, I know that one still exist.
This is not it. I converted this 1937 CZJ 13.5cm F4 to Leica mount. This is an uncoated lens.
Wide-Open on the M9.
Zeiss has always been known for high-contrast lenses. I tend to prefer the uncoated optics on my Leica. I do have the C-Sonnar, and a couple of wartime Sonnars.
I took my Leica 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit with me, wanted a comparison.
Stopped down to F4 for a direct comparison with the uncoated Sonnar.
Also at F4.
The CZJ 13.5cm F4 is not expensive, use a Leica mount J-11 to convert. The close focus is ~6ft, so focus is accurate across the whole range.
I have several J-11's, KMZ lenses from the 1950s. The uncoated Sonnar gives deeper color. Don't know why, just a Zeiss thing.
Zeiss made two Uncoated (pre-war prototypes) 13.5cm F4 Sonnars in Leica Thread Mount, I know that one still exist.
This is not it. I converted this 1937 CZJ 13.5cm F4 to Leica mount. This is an uncoated lens.
Wide-Open on the M9.
Zeiss has always been known for high-contrast lenses. I tend to prefer the uncoated optics on my Leica. I do have the C-Sonnar, and a couple of wartime Sonnars.
I took my Leica 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit with me, wanted a comparison.
Stopped down to F4 for a direct comparison with the uncoated Sonnar.
Also at F4.
The CZJ 13.5cm F4 is not expensive, use a Leica mount J-11 to convert. The close focus is ~6ft, so focus is accurate across the whole range.
I have several J-11's, KMZ lenses from the 1950s. The uncoated Sonnar gives deeper color. Don't know why, just a Zeiss thing.
markjwyatt
Well-known
Here are a couple with my Nikkor P.C 105mm f2.5 (Contax mount; Sonnar design) on my Contax iia (ADOX CHS 100 II dev. in HC110). I think these were around f8 w/medY filter.
stump by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
ex-tree by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
stump by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
ex-tree by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
