Portrait lens for Zeiss Ikon?

[Graham Line]

The Elmar-C and M-Rokkor 90/4 lenses are excellent and can be found for $200-$300. Imaging at f4 is fine for portraiture.

 

[Huck Finn]

I'm sure a 90 would bring up the 85 frame on the ZM.

You're exactly right. A 90 lens brings up the 85 frame.

 

[CJP6008]

The Rollei 80 2.8 (as released in limited numbers with the 35RF) came about, so the story goes, because Rollei had a box of elements for the TLR knocking about and they got used in that lens.

Do also consider the CV 90mm - got a rave review from Puts see http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigt2890.html

It has an angle of view (diagonal) of 27 degrees compared to the 29 degrees of the ZM85. (The CV 75 has and angle of view of 32 degrees.)

 

[Huck Finn]

The Rollei 80 2.8 (as released in limited numbers with the 35RF) came about, so the story goes, because Rollei had a box of elements for the TLR knocking about and they got used in that lens.

Do you have a link or reference for this story, CJ?

Just to quibble a little bit, the angle of view of the CV Heliar is actually 31 degrees because it's a "longish" 75 (measured at 77 by Pop Photo).

I agree that the CV 90/3.5 is another fine option of a telephoto on the ZI.

Huck

 

[CJP6008]

I am struggling to think where I heard that story. Might have been one of the guys at Robert White. Will look into it. Sounded plausible as only a set number of them were made and released and the focal length/speed looks awfully familiar... A great lens though.

I am sure you are right re the CV 75 - I just gave the figures that CV quote for it.

It strikes me as slightly odd that Zeiss did not make their lens a 90mm and the frames etc likewise - just from a marketing point of view. By opting for the M mount they clearly accept that their lenses will go on other bodies and other lenses on their bodies. From what we hear the Ikon is a good machine and a decent option for a second body for Leica users or a step up for CV users. It just might cost them a few sales amongst those who favour the longer focal lengths.

On a similar note, does anyone know what frame the CV 40mm Nokton would bring up on the Ikon or an M6/7?

 

[ZeissFan]

They probably made it 85mm, because that has been the Zeiss portrait lens for more than 70 years. The 90mm length is the Leica designation. Too many people approach this from a Leica mindset -- that focal lengths need to match up with Leica offerings.

The first "portrait" lenses made for the Contax I were the 85mm Sonnar and the 85mm Triotar. Both continued to be produced through the Contax II/II and the IIa/IIIa and the Sonnar was carried forward into the Yashica/Kyocera era. The Triotar ended with the Contax IIa series.

In fact, I don't recall Zeiss ever making a 90mm lens for the 35mm format. It would strike me odd if Zeiss made a 90mm lens.

 

[NoTx]

90mm F/2.8 Sonnar for the Contag G...

On the other hand, that always did seem odd🙂

 

[NoTx]

Oh, and an odd thought. You could always buy a 90/2.8 Sonnar G and send it in for conversion to LTM. In the end it would be about $700. Which isn't all that astronomcal in this field.

 

[ZeissFan]

Well, that just proves how much long-term memory I've lost! Yikes. Of course, the Contax G system. I've already slapped myself twice.

[Edit: that would be one slap for stupidity and another for hubris.]

 

[RObert Budding]

Wow! I could never bring myself to pay more than about $700 for a lens for a 35mm camera. Much more than that and I can buy a nice used Zeiss lens for a Hasselblad.

Robert

 

[julianphotoart]

When is new ZI 85 lens actually coming out?

When is new ZI 85 lens actually coming out?

The ZI web-site says that the 85mm Sonnar is coming out the "end of 2005". Does anyone know what that actually means? I have not been able to find any definitive answer.

 

[Huck Finn]

The ZI web-site says that the 85mm Sonnar is coming out the "end of 2005". Does anyone know what that actually means? I have not been able to find any definitive answer.

It means December 31 . . . at least until the date is changed. 😉 Anyway that's what Hasselblad told me when I asked.

Huck

 

[Huck Finn]

It strikes me as slightly odd that Zeiss did not make their lens a 90mm and the frames etc likewise - just from a marketing point of view. By opting for the M mount they clearly accept that their lenses will go on other bodies and other lenses on their bodies. From what we hear the Ikon is a good machine and a decent option for a second body for Leica users or a step up for CV users. It just might cost them a few sales amongst those who favour the longer focal lengths.

On a similar note, does anyone know what frame the CV 40mm Nokton would bring up on the Ikon or an M6/7?

You make a good point, CJ. Probably not the best choice of framelines from a marketing perspective.

From the beginning of the marketing campaign for this camera in August '04, when Zeiss was releasing teasers on their website every few days about the camera, they have repeatedly stressed that its strength is with wide angle lenses. And they have backed that up by releasing 5 of them vs only one in the telephoto range. So, I think that they designed this camera for the purpose of making it an ideal shooter for those wide angle lenses. Therefore, they designed a viewfinder that includes 28 mm framelines.

Now that I have one, one of the things that I really like about the ZI is that the framelines are unclutteres. On an M6 or a Hexar RF, every frame has 2 sets of framelines - & the pairings aren't necessarily ideal. On the ZI, the 28, the widest shares a frame with the 85, the narrowest. So maybe the choice of 85 was to provide a telephoto option without cluttering the viewfinder. Otherwise, they would probably have had to include both 75 & 90.

It's really not the hard to use another focal length with the 85. A 90 mm lens brings up the 85 framelines & I don't think that the the 5 degree difference at 85 - 90 is as great as 5 degrees is at 35 - 40. As you pointed out, it's only 2 degrees in the field of view. Another factor here is that the latest Leica 90 is actually 88 mm (Pop PHoto), so it will work just about as well with an 85 frame as with a 90. Further, it's a little easier to use wider framelines with a longer lens, i.e. 85 frame for 90 lens because the frame is only showing about 87% of what the 85 lens sees, which means that it is showing pretty close to a 90 mm field of view.

I think that a much stranger decision was for Konica to build the Hexar RF with a magnification of 0.6 & to then include 135 framelines. Even Leica drops its 135 frame with the .58 magnification because it's next to impossible to focus a lens that long with magnification this low & framelines so tiny.

BTW, I believe that the 40 Nokton brings up the 50/75 framelines on the M6.

Cheers,
Huck

 

[Doug]

On the ZI, the 28, the widest shares a frame with the 85, the narrowest. So maybe the choice of 85 was to provide a telephoto option without cluttering the viewfinder. Otherwise, they would probably have had to include both 75 & 90.

And this is consistent with Leica practice as well, since on the M both 28 & 90 frames appear together... 35/135 and 50/75 being the other two pairings.

BTW, I believe that the 40 Nokton brings up the 50/75 framelines on the M6.

I would thinks so too, as this is what the 40 Summicron & 40 Rokkor do. (But on the CLE a 35mm lens brings up its 28-only framelines which is the default, same for the 28 Rokkor or indeed no lens at all, and putting on a non-Rokkor 28mm adds the 90 frames along with the 28!)

 

[Huck Finn]

I would thinks so too, as this is what the 40 Summicron & 40 Rokkor do.

I should have said that I know that the 40 Nokton brings up the 50/75 frames on the M6.

Huck

 

[StuartR]

I think that a much stranger decision was for Konica to build the Hexar RF with a magnification of 0.6 & to then include 135 framelines. Even Leica drops its 135 frame with the .58 magnification because it's next to impossible to focus a lens that long with magnification this low & framelines so tiny.

I am glad that they did though! Many of my best shots in Iceland were taken using the Hexar RF and a 135mm f/4 tele-elmar-m. I agree that it is asking a lot, but these were landscape shots mostly taken at infinity for the most part. These two were taken with the 135 at f/4 with the Hexar RF though...they came out ok. But I agree that it is not a good choice for critical applications.

 

[NoTx]

Cool🙂

I like pufins... kind of like a North Hemispher Penguin...