russelljtdyer
Writer
I want to buy an 85mm Zeiss ZM lens for my Zeiss Ikon camera. Zeiss makes two 85mm lens models for M-mount cameras. They make the Sonnar T* f2.0 and the Tele-Tessar T* f/4 lenses. The Sonnar lens costs more than triple that of the Tele-Tessar.
From what little I know about these two lenses, the Sonnar f/2 would seem to be better than the Tele-Tessar f/4. There's the obvious difference in maximum aperture, but I'm not sure about much else. I can imagine the Sonnar is better, but haven't used either. Even if I assume it's better, the price of the Sonnar is a bit of a stretch for me.
I'm wondering how pleased are those who own the Sonnar version with this focal length lens. Do you feel the price is fair considering the quality of the lens? Zeiss doesn't seem to price their products as Leica, which is able to get much more money based on their name. At the same time, I'm wondering if those who own the Tele-Tessar f/4 ZM 85mm lens are pleased with their lenses. I read an earlier thread started by rsolti about this lens, but I'm looking for comments which contrast it with the other lens.
The two Zeiss lenses I own now are very solid, perform surprisingly well, and give excellent results. One of them cost me about $1000 and the other cost about $1800. Jumping up to $3350 for one lens is a bit of a choker for me, but not impossible. However, I'm concerned that the $875, slower Zeiss lens will be a noticeable let down by comparison to my other Zeiss lenses. I'm thinking I should hold off on buying the Tele-Tessar model and wait until I can pull together the money for the Sonnar. What do y'all think about the quality difference of the two?
From what little I know about these two lenses, the Sonnar f/2 would seem to be better than the Tele-Tessar f/4. There's the obvious difference in maximum aperture, but I'm not sure about much else. I can imagine the Sonnar is better, but haven't used either. Even if I assume it's better, the price of the Sonnar is a bit of a stretch for me.
I'm wondering how pleased are those who own the Sonnar version with this focal length lens. Do you feel the price is fair considering the quality of the lens? Zeiss doesn't seem to price their products as Leica, which is able to get much more money based on their name. At the same time, I'm wondering if those who own the Tele-Tessar f/4 ZM 85mm lens are pleased with their lenses. I read an earlier thread started by rsolti about this lens, but I'm looking for comments which contrast it with the other lens.
The two Zeiss lenses I own now are very solid, perform surprisingly well, and give excellent results. One of them cost me about $1000 and the other cost about $1800. Jumping up to $3350 for one lens is a bit of a choker for me, but not impossible. However, I'm concerned that the $875, slower Zeiss lens will be a noticeable let down by comparison to my other Zeiss lenses. I'm thinking I should hold off on buying the Tele-Tessar model and wait until I can pull together the money for the Sonnar. What do y'all think about the quality difference of the two?
Brian Puccio
Well-known
I wanted something faster than f/4 without spending $3k. I got a Zeiss Contax G 90mm f/2.8 converted to M mount.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
lol, Brian.
There are oodles of choices if you want that.
I am a bit puzzled by russelljtdyer question, because he does not define what he means by "better". Also, why should one be "better" than the other? they have different lens speed and are different designs. They will render differently and behave differently.
But not owning either, I won't comment here any further
There are oodles of choices if you want that.
I am a bit puzzled by russelljtdyer question, because he does not define what he means by "better". Also, why should one be "better" than the other? they have different lens speed and are different designs. They will render differently and behave differently.
But not owning either, I won't comment here any further
ZeissFan
Veteran
The Sonnar and Tessar are different designs, and where you'll likely see the most difference is in the rendering of out-of-focus areas when shooting wide open. That said, most lens makers seem to be paying attention to this with most of their products.
I would say your purchase should be based on the type of photos that you like to take.
If you shoot mostly at close to medium distances with slow film or indoors, the Sonnar might be the better choice.
If you shoot mostly landscapes or at smaller apertures, the Tele-Tessar should work nicely.
A couple of years ago, I shot a Zeiss Ikon Contax IIa with the f/2.0 85mm Sonnar and the f/4.0 85mm Triotar. Keep in mind that the Triotar is a triplet, and the Tele-Tessar should in theory be a better lens. Anyway, the results were that the Triotar performed very well. And with anything shot at infinity, the results were nearly indistinguishable unless you do extreme pixel-peeping.
The results from the Triotar are here.
Of course, this doesn't answer the question of how well the Tele-Tessar will perform because it's a different lens.
My own plan is to pick up the Tele-Tessar. The trade-off is that it's f/4.0, but I can buy a lot of film with the difference in cost.
In real-world use, I've found the f/4.0 Triotar to be a very worthwhile lens, although I also use the f/2.0 Sonnar because f/2.0 is a nice alternative.
Speaking of alternatives, you could always try to find a postwar Sonnar for the Zeiss Ikon Contax and use it on your Zeiss Ikon with a Contax=>Leica M mount adapter.
I would say your purchase should be based on the type of photos that you like to take.
If you shoot mostly at close to medium distances with slow film or indoors, the Sonnar might be the better choice.
If you shoot mostly landscapes or at smaller apertures, the Tele-Tessar should work nicely.
A couple of years ago, I shot a Zeiss Ikon Contax IIa with the f/2.0 85mm Sonnar and the f/4.0 85mm Triotar. Keep in mind that the Triotar is a triplet, and the Tele-Tessar should in theory be a better lens. Anyway, the results were that the Triotar performed very well. And with anything shot at infinity, the results were nearly indistinguishable unless you do extreme pixel-peeping.
The results from the Triotar are here.
Of course, this doesn't answer the question of how well the Tele-Tessar will perform because it's a different lens.
My own plan is to pick up the Tele-Tessar. The trade-off is that it's f/4.0, but I can buy a lot of film with the difference in cost.
In real-world use, I've found the f/4.0 Triotar to be a very worthwhile lens, although I also use the f/2.0 Sonnar because f/2.0 is a nice alternative.
Speaking of alternatives, you could always try to find a postwar Sonnar for the Zeiss Ikon Contax and use it on your Zeiss Ikon with a Contax=>Leica M mount adapter.
semordnilap
Well-known
If you don't have to have zeiss, you could always buy a used leica elmarit 90/2.8 latest model. I'm sure you can get one under $1k, and you'll never have a problem with that lens.
keepright
matthew
I'm one of the two confirmed 4/85 owners from that other thread, but unfortunately my input won't be any more helpful than the others who will answer your question by recommending something completely different or by speaking from outside of the criteria you've requested. For that I do apologize, but I'll go ahead anyway.
I am pleased with my 4/85. As advertised, it has exceptionally low distortion, which is my most-sought-after quality. I have occasionally run into taking photographs with a slower shutter speed than I would like, but I can never tell which ones they were when I get the film back.
But regardless of my satisfaction with the 4/85, it's always going to be my 'other' lens, playing backup to my 2/35 or 1.5/50. It's just a little too long for comfortable and easy use on the Ikon. I would suggest that spending the money on the 2/85 would only be reasonable if it's going to be the lens that you build your future portfolios on, but that if such a long focal length is going to be that important, then a rangefinder isn't the correct camera to use. Zeiss makes some exceptional lenses for SLRs as well.
bwcolor
Veteran
I'm a big Zeiss fan, but with so many fine lenses available on the used market, I went with the Hexanon offering, but had to have the backfocusing addressed. I really like this lens and I especially like the sliding lens shade. I should say that my last two choices were this lens and converting a Contax G lens. My Zeiss 90mm on my G2 is a superb lens, but in the end the lens shade made my decision.
My fast lens was a used Leica APO Asph. and the price was favorable compared to a new Zeiss @ f/2.0.
My fast lens was a used Leica APO Asph. and the price was favorable compared to a new Zeiss @ f/2.0.
fuwen
Well-known
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=162
I am using the ZM 85/2 Sonnar and I like its rendering so much that I am shooting a fair bit with it, considering 85mm is not my favourite focal length in the first place. But I am a person who like tele effect and 85mm is the furthest I can go on my Rollei 35RF, and for 135mm I would much prefer on SLRs. I have not much focusing issue at f2 with my Rollei 35RF (Bessa R2). However I must agree that the price of 85/2 is high but for Leica users I dun see price is a issue. For me I am lucky that I happened to get a good offer. Build quality is definitely much better than the made in Japan ZMs. However mine did give me a barrel loose issue and was sent back to Zeiss. But that incident did not make me hate the lens but I was missing the lens very much when it was in the hospital : )
Zeiss has been consistent in design as far as image quality is concerned. I have not used the 85/4 but I have confident that it will be a good lens. Back Alley has shown many impressive examples.
I am using the ZM 85/2 Sonnar and I like its rendering so much that I am shooting a fair bit with it, considering 85mm is not my favourite focal length in the first place. But I am a person who like tele effect and 85mm is the furthest I can go on my Rollei 35RF, and for 135mm I would much prefer on SLRs. I have not much focusing issue at f2 with my Rollei 35RF (Bessa R2). However I must agree that the price of 85/2 is high but for Leica users I dun see price is a issue. For me I am lucky that I happened to get a good offer. Build quality is definitely much better than the made in Japan ZMs. However mine did give me a barrel loose issue and was sent back to Zeiss. But that incident did not make me hate the lens but I was missing the lens very much when it was in the hospital : )
Zeiss has been consistent in design as far as image quality is concerned. I have not used the 85/4 but I have confident that it will be a good lens. Back Alley has shown many impressive examples.
bennyng
Benny Ng
I currently own the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f/2.0 lens. I don't own the Tele-Tessar 85mm f/4.0 lens, but have used it once when considering to buy it. In terms of handling, the f/4.0 lens lighter, but somehow does feel right in my hands. I would have prefered a slightly fatter focusing ring. Whilst the f/2.0 lens looks to be about the same size and weight as a can of soda, it some how balance quite well on the Zeiss Ikon, albeit that I'm using it with a grip or a case. As such, the weight isn't really an issue for me as an ex SLR user. However, the stealth factor is all gone when you pull that big black thing out.
At f/2.0, the bigger lens has a very nice 3D feel to the image due to the more blury background, especially at near to mid distances. At f/4.0, the difference isn't too big, but I remember the Tele-Tessar images were slightly 'busier' in the out of focus area. To the casual audience like my wife, there won't be any noticable difference. The question is really do you need the f-stop between f/2.0 to f/4.0?
The built quality for the German made Sonnar seems to be better, in part due to the size and the weight. The focusing is smooth and the click stops are snappy. The Tele-Tessar does not feel as solidly built when compared to the Sonnar, but when not evaluated together, it seems fine, as with all other Made in Japan Zeiss lenses.
If the f/2.0 seems just a tad too steep for the occasional use and the f/4.0 seems a bit too slow. I would highly recommend the Canon 85mm f/1.8 LTM or the Nikkor-P.C 8.5cm f/2.0 LTM. These legendary lenses will be good alternatives to the current ZM mount Sonnar in terms of speed and image quality. Take note that the black Nikkor is significantly lighter and more expensive than the chrome version, but still priced below the ZM Sonnar.
Hope the above is useful information for you.
Cheers,
At f/2.0, the bigger lens has a very nice 3D feel to the image due to the more blury background, especially at near to mid distances. At f/4.0, the difference isn't too big, but I remember the Tele-Tessar images were slightly 'busier' in the out of focus area. To the casual audience like my wife, there won't be any noticable difference. The question is really do you need the f-stop between f/2.0 to f/4.0?
The built quality for the German made Sonnar seems to be better, in part due to the size and the weight. The focusing is smooth and the click stops are snappy. The Tele-Tessar does not feel as solidly built when compared to the Sonnar, but when not evaluated together, it seems fine, as with all other Made in Japan Zeiss lenses.
If the f/2.0 seems just a tad too steep for the occasional use and the f/4.0 seems a bit too slow. I would highly recommend the Canon 85mm f/1.8 LTM or the Nikkor-P.C 8.5cm f/2.0 LTM. These legendary lenses will be good alternatives to the current ZM mount Sonnar in terms of speed and image quality. Take note that the black Nikkor is significantly lighter and more expensive than the chrome version, but still priced below the ZM Sonnar.
Hope the above is useful information for you.
Cheers,
kanzlr
Hexaneur
the latest Elmarit 90/2.8 is also a SUPERB lens. Rather small, not that heavy and superb quality even wide open. You may even consider a Summarit.
Just as good is the Konica M-Hexanon 90/2.8, but mine is at DAG for calibration, as it doesn't focus correctly on my M8. But during my tests it was suuuuperb when I did hit the focus
Just as good is the Konica M-Hexanon 90/2.8, but mine is at DAG for calibration, as it doesn't focus correctly on my M8. But during my tests it was suuuuperb when I did hit the focus
panda81
Member
Can you elaborate on this? I don't know anything about this lens at all, so I'm not sure what attribute you're describing as dark - thanks!
kanzlr
Hexaneur
most likely he means that f4 is not f2
f16sunshine
Moderator
The option of the Nikkor f2/85 is a very good one if you are a fan if a "true" Sonnar. If you look at the scheme of the ZM 2/85 it clearly is more of a DG than Sonnar in it's optical formula. I use an old Contax mount Opton sonnar 2/85 via an Amedeo Contax to Leica adapter. The math in terms of dollars was under $700 for lens and adapter ($400 LN lens and $250 for new adapter). In this flicker set I did a quick series to show oof area as you stop down. Most of the remaining samples are at f2-f4. All shot with Rd1 or M8. Sorry I have no film samples online to show true corners if the lens.
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/36366328@N04/sets/72157622111763422/
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/36366328@N04/sets/72157622111763422/
russelljtdyer
Writer
You've all made some very good points. I appreciate the detailed and quick responses. You've given me several ideas and things about which to consider.
One thing that was mentioned in different ways by a few here, but I had not considered is the need for a faster lens in relation to the ASA of the film. I'm still very accustomed to the choices with a digital SLR cameras of which I have three options for balancing exposure: lens aperture, shutter duration, and sensor ISO. With a maximum lens aperture of f/4 and the inflexibility of film--that is to say that if I load 160 ASA film, I'm locked in to that ASA until I change the roll--I can only adjust the shutter speed to compensate. When traveling around Europe, I often go from shooting pictures on the street to taking shots indoors in churches and other historic buildings without much lighting. I'm not allowed usually to set up a tripod in such places, nor do I want to lug one around with me. A lens for my film camera which has a maximum aperture of f/4 at times would be very limiting and frustrating for me. So, this eliminates the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85mm f/4 lens. It doesn't make spending $3350 for the Sonnar lens any easier, though.
There was a book written about ten years ago called, "The Ultra Solution". It suggests that in life we often find ourselves in situations in which there seems to be only two opposing choices, neither of which we may not like. One example it gave was of a sign posted in a park which reads, "Don't walk on the grass!" One could risk getting in trouble by walking on the grass, or one could be obedient and not walk on the grass and thereby feel a bit oppressed by the local government. This is a simple example of a common dilemma for many people. The ultra solution is to realize and say, "I don't want to walk on the grass. I'll get my shoes dirty if I do. Besides, if everyone walked on the grass, the park would be a mess in time." With this attitude one comes to realize that either the municipality is silly for feeling the need to post the sign, or the public is silly for needing to be told in firm language that walking on the grass isn't a good idea. In essence, the ultra solution mentality is one of deciding not to play the game and thereby freeing oneself from such frustrations.
Several of you have reminded me here that my choices are not between enduring a slower Zeiss 85mm lens at an affordable price or spending all of my money for a faster Zeiss lens. I am not trapped by Zeiss' decision not to make a fast 85mm lens at a price that's within my price range. The ultra solution is to buy something other than a Zeiss 85mm lens. So, I'm thinking a Leica 90mm f/2.5 Summarit, costing about $1700 new might satisfy all of my needs. Or maybe a used Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron for a bit more. If not, maybe I'll get one of the other lens y'all have listed. The irony is that I was only thinking of buying the Zeiss lens and had not considered the Leica lens because I had bought recently a 35mm Zeiss lens as an alternative to the choices that I didn't like offered by Leica in that focal length. Flexibility and not fighting the realities, but working around them seem to be keys to happiness.
One thing that was mentioned in different ways by a few here, but I had not considered is the need for a faster lens in relation to the ASA of the film. I'm still very accustomed to the choices with a digital SLR cameras of which I have three options for balancing exposure: lens aperture, shutter duration, and sensor ISO. With a maximum lens aperture of f/4 and the inflexibility of film--that is to say that if I load 160 ASA film, I'm locked in to that ASA until I change the roll--I can only adjust the shutter speed to compensate. When traveling around Europe, I often go from shooting pictures on the street to taking shots indoors in churches and other historic buildings without much lighting. I'm not allowed usually to set up a tripod in such places, nor do I want to lug one around with me. A lens for my film camera which has a maximum aperture of f/4 at times would be very limiting and frustrating for me. So, this eliminates the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85mm f/4 lens. It doesn't make spending $3350 for the Sonnar lens any easier, though.
There was a book written about ten years ago called, "The Ultra Solution". It suggests that in life we often find ourselves in situations in which there seems to be only two opposing choices, neither of which we may not like. One example it gave was of a sign posted in a park which reads, "Don't walk on the grass!" One could risk getting in trouble by walking on the grass, or one could be obedient and not walk on the grass and thereby feel a bit oppressed by the local government. This is a simple example of a common dilemma for many people. The ultra solution is to realize and say, "I don't want to walk on the grass. I'll get my shoes dirty if I do. Besides, if everyone walked on the grass, the park would be a mess in time." With this attitude one comes to realize that either the municipality is silly for feeling the need to post the sign, or the public is silly for needing to be told in firm language that walking on the grass isn't a good idea. In essence, the ultra solution mentality is one of deciding not to play the game and thereby freeing oneself from such frustrations.
Several of you have reminded me here that my choices are not between enduring a slower Zeiss 85mm lens at an affordable price or spending all of my money for a faster Zeiss lens. I am not trapped by Zeiss' decision not to make a fast 85mm lens at a price that's within my price range. The ultra solution is to buy something other than a Zeiss 85mm lens. So, I'm thinking a Leica 90mm f/2.5 Summarit, costing about $1700 new might satisfy all of my needs. Or maybe a used Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron for a bit more. If not, maybe I'll get one of the other lens y'all have listed. The irony is that I was only thinking of buying the Zeiss lens and had not considered the Leica lens because I had bought recently a 35mm Zeiss lens as an alternative to the choices that I didn't like offered by Leica in that focal length. Flexibility and not fighting the realities, but working around them seem to be keys to happiness.
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
The situation you mention is a dilemma -- a word that's often misused.
A dilemma is more than a choice. It's a situation in which all outcomes are undesirable.
I think if you want a faster lens than f/4.0 but don't want to spend a small fortune, you're going to have to look at non-Zeiss lenses, as those are your only options.
There's a lot of good glass out there, so you should be able to find something that fits your budget and your shooting needs.
A dilemma is more than a choice. It's a situation in which all outcomes are undesirable.
* * *
I think if you want a faster lens than f/4.0 but don't want to spend a small fortune, you're going to have to look at non-Zeiss lenses, as those are your only options.
There's a lot of good glass out there, so you should be able to find something that fits your budget and your shooting needs.
pgmj
Member
Also have a look at the Leica 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M. Light weight and good performance.
hellomikmik
Well-known
regarding your "fixed iso sensitivity on film" - you may consider to get second camera and use higher iso film in it on your travels, especially if you are going to take sonnar f2 - i find it quite difficult to focus properly on ikon, was thinking to get m3 for that but didn't for the moment. i don't know if it would help. certainly it's difficult lens to shoot with compared to 35 focal mm.
another thing is that price of sonnar reflects quality but also probably complexity of construction which on other hand means probably delicacy of the lens and its "vulnerability" (i think zeiss used for the first time in mount floating element in this lens).
another thing is that price of sonnar reflects quality but also probably complexity of construction which on other hand means probably delicacy of the lens and its "vulnerability" (i think zeiss used for the first time in mount floating element in this lens).
Neare
Well-known
There's also the option of getting a contax-m adapter and using the original 85mm f2 sonnar.
Likewise you could do so with nikon RF lenses which are also quite worthy.
Likewise you could do so with nikon RF lenses which are also quite worthy.
russelljtdyer
Writer
As a result of this discussion, I've begun looking for a 90mm Leica lens. I've been checking out the ones suggested here. However, I have no sense of what lenses should cost, no way to gauge them. Maybe y'all can give me some guidance in this area, although I'm departing from my own topic.
I found a listing for a Summicron 90mm f/2 in black, made in Canada. It says something about it being a 55. Is that the filter size? It's priced around a $1000. That sounds fantastic compared to the new version of that model. However, I suspect it's pretty old. I'm concerned that, despite being supposedly in excellent condition, it may have some of the usual problems associated with an old lens.
I found another one that a few recommended here, an Elmarit 90mm f2.8, also in black, but made in Germany. The advertisement associated with it states it's a 39. Again, I'm assuming that's the filter size. This one goes for a bit over $450. This lens is also reportedly in excellent condition. I trust the sellers of both these to rate properly their lenses. It's just that I suspect that excellent condition for a new lens is different from excellent condition for a thirty year old lens.
So, are these good prices? I may not buy these particular ones, but I'd like to learn how to spot a good lens in this focal length from Leica. Please help me to understand how to value an old Leica lens. Help me to develop an expectation which is adjusted fairly.
Thanks again and thanks in advance.
-Russell
I found a listing for a Summicron 90mm f/2 in black, made in Canada. It says something about it being a 55. Is that the filter size? It's priced around a $1000. That sounds fantastic compared to the new version of that model. However, I suspect it's pretty old. I'm concerned that, despite being supposedly in excellent condition, it may have some of the usual problems associated with an old lens.
I found another one that a few recommended here, an Elmarit 90mm f2.8, also in black, but made in Germany. The advertisement associated with it states it's a 39. Again, I'm assuming that's the filter size. This one goes for a bit over $450. This lens is also reportedly in excellent condition. I trust the sellers of both these to rate properly their lenses. It's just that I suspect that excellent condition for a new lens is different from excellent condition for a thirty year old lens.
So, are these good prices? I may not buy these particular ones, but I'd like to learn how to spot a good lens in this focal length from Leica. Please help me to understand how to value an old Leica lens. Help me to develop an expectation which is adjusted fairly.
Thanks again and thanks in advance.
-Russell
ramosa
B&W
russell:
this is a helpful thread, as i, too, have a hankering for a good 90mm.
you mentioned the new summarit, but i wonder how well its value will hold up. i have read that their build isn't up to normal leica standards, but i have not used it myself.
like you, i'm intrigued by the hex 90, elmarit 90, and summicron 90, as long as the cron is version 3.
this is a helpful thread, as i, too, have a hankering for a good 90mm.
you mentioned the new summarit, but i wonder how well its value will hold up. i have read that their build isn't up to normal leica standards, but i have not used it myself.
like you, i'm intrigued by the hex 90, elmarit 90, and summicron 90, as long as the cron is version 3.
Last edited: