Why not a 85 ZM 2.8 ?

[briz]

An f2 and an f4 but why not the 'natural' f2.8....? Most of you will say that there are a lot of affordable 90mm 2.8 out there .
Is it marketing or what?

 

[payasam]

After some experience with two 85/2 lenses, I am coming to the conclusion that f/2.8 is the widest safe aperture at closest focus. An Elmarit or Hexanon 90 would also be a good deal easier to handle than my Serenar 85, which is a fine lens but is best described as a pregnant blue whale.

 

[fuwen]

I have been happily working with the ZM 85/2 at f2 at close distance up to 8x12 enlargements. Although it is not my habit to take photos always at max aperture.

Maybe it is marketing because a much cheaper ZM 85/2.8 will be in direct competition to the expensive ZM 85/2.

 

[payasam]

Don't know if that reasoning is borne out by history or the present. Most major manufacturers have offered, at the same time, two or more 85, 90 and 100 lenses each.

 

[Paddy C]

An f2 and an f4 but why not the 'natural' f2.8....? Most of you will say that there are a lot of affordable 90mm 2.8 out there .
Is it marketing or what?

A really good question that hadn't occurred to me.

The f4 isn't even a Sonnar design (though I don't think you get f4 Sonnars?).

So it is a bit weird. Especially if you consider that the Contax G system had the CZ 90 2.8 Sonnar. And again if you consider that all of the ZM wides are 2.8 max.

Maybe the designers and engineers at Zeiss wanted to flex their collective muscles?

 

[ferider]

Wondered that as well. Sure we'll see one sooner or later.

In the meantime, if you are looking for a 90/2.8 Sonnar/Ernostar, the M-Hexanon might be a good substitute.

Also agree with Mukul: on a .72 RF, 90/f2.8 is as fast as practically usable.

Roland.

 

[ZeissFan]

The 85/2 was an homage to the same lens that was available for the Contax rangefinder. Ditto for the 50/1.5 Sonnar and the 35/2.8 and 21/4.5 Biogons. These were among the most popular lenses for the Contax rangefinder, not including the 50/2 Sonnar (rigid and collapsible). The only lens missing is the 135/4 Sonnar.

Like the Contax rangefinder, there are now two lenses for the 85mm focal length: the premium f/2.0 optic and a budget f/4.0 version.

 

[Tom A]

When the 85f4 was being discussed, I was asked about it. I suggested the 2.8 but to no avail (I also wanted a reversible hood on it) - the 85f4 is probably a good lens - at least judging from the few shots I did with it - but it is slow.
With short Tele's it is important to have a "sweet spot" f stop - usually 1-2 stops down from wide-open - which with the 85f4 puts you at f8. This gives you too much depth of field for portraits. A 2.8, with the optimum aperture at f4-5.6 would work better.
There are a lot of used 90f2.8's out there so it is not as if we are short of choices. There is also the 90mm f3.5 Apo Lanthar from Cosina. True Apochromat at $300!!!!. It has a "sweet spot" at 5.6 so for now it goes along when short tele's are needed.

 

[fuwen]

Based on Back Alley samples the ZM 85/4 is no doubt a good lens, and probably already good enough at f4. And it is a Tele-Tessar.