Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85/4? What the heck?

[CK Dexter Haven]

Please excuse me for being terribly rude, but are you people stupid?

Rangefinders don't need bright lenses beacuse you do not focus through the lens.

Lenses that are fast are bigger and heavier.

Slower lenses are not as 'unsharp' wide open as fast lenses are. Shooting a modern f2.8 lens at f5.6 or an f4 lens at f5.6 will give the same sharpness (or close enough).

Do portrait lenses need to be sharp as hell anyway? You probably won't be putting your camera on a tripod...

You're the only one using the word "bright," so perhaps your namecalling is misdirected? Maybe you're not so "bright" after all.

It has nothing to do with focusing through the lens. It has everything to do with limiting a 'portrait'-length telephoto lens to 'non-portrait' apertures. This would probably be the slowest of contemporary primes. The discussion is about whether that makes sense, and to whom this lens might be directed. I don't think you're educating anyone here about the principles of photography.

Whether or not this is a smaller lens than others in its focal length is another matter for discussion. It doesn't look appreciably smaller. Whatever. I'm not sure how small you need your lenses to be anyway. I routinely see petite girls carrying SLRs, while the rangefinder crowd whines about tiny RF lenses.

Your comparison of max apertures is sorta moot since you're not really talking about max apertures. We shall see if this f4 lens performs as well at f4 as it does at 5.6 and smaller, and also whether it performs as well as an f1.4, f2, or f2.8 lens does at f4. Whatever the results, f4 is still too limiting for my purposes.

Yes, for my purposes, "portrait lenses" do have to be sharp as hell. I don't like Olan Mills/Sears/Strip Mall portraits. I don't always shoot 'mature' women. And, again, there is also the 'added benefit' of a lens that opens wider, if the wider performance is less than when closed down. Shoot at wider/softer apertures for less harsh results. With your theoretical lenses that are consistent from 4-64, you have no such choice.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

That's the thing

That's the thing

I think this lens is meant more for a "traveller" photography... What I like a lot about Tessars is the bokeh and an extremely marked 3d rendering....

It seems most of the lenses being introduced lately are targeted toward the gear freak. RF guys tend to be the types to own multiple versions of the same focal length. A lens for low light. A lens for travel.... I just can't get myself to be one of those guys, even though i'm a self-confessed camera fetishist. I've been trying to reduce my kits/systems, and i can never justify having even two 50mm lenses for any given platform, even though that's my favorite focal length. I have a current 50cron, but i want to play with an Elmar or a Summitar. I have a 35/1.2 Nokton, but i'd love to try a Summaron. The guilt won't let me, though. I do 'compensate' in a way, by having (too) many different systems....

Yeah, i love the Tessar look. But, i'm not familiar with it in a telephoto. And, unfortunately, some of the out of focus character would be lost/minimized in this lens by its 'slowness.'

I don't yet have a tele for my Ikon. I had been considering acquiring one, but i don't really shoot landscapes. I'd want it for people, and for that purpose, i want one that does bokeh well. F1.4 or 2 makes much more sense.

 

[ferider]

Given that the Elmar design is very closely related to the Tessar, small the new Tessar is not. Compare to the 90/4 Elmar/Rokkor. Looks also larger than the 90/2.8 Tele Elmarit.

Roland.

 

[retow]

Please excuse me for being terribly rude, but are you people stupid?

Rangefinders don't need bright lenses beacuse you do not focus through the lens.

Lenses that are fast are bigger and heavier.

Slower lenses are not as 'unsharp' wide open as fast lenses are. Shooting a modern f2.8 lens at f5.6 or an f4 lens at f5.6 will give the same sharpness (or close enough).

Do portrait lenses need to be sharp as hell anyway? You probably won't be putting your camera on a tripod...

I do not remember having seen a poster shooting so clumsily into his own feet. I guess there is a lot to learn for you 😛

 

[jjovin]

I guess I will not be selling my Elmarit 90 for a long time.

 

[BillBingham2]

I'd pick up an old 90/4 from Leica, I loved that lens for sunny day and smallest possible travel kit needs. Otherwise it f2 all the way.

B2 (;->

 

[ZeissFan]

I would probably buy this lens. The Tele-Tessar should be a very good performer. I don't need the speed of the f/2.0 Sonnar, or at least I don't want to pay the price for the f/2.0 Sonnar.

If I buy something, I'd rather buy Zeiss and not an older lens.

To each his own.

 

[Krosya]

M-Hexanon 90/2.8 looking better and better 😉

 

[Cron]

oh yes!
M-Hexanon 90/2,8 - small and optical very very nice

 

[ZeissFan]

For the classic Contax, in the 85mm focal length, Carl Zeiss (Jena) used to offer two versions. The premium lens was the f/2.0 Sonnar while the budget offering was the f/4.0 Triotar.

The Tessar appears to be smaller than the Sonnar. And being a Tele-Tessar design, it should be a better performer than the Triotar (a triplet). That said, the postwar Triotar was a very decent performer, especially for a triplet.

As for the 0.9 meter close focusing distance, that's not bad at all, considering that some telephoto lenses won't focus closer than 5 or 6 feet and sometimes double that. I don't understand the complaint about the minimum distance being 0.9 meter.

It will be interesting to see some photo samples and to receive user reports. Right now, there are only some Web photos of the lens and a lot of speculation.

The pricing seems to be in line with its other lenses for the Zeiss Ikon.

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

FWIW, I've never found the .9m minimum range on the 90 Hex to be a limitation.

As far as the DOF at F4, at .9m, the DOF is 2cm. Unless you are going for the one eye in focus one eye out look, 2cm DOF will still allow you to do all sorts of lovely portraits.

 

[Avotius]

About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.

Without that closer focus distance I would have never got the shot the way I did. Even when I was using an old Elmar lens that had a 1 meter mini focus I kept hitting the limit. For me its either getting the shot or not.

 

[blackcoco]

Let's just wait to see how sharp this lens can be.I only care about it,and the resistance of flare of cause.

 

[Overconfidence]

About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.
Without that closer focus distance I would have never got the shot the way I did. Even when I was using an old Elmar lens that had a 1 meter mini focus I kept hitting the limit. For me its either getting the shot or not.

I'm sure if you shot it on APS film you'd be able to focus close enough too.

 

[joachim]

About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.

Without that closer focus distance I would have never got the shot the way I did. Even when I was using an old Elmar lens that had a 1 meter mini focus I kept hitting the limit. For me its either getting the shot or not.

The camera you are using is an SLR not a rangefinder. Close up is typically not the strength of a Ranger. I would say, the kind of picture you are showing is not a matter for a Ranger, use the right tools for the task at hand.

On the other hand SLR 85 or 90mm primes typically have a close focus in the 0.8m to 1m range. If you had a full frame camera you would have needed a Macro lens.

In my view the 0.9m on the Tele-Tessar is industry standard for what it is. If you are troubled by this (which you have every right to be), the Ranger is just not the right camera for you.

 

[nyx]

I still don't see why would anyone choose this over Macro-Elmar-M...which is close to perfect in all regards and going at similar price used.

 

[wlewisiii]

About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.

Sounds to me like you need to invest in a view camera but if an DSLR is a must, then perhaps a macro lens would help? But a regular lens on a RF probably isn't going to help you make that kind of shot very much, less than .9m focus or not...

If I had a M-mount camera, I'd be all over this lens. Perfect daytime short tele for a rangefinder camera. Wish there was a C mount of it & the current Sonnar... 😉

William

 

[Pavel+]

a 50 on a crop camera only makes the fov the same as 80. for dof ... it is not even close to being a 80.

 

[ZeissFan]

William, if you ever find one at a reasonable price ($150 or less), pick up the postwar Triotar. Very nice lens, reasonably sharp corner to corner and a good performer overall. It's smaller and lighter than the f/2.0 Sonnar.

Another underrated lens is the f/4.0 135mm Sonnar. I've used the old nickel and brass version (for the Contax I), the heavy brass and steel (Contax II) and the postwar Carl Zeiss lens. All three are great performers. I like the postwar version because it's a coated lens and also because it's not nearly as heavy as the earlier models.

 

[wlewisiii]

ZF, I've always kept a lookout for one though I got stone cold lucky and won a pre-war CZJ 85/2 Sonnar for $150 on a second chance. OTOH, since that's an uncoated lens, I still look for a post-war Triotar because of the virtues you mention. I've got a really fine 1960 J-11 so I don't look too hard for an "official" one.

Seems to me that the recent ZI lenses have really followed the best instincts of the Contax days in terms of having a level of absolute performance ($$$$) and a level of reasonable cost & size. If I could afford to, I'd be a very happy camper with a ZI & the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.5 & 85/4.

Now, if they'd just come out with an M-mount collapsible 50/3.5 Tessar (in black & nickel?) ... 😱 :bang: :angel:

William