back alley
IMAGES
i plan on saving for this lens. i have no need for fast glass and i like the look of all my zm lenses.
Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85/4? What the heck?
- Thread starter CK Dexter Haven
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 59
- Views 12K
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I hadn't thought about it till now, but yeah, I can see that joe. This is probably the best short tele out there for your look & style. Probably not use it often but when you do ... 😀
William
William
Rico
Well-known
I have two Elmar 90 lenses: the 3-element, and the collapsible. They are weightless in my bag for daytime walkabout, and DOF @ f/4 is as shallow as I want for portrait.
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
I am one of those CK Dexter talks about LOL and I welcome this lens to complete my Zeiss kit to use with my CLE/CL's
In Voigtlander I have 21mm, 28mm, 40mm and 90mm
In Leica I have 28mm, 40mm 90mm (Sold the Leica 21mm was too big)
In Minolta Rokkor 28mm, 40mm 90mm (Shame they never made a 21)
In Zeiss 21mm, 28mm, 40mm (Rollei Zeiss) and now thay offer a new compact 85 to complete that set. This is great news, the Zeiss have their own character traits its nice to have a matching short tele.
This lens isnt a great suprise however, Tom and many other predicted a slower 85. The f2 was simply too large and expensive so a smaller and cheaper ZM 85 was definitely on the cards.
ferider
Veteran
Why wouldn't you get the 80 Planar instead, Joel ?
Just wondering.
Roland.
Just wondering.
Roland.
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
Roland, with only 40 Black ones ever made I have never even seen one in real life!
awilder
Alan Wilder
Above all I think Zeiss is keeping with the the original Contax rf focal length and speed approach to these lenses, the only difference of course being improved optical performance where stopping down isn't needed for great imagery. The choice really comes down to lightest possible weight and lowest cost vs high speed with very high cost in the 85 mm class. This approach was similar to the old Contax RTS lens line up where two focal length offerings differed by 2 stops such as the 35 and 85 f/1.4 or f/2.8.
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
You should be able to get sharp results far slower than 1/500th? I know everyone is different in terms of shakes, stability etc. With a 90mm, 1/125 should be plenty crisp and 1/60 workable for some. When I saw a test of a camera on tripod vs handheld shots at various speeds, I was amazed to see how once the speed was about double 1/FL i.e. 1/125 for a 50mm, the tripod made little real difference. Beyond that it made no difference at all and at the fastest speeds was sharper due to no resonance as can be an issue with some tripods (and more SLRs I guess with the mirror flappig about). 1/250 on a 85 should be very crisp indeed even under less than ideal shooting circumstances.
ZeissFan
Veteran
The great thing about the capitalist marketplace is that if you don't like a product, you don't have to buy it. There are plenty of other choices. So if this lens isn't your thing, that's great. There are still lenses from Leica, Voigtlander and Konica.
By the way, I tried to repeat my f/4.0 85mm Carl Zeiss Triotar (a triplet) test with the f/4.0 9cm Elmar (also a triplet). I got variable results from the Elmar. It probably wasn't a fair test, because the Elmar is a prewar lens while the Triotar is a postwar lens.
Regarding sharpness, one of the problems I had was with the Leica IIIf and trying to focus. Apparently, my eyes aren't what they once were, and that tiny little peep hole doesn't work that well for me. The unified rangefinder/viewfinder of the Contax is a better tool for me when it comes to focusing.
Still, the Leica IIIf is a wonderful camera to use, as long as you understand its limitations and quirks. But more on that later.
By the way, I tried to repeat my f/4.0 85mm Carl Zeiss Triotar (a triplet) test with the f/4.0 9cm Elmar (also a triplet). I got variable results from the Elmar. It probably wasn't a fair test, because the Elmar is a prewar lens while the Triotar is a postwar lens.
Regarding sharpness, one of the problems I had was with the Leica IIIf and trying to focus. Apparently, my eyes aren't what they once were, and that tiny little peep hole doesn't work that well for me. The unified rangefinder/viewfinder of the Contax is a better tool for me when it comes to focusing.
Still, the Leica IIIf is a wonderful camera to use, as long as you understand its limitations and quirks. But more on that later.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
My post-war Elmar is a Tessar variant. With regards to focusing through the RF peep-hole, a newish beam splitter makes a world of difference. The 1.5 diopter corrected magnification makes for spot-on focusing.
I've used the ZI Contax II and must say that focusing is not only spot-on, but more of a normal look through for modern day photographers. That said, I still prefer the ergonomics of the IIIf or better yet the IIIg. To each his own I guess.
My own preference again, as I do have a 85/2 Nikkor in LTM, but on a Barnack it is too heavy and bulky. It works well with the M3 though.
ath
Well-known
kram
Well-known
Andreas , what I want to know is... what other new ZM lens is there, in the glass cabinet next to the above? F1.2 50mm? f1.4 35mm? Don't tell me this 85mm is the BIG news from zeiss.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Yep a great user lens is always big news. 😀 YMMV of course :angel:
(grinning, ducking & running)
William
(grinning, ducking & running)
William
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I did have the opportunity to handle and shoot a couple of frames with the 85f4 at Photokina. Nice enough lens, odd hood that does not reverse. I did suggest this to Zeiss/Cosina and maybe they will do a reversible version. Initially I was dissapointed with the f4 aperture, but in retrospect, there are lots of 2.8's out there if one needs it, so why not.
The design philosophy seems to be the same as for the Biogon 35f2.8 - make a highly corrected, compact lens without the complications of high speed with its problems of size, price and image quality. For that they already have the 85f2.0!
Is it only me, but do you see a Tessar type 50f2.8 in the future?
Zeiss know how to design lenses, the 21f4.5 C Biogon proves that and the C Biogon 35f2.8 is a very good lens in its own right and there is a place for lenses like these. Small, compact, highly corrected and "reasonably" priced (at least in todays market with m mount lenses going for premium prices, both new and used).
The trick is to judge your own needs. How often do you shoot at f1.4 or f2 and if you use digital Rf's - hogher ISO's can compensate for a slower, but lighter lens too.
I can see the 85f4 being useful as a "sunny day" lens - or, if the performance at f4 is spectacular enough, even as a compact portrait lens. Hmm, a small portable kit consisting of the 21f4.5, the 35f2.8 and the 85f4 and the ZM body, backed up by a R4M body for the 21f4.5 does cover a lot of ground and it is still cheaper than a Leica MP and a similar package of used M-lenses (21/2.8, 35f2.8 and a TE 90f2.8).
The design philosophy seems to be the same as for the Biogon 35f2.8 - make a highly corrected, compact lens without the complications of high speed with its problems of size, price and image quality. For that they already have the 85f2.0!
Is it only me, but do you see a Tessar type 50f2.8 in the future?
Zeiss know how to design lenses, the 21f4.5 C Biogon proves that and the C Biogon 35f2.8 is a very good lens in its own right and there is a place for lenses like these. Small, compact, highly corrected and "reasonably" priced (at least in todays market with m mount lenses going for premium prices, both new and used).
The trick is to judge your own needs. How often do you shoot at f1.4 or f2 and if you use digital Rf's - hogher ISO's can compensate for a slower, but lighter lens too.
I can see the 85f4 being useful as a "sunny day" lens - or, if the performance at f4 is spectacular enough, even as a compact portrait lens. Hmm, a small portable kit consisting of the 21f4.5, the 35f2.8 and the 85f4 and the ZM body, backed up by a R4M body for the 21f4.5 does cover a lot of ground and it is still cheaper than a Leica MP and a similar package of used M-lenses (21/2.8, 35f2.8 and a TE 90f2.8).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A point that no-one has made yet is that this is a Tele-Tessar in name only; actually, it's not a tele lens at all.
Like Tom, I've tried it (I used the M8, for a portrait), and although I'm not sensitive to bokeh -- it has to be really good or really bad before I notice -- I did actually notice the quality of the out-of-focus image, which is superb.
And I'm told that there are more Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses in the pipeline...
Cheers,
R.
Like Tom, I've tried it (I used the M8, for a portrait), and although I'm not sensitive to bokeh -- it has to be really good or really bad before I notice -- I did actually notice the quality of the out-of-focus image, which is superb.
And I'm told that there are more Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses in the pipeline...
Cheers,
R.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
Tom A said "Is it only me, but do you see a Tessar type 50f2.8 in the future?"
A new 50/2.8 Tessar would be sorely tempting to me.
I wonder if the hood for the 35/2 Biogon would fit on 85/4 Tele-Tessar?
In a small kit, I'd hate to carry more than one hood.
A new 50/2.8 Tessar would be sorely tempting to me.
I wonder if the hood for the 35/2 Biogon would fit on 85/4 Tele-Tessar?
In a small kit, I'd hate to carry more than one hood.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Drool... I'd have to buy an M body then... Find a used R2 maybe... But man, I'd love a modern well corrected Tessar.
William
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
You made that point here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=896618&postcount=15 two weeks ago and people commented.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks for the reminder. I had quite forgotten. Which is no surprise seeing I've since spent a week at photokina; written about 10,000 words of show reports for Shutterbug; and sorted maybe 100 photographs (from several hundred of my own, and from press CDs, etc.)
I meant, of course, that no-one had pointed this out in the thread in question. But your point remains valid.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Hacker
黑客
I know quite few people who have them (I own a NOS black one and a chrome one which I sold as I preferred the black), so I think this is not correct. The factoid I believe referred to lenses sold independently from the body.
Similar threads
