A Bad 85MM

[GrahamR]

Hey question,i've read through the forum and seen mentioned a few times that mostly it's hard to find a bad 135mm ,and that most companies perfect that focal length,i've heard 50mm as well but mostly 135mm.

Is it generally the same for the 85mm as well,has anyone encountered really poor performing 85mm,is there anything to generally avoid .

Thanks

[Oldhand]

85mm is often thought of as a traditional portrait length for 35mm photography.
It is also not a bread and butter lens from manufacturers, but something of a particular lens for this specialist area.
Now portraits can be quite beautiful with glow or softness, and some lenses in this focal range will exhibit this.
Compared to other razor sharp 85mm lenses they will not win a "lines per millimetre" competition.
This doesn't make them bad, just different.
There could be variations in bokeh of course, but that can be controlled with thoughtful background and subject placement.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that there are probably few bad 85mm lenses, just degrees of difference.

Happy snaps
Tom

[iangreenhalgh1]

There are some bad 85mm projector lenses, bad in that they are low contrast, muddy colours and exhibit a lot of red/green CA in the out of focus areas, they are simple triplets.

[Lightshow]

Some manufacturers seem to treat 85mm(70-110mm) like the flagship lens of the lineup, they put more effort into getting the rendering they want, which is generally sharp and nice bokeh, some prefer a slightly soft plane of focus so the subjects skin doesn’t show every blemish, others want it capable of landscapes, so sharp and contrasty, just do your research before buying.

[GrahamR]

Thank you all once again for the knowledge,i'll keep the research going then.

[luisalegria]

Matter of taste and desired outcomes really.
More than sharpness usually is the nature of the bokeh.
You have creamy, you have swirly, you have hard edges, and etc.
The only thing, probably, that doesn't matter that much are corners, given the subjects intended.

Best maybe is to get a reasonably cheap one in the middle of the decent range and see if you like or have a need for an 85mm. There is nothing like trying. The cheapest of these thats a proper large aperture portrait type is, probably, the Nikkor-H 85/1.8 , as its very common, Nikon made lots of them, they are always available. You should be able to get one for $150-180 or so, maybe less.

Its a very fine, very neutral sort of portrait lens, though there are slightly better ones if you are into pixel-peeping. But in its day it was THE pro 35mm camera portrait lens. Thousands of 1960s-80s fashion photographers took and published pictures of millions of models with these things. It was more than good enough. Its what Hemmings had on his Nikon F in the famous scene with Veruschka in Antonioni's "Blow-Up" - for a reason.

A great thing also about well known lenses (assuming they are in good shape) is they are very easy to resell if they don't suit you.

Its possible that such a type of lens just doesn't suit what you like doing, or have an opportunity to do. Personally I haven't really had much use for these things - not being into taking photos of Veruschka or her sisters - though I've had a fair number pass through my hands. I still have a Zeiss Biotar 75/1.5 that I don't use enough, and a couple of the Nikkors.

[Oldhand]

Good points Luis.
I think that Verushka would be hoping for an 85mm lens with glow and softness for her portraits today.

Tom

[luisalegria]

Tom,
Theres always the vaseline on the UV filter trick, Bob Guccione style!

[kansalliskalaCafe]

Buy 2 Jupiter 9:s you get a good one and a bad one.

[calvin83]

I have bought a few Jupiter 9s. I like the RF one made in early 1950s rather than the fat SLR version.

[jamaeolus]

For some reason that FL tends to be much more expensive for the classic era lenses than other common FL such as 50, 35, 28 or 135. (I term the classic era as when good multi-coated optics had arrived but before the plastic craze swept the industry). As stated before check your target lenses reputation online. Or ask here. I am not a portrait taker to any extent but for certain situations that FL just works for me. I have the Canon FD 1.8, a Rolleinar in QBM 2.8, the Super takumar 1.9 the CZJ Tessar 80mm 2.8 and likely others I can't think of right now.

[stevemark]

[e6filmuser]

[luisalegria]

"but by far the worst lens in that range is the Biotar 1.5/75mm! "

From a professional point of view, that could be true.
Its been much more of a collectible than a "working" lens.
Its not been pro equipment since the 1960's. Its an antique.

The Biotar is not at all a "neutral" lens, as a lens with "character" it has that weird distracting bokeh and other effects that will give inconsistent and unpredictable results. The Nikkor-H is much more normal and predictable, and this was especially important in film days, when the last thing you wanted was unpleasant surprises after the shoot. Though of course these days even those old pro Nikkors are no longer professional equipment.

The Biotar can be very sharp wide open in the center, though it has substantial field curvature.

It was never designed for color film though I can't say I've noticed a color cast on Pentax bodies. I have to try it on Sony.

[jamaeolus]

Yes that Biotar is a horrible lens. If you have one just drop in the post to me I will dispose of it for you, properly.

[woodrim]

The Biotar flaws that Stephan mentions are what makes it attractive today. I don't know that there was ever a time when flaws were so desirable. I would desire to have that lens along with its flaws.

I agree with Luis about the Nikkor; I have that lens and think it is quite good. The Samyang 1.4/85 is priced along those lines also if you don't mind a plastic, modern lens. When mentioning glow, I immediately thought of my Meyer 3.5/80 Primotar.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I had a Minolta that glowed like that... before I cleaned the fungus out of it.

[stevemark]

[stevemark]

In addition these images don't show a trace of swirley bokeh ... in fact the bokeh shown above is very smooth, not really a Biotar bokeh ?!?

Are you sure these are Biotar 1.5/75mm images??

They look VERY different from my Biotar images!!

Stephan

[iangreenhalgh1]

They are with a Meyer 3.5/80 Primotar and yes, they do look like the lens is dirty or fungused.

[woodrim]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Haze will have the same effect - a diffuse specular glow most visible on bright areas, it's due to light scattering caused by the haze, fungus or fine scratches. So many older German lenses have been ruined by these defects because they often used glasses that were quite soft and prone to being damaged.

[tb_a]

[Marek]

My Enna 85/1,5 Lithagon or Ennaston copy is pure shit. Buyers to beware.

I've heard there are lemons among newer black Jupiter 85 lenses too but never had an opportunity to see thank God.

[woodrim]