Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9)
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:30 am    Post subject: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) Reply with quote

Hi, all

My first posting here since I discovered this forum.

I'm currently using a Sony Alpha 700 and have recently gotten a Pancolar 50/1.8 and Sonnar 135/2.8 from no-X.

I was looking around for an 85mm to fill the gap and the Takumar was one of the highly commended 85s. These are quite steeply priced too on ebay.

I've chanced upon a Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 (in M42 mount) for slightly less than a Takumar 85/1.9.

My question here is, beside the obvious faster speed of the Takumar, which lenses amongst these are the better ones?

Would you get the Takumar or the Sonnar?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome to MFlenses!

They're two completely different lenses, with completely different characters. The simplest suggestion I can offer is to sell your car/house/other valuables, and buy them both Twisted Evil

Seriously though, neither lens will disappoint you, they're both really good Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mal wrote:
The simplest suggestion I can offer is to sell your car/house/other valuables, and buy them both

+1


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's what I'm afraid of!

Help out a newbie here. What or how different are the individual characteristics of each lens? From my form search here, Sonnar has very good contrast. What else? Anyone who's sold cat or house for both can show some images?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if you can mount it on a Sony camera, but another 85mm worth checking, and much cheaper than those you mentioned, is the old Nikkor 85/1.8.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) Reply with quote

pooschey wrote:
Hi, all

My first posting here since I discovered this forum.

I'm currently using a Sony Alpha 700 and have recently gotten a Pancolar 50/1.8 and Sonnar 135/2.8 from no-X.

I was looking around for an 85mm to fill the gap and the Takumar was one of the highly commended 85s. These are quite steeply priced too on ebay.

I've chanced upon a Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 (in M42 mount) for slightly less than a Takumar 85/1.9.

My question here is, beside the obvious faster speed of the Takumar, which lenses amongst these are the better ones?

Would you get the Takumar or the Sonnar?

The Jupiter 9 (85/2) is also known to be a very good performer, and quite cheaper.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) Reply with quote

pooschey wrote:
Hi, all

My first posting here since I discovered this forum.

I'm currently using a Sony Alpha 700 and have recently gotten a Pancolar 50/1.8 and Sonnar 135/2.8 from no-X.

I was looking around for an 85mm to fill the gap and the Takumar was one of the highly commended 85s. These are quite steeply priced too on ebay.

I've chanced upon a Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 (in M42 mount) for slightly less than a Takumar 85/1.9.

My question here is, beside the obvious faster speed of the Takumar, which lenses amongst these are the better ones?

Would you get the Takumar or the Sonnar?


The takumar. The sonnar sound like the Rollei version and is not very good compared to the Contax one. The latter has an extra element (doublet rear element) and for whatever reason has much better contrast and sharpness. If it is indeed the contax version with a modified mount then I would opt for that.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:03 am    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) Reply with quote

The Sonnar is indeed the Contax one. There're also a couple of Rollei HFTs available. As I understand it, the HFT is essentially the same as the T*, and there's another Rollei branded as a Rolleinar MC, which maybe the one you refer to as being less than the T*? I see the MC going for considerably less money.


ersatz wrote:


The takumar. The sonnar sound like the Rollei version and is not very good compared to the Contax one. The latter has an extra element (doublet rear element) and for whatever reason has much better contrast and sharpness. If it is indeed the contax version with a modified mount then I would opt for that.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sooner or later most of us will go for CZ.

Best is to save money and buy some nice CZ lenses instead of too much other lenses.
Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, absolutely! CZ in native Alpha mount is much more than what these older CZ are going for.

Didn't you convert one of these Sonnar 85/2.8 to M42?

Rolf wrote:
Sooner or later most of us will go for CZ.

Best is to save money and buy some nice CZ lenses instead of too much other lenses.
Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolf wrote:
Sooner or later most of us will go for CZ.

...or Leica....or both Confused


PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly, in this price point, the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f1.4 is hard to overlook. Very nice optics, comes in native sony mount, and f1.4 is very fast.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a very good point and thanks for bringing me back to earth. In fact, I do have a really good Minolta 85/1.4 G RS, but it's back home in Singapore and I'm now working in Beijing. I came across this forum and got the GAS for M42.

I may have to re-consider the J9 again, just from a spending poin of view... Confused

tkbslc wrote:
Honestly, in this price point, the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f1.4 is hard to overlook. Very nice optics, comes in native sony mount, and f1.4 is very fast.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been looking for another 85/2.8 Sonnar and the going prices are steep. For another $100-150 USD I can get the 1.4 version. Was there something special about this lens makes it worth nearly as much as the 1.4 version?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"[...] 85/2.8 Sonnar [...] For another $100-150 USD I can get the 1.4 version."

Hmm ... the1.4 version is not a Sonnar - it's a Planar Razz


PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:19 pm    Post subject: Sonnar 85 vs Planar 85 Reply with quote

IMHO: get the Sonnar & if you can obstain from large aperture, do so & forget about the Planar. DOF @ 85mm is far to less to use it at closer distances wide open - and stepped down it will never reach the optical performance of the Sonnar.
I bought a Contax S2 for a solemn purpose: Sonnar 2.8/85 - only competitor is the (huge & tanklike build) Elmarit-R

to be honest: Zuiko 2/90 is better - no doubt ;o)


PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:45 am    Post subject: Re: Sonnar 85 vs Planar 85 Reply with quote

triton76 wrote:
IMHO: get the Sonnar & if you can obstain from large aperture, do so & forget about the Planar. DOF @ 85mm is far to less to use it at closer distances wide open - and stepped down it will never reach the optical performance of the Sonnar.
I bought a Contax S2 for a solemn purpose: Sonnar 2.8/85 - only competitor is the (huge & tanklike build) Elmarit-R

to be honest: Zuiko 2/90 is better - no doubt ;o)


Just a dumb question, people often tends to recommend sonnar designed lenses over any other thing. Could anyone tell why is that so? For example CZ 50/1.5 sonnar is one of the most sought after lens even though its not that sharp as its planar counterpart. But I know sharpness is not everything!


PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would recommend looking at some pictures. There are very many good pictures on this forum showing the different characters of the lenses. That helped me decide which 85's to get (and also which not) Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had all lenses what is mention here, CZ 85mm f2.8 Sonnar is one of the best lens, I rate higher than Takumar or Olympus OM 90mm Zuiko.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
I had all lenses what is mention here, CZ 85mm f2.8 Sonnar is one of the best lens, I rate higher than Takumar or Olympus OM 90mm Zuiko.


Of the lenses I has tested for astroimaging so far, the Contax 85mm f/2.8 has the best star images. These results are based on just one copy of each lens (from 85-180mm focal length), and the test images are taken at f/2.8.