View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pooschey
Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 21
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:30 am Post subject: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) |
|
|
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? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mal1905
Joined: 30 Oct 2008 Posts: 1705 Location: Dublin, Ireland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mal1905 wrote:
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
Seriously though, neither lens will disappoint you, they're both really good _________________
Canon EOS 5D / EOS 40D
Carl Zeiss Jena: Flektogon 2.8/20, 2.4/35, 2.8/35, Pancolar 2/50, MC 1.8/50, MC 1.8/80, Triotar 4/135, Tessar 2.8/50, S 4/135 1Q, S 3.5/135, Sonnar 3.5/135 MC, 2.8/180, Biotar 2/5,8cm, 2/58, 1.5/75
Carl Zeiss: Distagon 2/28 T*, 1.4/35 T*, Ultron 1.8/50, Tessar 2.8/50, Planar 1.4/50 T* MM, 1.7/50 T* MM, 1.4/85 T* AEG, Sonnar 2.8/135 T*
Asahi Optical Co.: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 4.5/20, 3.5/24, 3.5/28, 2/35, 3.5/35, 1.4/50, 1.8/55, 1.8/85, 2.8/105, 2.8/120, 2.5/135 I & II, 3.5/135, 4/150, 4/200, 4/300, 5.6/400, 4/45-125, 4.5/85-210, Super-Takumar 4.5/20, 3.5/24, 3.5/28, 2/35, 3.5/35, 1.4/50, 1.8/55, 2/55, 2.8/105, 3.5/135, 4/150, 4/200, 4.5/70-150, Fish-Eye-Takumar 4/17, Macro-Takumar 4/50, Super-Macro Takumar 4/50, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-Takumar 4/50, 4/100, Bellows-Takumar 4/100, Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 3.5/50, 2.4/58, 3.5/100, Asahi-Kogaku Tele-Takumar 3.5/135, Auto-Takumar 2.3/35, 3.5/35, 1.8/55, 1.8/55 (Zebra), 2/55, 2.2/55, 1.8/85, 2.8/105, 3.5/135, Takumar 4/35, 2.2/55, 2/58, 2.8/105, 3.5/135, 3.5/200, 5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 5.6/200, 6.3/300, SMC Takumar 1.4/50, 1.8/55, 2/55, SMC-M 1.4/50, 1.7/50, 2/50
Tomioka: Tominon 2/5cm, Auto-Chinon 3.5/21, 1.4/55, Auto-Yashinon DS-M 1.2/55 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10469 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
Mal wrote: |
The simplest suggestion I can offer is to sell your car/house/other valuables, and buy them both |
+1 _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pooschey
Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 21
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pooschey wrote:
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? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 Posts: 1397 Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ylyad
Joined: 01 Jun 2010 Posts: 476 Location: Zentralschweiz
Expire: 2013-12-05
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) |
|
|
ylyad wrote:
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. _________________
Camera: Fuji X-E2, Fuji X100T
MF: Canon nFD 50/1.4, Canon nFD 100/2.8, Tokina RMC 135/2.8
Tamron SP 24-48/3.5-3.8
http://www.flickr.com/derdide/
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ersatz
Joined: 29 May 2010 Posts: 45
|
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) |
|
|
ersatz wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pooschey
Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 21
|
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:03 am Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 or Takumar 85/1.8 (1.9) |
|
|
pooschey wrote:
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. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rolf
Joined: 02 May 2009 Posts: 4123 Location: NRW/Germany
Expire: 2015-12-26
|
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________ Rolf |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pooschey
Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 21
|
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
pooschey wrote:
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.
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
Rolf wrote: |
Sooner or later most of us will go for CZ. |
...or Leica....or both |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tkbslc
Joined: 02 Jul 2009 Posts: 194 Location: Utah, USA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Canon 30D + some AF and MF lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pooschey
Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 21
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
pooschey wrote:
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...
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. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ersatz
Joined: 29 May 2010 Posts: 45
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
ersatz wrote:
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? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cobalt60
Joined: 01 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: Central Europe
|
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cobalt60 wrote:
"[...] 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 _________________ Visit the Yashica Information Site! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
triton76
Joined: 17 Jun 2010 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: Sonnar 85 vs Planar 85 |
|
|
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) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ash
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 Posts: 185 Location: Evanston, il, usa
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:45 am Post subject: Re: Sonnar 85 vs Planar 85 |
|
|
Ash wrote:
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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pst
Joined: 25 Aug 2010 Posts: 108 Location: Austria
Expire: 2013-08-17
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
pst wrote:
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) _________________ Regards, Patrick. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
s58y
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 Posts: 131 Location: Eastern NY
Expire: 2013-09-10
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
s58y wrote:
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. _________________
flickr photostream
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|