Why are there so few "cheapo" 85mm lenses?

pst · Expire: 2013-08-17

Looking trough the "sales" corner on some photo forum I found a lot of M42 lenses. In it there was a 35mm, two 135mm and a 200mm lens. All "no-name", well at least nothing I had ever heard of.

...It came to me; Why are there hardly any cheapo 85mm lenses. Like all those rebranded no-name lenses. You can find plenty in 28, 35, 50, 135 and also 200. But where are the 85s?

Sirrith · Joined: 17 Sep 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Hong Kong

Quite a good question, I've often wondered that myself... Seems like the 85's are some of the most expensive I've seen in fact.

WolverineX · Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject:

my guess is that 85mm was usual focal length for portraits, so lens makers made those lenses extra quality lenses, hence higher price tag

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Plus they are usually fast, and non-50mm fast lenses are expensive regardless Smile

RTI · Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau

85ish and 100mm are quite expensive focal lengths, as it has been mentioned, being mostly portrait lenses - suitable both for FF and APSC form factors. 135mm is kinda more tele on 1.5 crop, a 50 "nifty-fifty" being a normal lens on FF and AFAIK isn't a proper portrait lens even on a cropped body, having some perspective distortions.

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

50 is 75mm on a crop body, and looks perfectly fine as a portrait lens as far as I can see.
Zeiss sold their Biotar 75/1.5 as a portrait lens after all.

Lots of 55mm and 58mm lenses around too, and the equivalent focal length is that much more - 82.5 or 87mm is right in 35mm portrait lens territory.

The only problem is that you need more aperture for the same DOF, if thats an issue. You need roughly an f/1.2 55mm on APS-C to match the DOF of an 85mm f/2 on 35mm.

My guess on the lack of cheapo portrait lenses is that its hard and expensive to make a decently performing one with sufficient aperture to be attractive. 135/2.8 is easy to make, good ones can have just 4 elements.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I think it is, as Luis says, cost to produce.

Most makes made 135mm lenses with both 3.5 and 2.8 speeds, the 3.5s are often 4 element tele-tessar types, the 2.8s are usually 5 element Sonnar types.

The Sonnar design is not cheap to produce.

Thinking of 85mm lenses, there was the Triotar 4/85 which is a triplet, and then the Sonnar 2/85 which is 5 elements, the Sonnar would have cost a lot more to produce. I know the 2/85 Sonnar is a superb portrait lens, don't know about the Triotar, it's a sharp lens with little distortion even at f4, but how it's rendering works for portraits I have no idea.

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

AFAIK, all the 135/2.8's (and 135/3.5's) I've disassembled had 4 elements.

Even some quality ones like the Nikkor-Q only had 4 elements - I've had one apart recently.

Maybe the more expensive ones had five (maybe also the Takumars, etc.), but I only work on the cheap stuff.

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

I want to know which 135/2.8 are Sonnar! Very Happy

Let's remember in the 85mm range are the 90/2.5 macro lenses (Tamron, Vivitar, etc.) which make great FF portrait lenses.

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

Having just bought a SP Tamron 90/2.5 my first lens in that range.I can see why they are expensive...however I did pick mine up for under $90au.I certainly won't be letting this lens go...maybe that's why there are not a lot out there as they are just kept by the original owners?

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

Hey nice pick up Mo. I've never heard of anyone disappointed in that lens. Great price you got it for as well. Smile

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Enjoy that lens Mo, it's a cracker. And that was a really good price if it's in good nick

patrickh

peterqd · Expire: 2014-01-04

The cost of manufacture is a factor, but that isn't the real reason why 85s are so expensive. You'd never sell an expensive, high quality, lens (or anything else) unless someone was prepared to pay for it. The price is set by supply and demand. What we should be asking is why is there such high demand for 85mm lenses.

std · Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 1827 Location: Bulgaria

There are some cheap russian 80 and 90mm (volna-3 and vega-12) but those are medium format lenses so they are normal focal length for 6x6 format.

pst · Expire: 2013-08-17

Isn't it possible to make a Gaussian type lens? Somehow change a 50/1.4 into a 85/2 or so...?

noddywithoutbigears · Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:16 am Post subject:

I think it's just down to market forces, 85mm is not that bigger than a 50-55mm where as a 135mm is, lenses have always been a costly purchase, so your not really going to buy a new lens close to the one you already own unless it's for a specific application. Lens manf. make lens which will sell and maybe the 85mm is seen as a more specialised lens with less demand, so subsequently they make a more limited run. The Pentax M 50mm f1.7 is a excellent lens which there must have been 100,000 + in it's production run, hence cheap and readily available but the 85mm f2 was probably only in the 1000s so rare and expensive. Of course I maybe completely wrong. Laughing

hoanpham · Expire: 2015-01-18

Cheapest among 70-77-80-85-90-100-105 lenses can be one of the medium format lenses. 80/2.8 used to come as a kit. Like Pentacon6 lenses, I use them with adapter.

Second cheap I found is the macro lenses: tamron sp 90/2.5 1:2, tamron af 90/2.8 1:1, sigma af 105/2.8 macro. I got these lenses cheaper than the pentax M 85/2. The af are made by plastic.

Also the 100-105mm are in general a bit cheaper than 85mm.

Do we need faster than 2.8? Not really. I use them most at f4 and f5.6, but also with exception. A f1.4 lens step down to f2 or f2.8 gives razor sharp results.

The 85mm's stay, last to go.

Minolfan · Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3436 Location: Netherlands

Most amateurs in the old days choosed for 135 for a first extension of their gear. The 135 was sold a lot more then 80 -100mm.
For crop cameras that range is very attractive now. Few to find and a lot of interested buyers makes higher prices.
And the profi purchased the expensive fast lenses, ofcourse they are regarded now and get high prices!
The cost of producing 85-ish lenses is for an important part the effect of lower numbers made.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

My guess is along the lines of what people have already mentioned --- supply and demand. Not many 85's were sold, I think. Yet, since it is one of the traditional 120 format normal lengths, the basic designs had been worked out - the same for 105's. Therefore they tend to be quite good -the same way 50s tend to be good. Then you get the lux makers seizing the opportunity and adding cachet...

I think it's true that in the Nikon world, the 105 was the preferred portrait lens, and therefore much more common now than their 85's?

Back some 15 years ago when I went looking for a fast short tele for my OM, Keh priced the Zuiko 85/2 for less than the 100mm... but I'm thinking I must have been looking at the 100/2 rather than 2.8 Laughing

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 2877

Let's look at Canon FD lenses:

FDn 85mm/f1.8: 6 lenses/4 groups, price at introduction 45 000 Yen.
FDn 100mm/f2.8: 6 lenses/5 groups, price at introduction 34,500 yen
FDn 135mm/f2.8: 6 lenses/5 groups, price at introduction 35,000 yen

Based on that, there is not much difference in manufacturing complexity between these lenses. 100mm/f2.8 is the cheapest to make as it requires less glass (it's the lightest of the 3). The used market prices are completely upside down from that, with 100mm/f2.8 being a lot more expensive than 135mm/f2.8 and 85mm/f1.8 being almost double the price of 100mm. This pricing is driven by the number of the lenses on the used market, not by anything else.

Now the number of the lenses on the used market is driven by original pricing. 135mm was the best deal of the 3, so was bought by all the amateurs and is available in large numbers. My guess is that higher pricing for 85/1.8 was set only by marketing considerations. The lens is most useful for indoor portraiture, which often means studio work, hence wealthier target market.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

yes, you do remember for 100mm f2 I think too Laughing

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

pst · Expire: 2013-08-17

True, if I were shopping for only one lens above 50 the 135mm makes most sense. If I were to buy two lenses 100 + 200mm would make most sense. Maybe that's why Nikon sold more 100/105 lenses.

avidone · Joined: 17 Jul 2011 Posts: 15

my feeling is that this is definitely a supply and demand sort of thing, ie. lower supply originally making higher demand/ higher prices now. Even on lenses reasonably close to each other in quality, eg. 135mm/f3.5 Jupiter 37a lenses are all over the place and available in mint condition for very little. I think I got my 1980 Olympic model new old stock for like 35 euro on fleabay and recently I grabbed another good condition one for 12 euros I think at a thrift store. I have NEVER run across 85mm lenses in thrift stores and the Jupiter 9 (85mm f2) I got off the bay was in great condition but a bit over 100 euro. Still a bargain for that kind of quality IMHO, but absolutely cheap it is not

When I see people on eBay or in classifieds trying to sell complete SLR film kits, they are almost always camera/ 50 (or 55 or 5 Cool

/135/28
Like 85's, 35's seem to be harder to come across and more expensive. I guess to most amateur shooters with limited funds, 28/50/135 gave a better spread and "bang for the buck"

It is a luxury that we can buy these lenses now for what are still great prices even after renewed demand (like from people here Wink

) has brought the prices up. I love my Jupiter 9 and Jupiter 37a both on my APS-C DSLRs and can't wait for my new old 5d classic to arrive to try them on that. Pity I will not be able to also enjoy my Mir1sh (37mm/f2. Cool

on it, since it is reported to hit the mirror.