contax 85/1.4 or smc takumar 85/1.8

[RemcoR]

I can't seem to make a choice between these two. Never seen a direct comparison. The takumar has no mtf info (please no comments on how useless mtf is). They both have something special, I know this from my two contax lenses, but have not seen it in quite the same way from my Pentax lenses.
The Tak is much cheaper still.

So, any thoughts esp. regarding the Tak's microcontrast, 3D qualities? Is it comparible to the Contax?

RemcoR

[ManualFocus-G]

The Takumars don't have the micro contrast of the Contax Zeiss lenses. They still look beautiful and render wonderful images however I've never owned a Takumar 85/1.8, just used someone else's briefly I'd never replace my Contax Planar 85/1.4 with another 85mm lens however, unless I needed AF

[Gardener]

I just think it's not a test many people would conceive. Planar vs. Nikkor 85/1.4, or Canon FD 85/1.2, or Sigma 85/1.4 or ZE/ZF Planar - that I can understand. Tak, to me, belongs with the rest of the 1.8-2.0 crowd.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I had a Takumar 1.8/85 and sold it for a profit. Not because it wasn't good, it was, but it had nothing about it that made it stand out, it was competent in all regards, stood out in none, which kinda sums up all Taks really.

[hoanpham]

get the Zeiss first, prefer the MM version, then the takumar.

There are several takumars:
- super tak 85/1.9
- s-m-c tak 85/1.8
or Pentax smc K 85/1.8

There are several other 85 that worth to hunt for:
Pentax A*85/1.4, Pentax FA*85/1.4, and the other 85mm's that had been mentioned in earlier post

[kds315*]

As much as I like my Takumar 1.8/85mm, I'd also go with the ZEISS

[Tedat]

[visualopsins]

[RemcoR]

Thank you all for your comments. They confirm my own feelings (or fears). Contax number 3 it is.

RemcoR

[Attila]

They are not in same league, I had almost all Takumar and so many other lenses , most used portrait lens by me is Planar 85mm f1.4

[pinholecam]

I only have a Pentax FA*85/1.4, so I don't know about the CZ85.

For the Tak 85/1.8, I have the K85/1.8 which is supposed to be the same optically.

These are generally 2 very different type of lenses.
the f1.8, f1.9, f2 type 85mm are far more portable (ie. smaller/lighter).
I like them for travels or a day out.
The 85/1.4, I tend to use for specific photo shoots (usually ending up as model shoots)



With the K85/1.8

DSC0940820140531ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr



Under the shade of solace by jenkwang, on Flickr



Warmest Smile by jenkwang, on Flickr


With the FA*85 (though not all are f1.4)

Graziella #2 by jenkwang, on Flickr



Mayara #4 - Fall by jenkwang, on Flickr



Rabbit -Emily Soto theme #1 by jenkwang, on Flickr

[RemcoR]

Please don't post any more pics from the FA*85, I know it is outstanding but out of my reach, unless I sell my car and then some. I just might if you post any more. The MF Pentax A*85/1.4 was on my radar too, but same story. I have seen a comparison test of this lens with the Canon 85/1.2. The Pentax won. Enough said.

All the same, I believe the Contax 85/1.4 is a more versatile lens. Apart from portraits, I expect it to be better suited for landscapes because of the microcontrast I also get from my Contax 35-70 and 50/1.7.

RemcoR

[RemcoR]

I have read the MMG version of the Contax 85/1.4 is (much) sharper than the MMJ version, in this test below anyway. It is in Italian but the translation makes a good job of it. It seems it isn't a sample variation, but it occurred several times.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_85_1,4_lemon/00_pag.htm

Is it something to take into consideration when I go hunting for the Contax85/1.4?

RemcoR