Portrait lens for Zeiss Ikon?

[Alex Krasotkin]

Guys, what will be the best solution to buy a portrait lens for Zeiss Ikon? Original 85/2 is a real strip off (price announced is almost $3000). For example, used Summicron 90/2. In this case, what will be the frame shown in ZI viewfinder?

Appreciate your ideas.

P.S. For the time being I am planning to buy ZI+25/2.8+50/2. I will temporarily skip on buying 35/2, since I have Konica Hexar AF with very nice 35/2. Also what are the handicaps of using 25/2.8 without external viewfinder except not seeing the framelines?

Alex

[ZeissFan]

You could always consider the Rollei f/2.8 80mm Planar. I would think it would bring up the 85mm framelines, but I don't have this lens, so I can't say that is a certainty. Cost is about $1,200 or so.

I have the same combo that you are considering. An excellent choice. I've been chronicling my experience with the camera and lenses on my site (http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon).

[Alex Krasotkin]

Thank you very much, Mike. I follow your site news on a regular basis. Can your advise me on my quiestion re 25/2.8 (in my first message)?

[Huck Finn]

Interesting question, Alex. I'm wrestling with the same thing.

First, to answer your question, the 90 Summicron will bring up the 85 frame.

Here are my candidates for the portrait lens:

Rollei 80/2.8 - It's a Zeiss design, so it keeps you in the family. It's a Planar, which is unusual to find in a Zeiss portrait length lens. I've spoken either in person or on the internet with several people who own this lens & no onwe has a single bad thing to say about it. In fact, just the opposite: they rave about it, some calling it the best lens they've ever used, including their Leicas. Its only drawbacks that I know of is the minimum focus distance (1.2 m), which is longer than most, so you need to know if this fits your shooting style, & the size 77mm & 470g. For me, this focal length is more likely to get used in every day shooting, but it's a little short for a true portrait lens. I don't know what frame it brings up, but since it's LTM, changing the adapter to a 90 will bring up the correct frame if the 80 adapter doesn't.

Leica 90/2 ASPH - Measured by Pop Photo at 88 mm, it's the best match for the 85 frame except for the Zeiss Sonnar. A superb lens from everything I've seen. The only criticism I've read is that it may be a little too sharp - a factor in portraiture. About the same size & weight (78mm, 500g) as the Rollei Planar despite its longer focal length.

Konica M-Hexanon 90/2.8 - Measured by Pop Photo at 92 mm, it's on the longish side as a match for the 85 frame on the ZI, so it will take some learning to use it properly. OTOH, it's more compact (69mm, 330g) than any of the other options. Although not designed by Zeiss, it is a Sonnar-type (Ernostar) design, so it is a Zeiss derivative & keeps you in their family more or less. It has received numerous excellent reviews by users. It can be purchased new at www.photostop.net for $900 USD if it can't be found used.

CV 75/2.5 - Measured by Pop Photo at 77 mm, it is a longish 75 or could be considered a short 80, which makes its use with the 85 frame a possibility - no different than trying to work with the longish 90 M-Hexanon, but coming at the 85 frame from the other direction. It is LTM, so a 90 adapter will bring up the correct frame even if the 75 doesn't. It is the most compact choice (230g & 64.5mm with hood), so it's a good walking around lens, but probably not the best for true portraiture. It has excellent optics & an economical price tag. I'll be working with this for a while since I already have it.

There are many other choices, of course, but these are the ones at the top of my list.

Cheers,
Huck

[FPjohn]

Hello:

You have an abundance of choices from Summarex to Summilux and all between. I might suggest you try a 90mm Elmar-in my hands it passes the girlfriend/spouse test at f4-5.6.

yours
Frank

[blee017]

There are several versions of 85mm LTM lenses made by Canon and Nikon as well.

John

[jano]

I was looking forward to that 85.. but $3k! :eek:

[FPjohn]

Hello:

My apologies-I did not mean to imply only Leitz/Leica glass.

yours
Frank

[Huck Finn]

I was looking forward to that 85.. but $3k! :eek:

The 85/2 Sonnar is an expensive lens, but it is not $3K. A lot of this talk is fueled by the over-the-top prices in America, where the MSRP is $2760. However, the price in England is $2436 USD, and grey market prices in America should be at least $200 less than that, bringing it closer to $2K that $3K.

Huck

[ZeissFan]

The 85mm Sonnar uses a design (floating elements) that Cosina cannot handle. Hence, it's being produced in Germany at Zeiss's Oberkochen facility, I believe. Note that the price reflects 1) complex design and 2) cost of German labor.

I've given some though to buying a Contax to M adapter and using my old Contax RF lenses. Still would like to do that so I could do some side-by-side testing.

[jano]

bringing it closer to $2K that $3K.

Okay, to repharse..

I was looking forward to that 85.. but $2k! :eek:

:D I guess I'm just not used to dropping that kind of cash/credit/dough/clams/debit yet. New car will have to wait. :p

[MP Guy]

I know this portrait was not done with the Ikon. But it was a Zeiss 35. Regardless. Its incredible!

http://contaxg.com/document.php?id=23186

[Huck Finn]

Okay, to repharse..

I was looking forward to that 85.. but $2k! :eek:

:D I guess I'm just not used to dropping that kind of cash/credit/dough/clams/debit yet. New car will have to wait. :p

Jano, I'm with you. I'm not about to drop $2K on a lens any more than I am to drop $3K. :D

Huck

[Huck Finn]

I know this portrait was not done with the Ikon. But it was a Zeiss 35. Regardless. Its incredible!

http://contaxg.com/document.php?id=23186

Yes, Jorge, incredible is the word. I can see every thread in the fabric & every hair of his moustache & beard.

Huck

[Alex Krasotkin]

Dear colleagues,

thank you very much for sharing your ideas anf thoughts!

Best regards,
Alex

[Palaeoboy]

If you can avoid it never buy a camera product the moment its released. Prices always come down dramatically when they realize what the market is prepared to pay. Waiting also has a secondary benefit especially when buying Leica in that they always come out with glitches in the first batch. I remember when the Nokton 40mm came out as another example, I was so excited about a new 40mm lens I ordered one before they came out. It arrived and it was the first batch that had really stiff focus and loose front. It was replaced with one from the 2nd batch which was redesigned. It does pay in more ways than one to wait.

[Huck Finn]

Joel. Leica's motto must be: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." You can pay early by suffering the glitches in the first batch, or you can pay later when they raise the prices as they now seem to be doing about every 6 months. ;)

Huck

[awilder]

A 90 Summicron would be ideal focal length simply because they are sharp, plentiful and cheap especially the E48 version. Don't worry about framing accuracy. In fact, the 85 frameline is a better match for a 90 because RF framelines normally show less than what the lens "sees" on film at all but the closest distances because framelines are callibrated for minimum focus where optically the lens has the narrowest field of view. Therefore the 85 framing will be better than 90 framing except at around 4 feet where the 90 mm lens will record a fraction less than the frame shows. At portrait distances of 5-7 feet framing will be just fine with a 90 using the 85 frame lines.

[awilder]

I'm sure a 90 would bring up the 85 frame on the ZM. Zeiss would be insane to do otherwise. Don't sweat it.

[scottmcl]

Don't overlook the current Leica 90/2.8. Used samples are priced reasonably, it's not too big and it's a good performer.

Scott

[Joe Brugger]

The Elmar-C and M-Rokkor 90/4 lenses are excellent and can be found for $200-$300. Imaging at f4 is fine for portraiture.

[Huck Finn]

I'm sure a 90 would bring up the 85 frame on the ZM.

You're exactly right. A 90 lens brings up the 85 frame.

[CJP6008]

The Rollei 80 2.8 (as released in limited numbers with the 35RF) came about, so the story goes, because Rollei had a box of elements for the TLR knocking about and they got used in that lens.

Do also consider the CV 90mm - got a rave review from Puts see http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigt2890.html

It has an angle of view (diagonal) of 27 degrees compared to the 29 degrees of the ZM85. (The CV 75 has and angle of view of 32 degrees.)

[Huck Finn]

The Rollei 80 2.8 (as released in limited numbers with the 35RF) came about, so the story goes, because Rollei had a box of elements for the TLR knocking about and they got used in that lens.

Do you have a link or reference for this story, CJ?

Just to quibble a little bit, the angle of view of the CV Heliar is actually 31 degrees because it's a "longish" 75 (measured at 77 by Pop Photo).

I agree that the CV 90/3.5 is another fine option of a telephoto on the ZI.

Huck

[CJP6008]

I am struggling to think where I heard that story. Might have been one of the guys at Robert White. Will look into it. Sounded plausible as only a set number of them were made and released and the focal length/speed looks awfully familiar... A great lens though.

I am sure you are right re the CV 75 - I just gave the figures that CV quote for it.

It strikes me as slightly odd that Zeiss did not make their lens a 90mm and the frames etc likewise - just from a marketing point of view. By opting for the M mount they clearly accept that their lenses will go on other bodies and other lenses on their bodies. From what we hear the Ikon is a good machine and a decent option for a second body for Leica users or a step up for CV users. It just might cost them a few sales amongst those who favour the longer focal lengths.

On a similar note, does anyone know what frame the CV 40mm Nokton would bring up on the Ikon or an M6/7?

[ZeissFan]

They probably made it 85mm, because that has been the Zeiss portrait lens for more than 70 years. The 90mm length is the Leica designation. Too many people approach this from a Leica mindset -- that focal lengths need to match up with Leica offerings.

The first "portrait" lenses made for the Contax I were the 85mm Sonnar and the 85mm Triotar. Both continued to be produced through the Contax II/II and the IIa/IIIa and the Sonnar was carried forward into the Yashica/Kyocera era. The Triotar ended with the Contax IIa series.

In fact, I don't recall Zeiss ever making a 90mm lens for the 35mm format. It would strike me odd if Zeiss made a 90mm lens.

[NoTx]

90mm F/2.8 Sonnar for the Contag G...

On the other hand, that always did seem odd:)

[NoTx]

Oh, and an odd thought. You could always buy a 90/2.8 Sonnar G and send it in for conversion to LTM. In the end it would be about $700. Which isn't all that astronomcal in this field.

[ZeissFan]

Well, that just proves how much long-term memory I've lost! Yikes. Of course, the Contax G system. I've already slapped myself twice.

[Edit: that would be one slap for stupidity and another for hubris.]

[RObert Budding]

Wow! I could never bring myself to pay more than about $700 for a lens for a 35mm camera. Much more than that and I can buy a nice used Zeiss lens for a Hasselblad.

Robert

[julianphotoart]

The ZI web-site says that the 85mm Sonnar is coming out the "end of 2005". Does anyone know what that actually means? I have not been able to find any definitive answer.

[Huck Finn]

The ZI web-site says that the 85mm Sonnar is coming out the "end of 2005". Does anyone know what that actually means? I have not been able to find any definitive answer.

It means December 31 . . . at least until the date is changed. ;) Anyway that's what Hasselblad told me when I asked.

Huck

[Huck Finn]

It strikes me as slightly odd that Zeiss did not make their lens a 90mm and the frames etc likewise - just from a marketing point of view. By opting for the M mount they clearly accept that their lenses will go on other bodies and other lenses on their bodies. From what we hear the Ikon is a good machine and a decent option for a second body for Leica users or a step up for CV users. It just might cost them a few sales amongst those who favour the longer focal lengths.

On a similar note, does anyone know what frame the CV 40mm Nokton would bring up on the Ikon or an M6/7?

You make a good point, CJ. Probably not the best choice of framelines from a marketing perspective.

From the beginning of the marketing campaign for this camera in August '04, when Zeiss was releasing teasers on their website every few days about the camera, they have repeatedly stressed that its strength is with wide angle lenses. And they have backed that up by releasing 5 of them vs only one in the telephoto range. So, I think that they designed this camera for the purpose of making it an ideal shooter for those wide angle lenses. Therefore, they designed a viewfinder that includes 28 mm framelines.

Now that I have one, one of the things that I really like about the ZI is that the framelines are unclutteres. On an M6 or a Hexar RF, every frame has 2 sets of framelines - & the pairings aren't necessarily ideal. On the ZI, the 28, the widest shares a frame with the 85, the narrowest. So maybe the choice of 85 was to provide a telephoto option without cluttering the viewfinder. Otherwise, they would probably have had to include both 75 & 90.

It's really not the hard to use another focal length with the 85. A 90 mm lens brings up the 85 framelines & I don't think that the the 5 degree difference at 85 - 90 is as great as 5 degrees is at 35 - 40. As you pointed out, it's only 2 degrees in the field of view. Another factor here is that the latest Leica 90 is actually 88 mm (Pop PHoto), so it will work just about as well with an 85 frame as with a 90. Further, it's a little easier to use wider framelines with a longer lens, i.e. 85 frame for 90 lens because the frame is only showing about 87% of what the 85 lens sees, which means that it is showing pretty close to a 90 mm field of view.

I think that a much stranger decision was for Konica to build the Hexar RF with a magnification of 0.6 & to then include 135 framelines. Even Leica drops its 135 frame with the .58 magnification because it's next to impossible to focus a lens that long with magnification this low & framelines so tiny.

BTW, I believe that the 40 Nokton brings up the 50/75 framelines on the M6.

Cheers,
Huck

[Doug]

On the ZI, the 28, the widest shares a frame with the 85, the narrowest. So maybe the choice of 85 was to provide a telephoto option without cluttering the viewfinder. Otherwise, they would probably have had to include both 75 & 90.And this is consistent with Leica practice as well, since on the M both 28 & 90 frames appear together... 35/135 and 50/75 being the other two pairings.
BTW, I believe that the 40 Nokton brings up the 50/75 framelines on the M6.I would thinks so too, as this is what the 40 Summicron & 40 Rokkor do. (But on the CLE a 35mm lens brings up its 28-only framelines which is the default, same for the 28 Rokkor or indeed no lens at all, and putting on a non-Rokkor 28mm adds the 90 frames along with the 28!)

[Huck Finn]

I would thinks so too, as this is what the 40 Summicron & 40 Rokkor do.

I should have said that I know that the 40 Nokton brings up the 50/75 frames on the M6.

Huck

[StuartR]

I think that a much stranger decision was for Konica to build the Hexar RF with a magnification of 0.6 & to then include 135 framelines. Even Leica drops its 135 frame with the .58 magnification because it's next to impossible to focus a lens that long with magnification this low & framelines so tiny.


I am glad that they did though! Many of my best shots in Iceland were taken using the Hexar RF and a 135mm f/4 tele-elmar-m. I agree that it is asking a lot, but these were landscape shots mostly taken at infinity for the most part. These two were taken with the 135 at f/4 with the Hexar RF though...they came out ok. But I agree that it is not a good choice for critical applications.

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/stranded-chick.jpg
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/puffins.jpg

[NoTx]

Cool:)

I like pufins... kind of like a North Hemispher Penguin...