Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Zeiss Contax

Zeiss Contax Forum for the classic Zeiss Contax I, II, III, IIa, IIIa , G series, and if you want to push it, the nice Contax point and shoots. Some spill over from the Kievs, the Soviet copy of the Contax II/III can also be expected. Plus the ONLY production camera ever made in classic Zeiss Contax Rangefinder mount WITH TTL metering ... the Voigtlander Bessa R2C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Zeiss 85/2 or one of Leica's 90's
Old 01-22-2012   #1
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 52
Zeiss 85/2 or one of Leica's 90's

Hello everybody,

I am searching for a nice portrait lens for my NEX actually, maybe to be used with a M-mount GXR. So things like rangefinder focusing are not an immediate issue. I was contemplating either the Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar with adapter or the thin Leica Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8. Any opinions ?

Regards, Stefan
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #2
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,198
Summarit 90/2.5 is also excellent option. becomes quite long on NEX though, so perhaps 75 instead.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #3
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 52
I like the 85/90 lenses on crop cameras since I like tighter portraits. I am looking at something within a reasonable price range, that's the reason why I did not consider the Summarit.
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #4
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
... within a reasonable price range, that's the reason why I did not consider the Summarit.
Have you checked the price of the Sonnar??
It's the most expensive lens after the Summicron.
If speed is not an issue and price is, I would go for the VC 90mm, the summicron-c f/4, or even the great 100mm f/3.5 canon.
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #5
ramosa
Registered User
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,007
Most recent version Elmarit 90. Why Leica ever discontinued it, I will never understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #6
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
 
ottluuk's Avatar
 
ottluuk is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Age: 31
Posts: 505
By your signature, you already have a 90/4, so I guess you want a fast lens rather than another small one. Going straight to f/2 makes quite a bit of sense then. There are various LTM lenses to choose from: Canon 85/1.9 and 100/2, Nikon 85/2 and 105/2.5, Komura 105/2 (not so easy to find). Also, the older Summicron 90 lenses in short (Visoflex) focus mount sell for less than a Tele-Elmarit in nice condition. The trick is to find the right adapters.

Regarding the thin Tele-Elmarit, be careful. Apparently they suffer from etching in the rear cemented element which manifests it as a haze (but you can't clean it off). I've seen quite a few "hazy" TE-s on offer on the web.
__________________
Ott Luuk

------------------------------
GRD III | 40D | M4 | 3,5C

Tumblr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #7
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 62
Posts: 3,080
I would take the 85/2 Zeiss in a heartbeat if I had the money to spare. My 90 is the E46 recent Elmarit - very nice. Prior to the Elmarit I used the M-Hexanon 90 which I really liked too. Would like an extra stop, sure, who doesn't?
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.


Fuji X
Leica M
Canon EOS
Hasselblad 503CW
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #8
BobYIL
Registered User
 
BobYIL's Avatar
 
BobYIL is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,266
My experience: The following lenses deliver excellent quality with affordable prices: Elmarit 90/2.8 V1, Elmarit-R 90 V1, G-Sonnar 90 and Nikkor 105/2.5. As you are going to use rather the mid-portion of their illumination circles on a NEX, I believe they will perform to satisfy your expectations.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #9
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,335
If you have a snug budget but still want the speed i would suggest a ltm Nikkor Sonnar f2/85. Great sonnar rendering and well priced giving a nice value.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #10
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,908
Yeah, I would choose a Sonnar/Ernostar f2 variant too, because they tend to be smaller, and you already have a 90/4.

The two that come immediately to mind are Nikkor 85/2 LTM and Summicron 90/2 v3. The Nikkor is quite heavy, the Summicron will be easier to handle. The Nikkor 105/2.5 is quite big.

Not a Sonnar/Ernostar, but very compact with great rendering is the Heliar 75/2.5, still available new.

There are a bunch of 85/2 Ernostars in SLR mount, good quality and compact. My OM Zuiko comes to mind.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #11
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,554
FYI -

There are two Nikkor 85/2 LTMs on KEH right now - a bargain one for $325 and an excellent condition one for $525.

Since you don't need accurate rangefinder coupling, the Jupiter 9 may also be an option though those are pricey enough now that jumping to something higher end may make sense.

Edit: Actually the J9 may be more available there or with cheaper shipping than to the US. They can be excellent lenses if you can find a known good one. I think the focusing issues on a Leica are the main reason they aren't more popular.
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #12
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,908
Adorama has an "E" Nikkor 85/2 as well, for US 399.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #13
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 52
I already had some lenses in this range : Planar 85/1.4, Planar 100/2, Summicron-R 90/2 pre-ASPH and the CV90/3.5. So yes, I am looking at something faster than my Elmar-C, but I could live with something like a 2.8. Problem is my budget does not allow for something spectacular and expensive. This is the reason I was looking at these two alternatives. The Canon and Nikkor LTM lenses are hard to find around here and getting them from overseas costs a lot. I found some information about the Tele-Elmarit, but rather scarce info about the Sonnar.

Regards, Stefan
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #14
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
I already had some lenses in this range : Planar 85/1.4, Planar 100/2, Summicron-R 90/2 pre-ASPH and the CV90/3.5. So yes, I am looking at something faster than my Elmar-C, but I could live with something like a 2.8. Problem is my budget does not allow for something spectacular and expensive. This is the reason I was looking at these two alternatives. The Canon and Nikkor LTM lenses are hard to find around here and getting them from overseas costs a lot. I found some information about the Tele-Elmarit, but rather scarce info about the Sonnar.

Regards, Stefan
It's a funny discussion, since as noted, the GXR has a 1.5x crop an hence 85s and esp 90s are well beyond a portrait FOV.

For APS-C the best portrait FLs are 50-60.

Do you want a lens for portraits, or an 85-90?

With the GXR it won't be both.


Since we are in the zeiss/contax forum, I'd say the sonnar 50/1.5 from the 50s or earlier will be a better portrait lens than any 85-90 you can think of, and better yet the nikkor 5cm f/1.4 which I think is the best lens for protraits you can put on an aps-c sensor

the amedeo adpater will get all the contax and nikon RFs to M mount, if the LTM prices are scary.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #15
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Do you want a lens for portraits, or an 85-90?
Both, as under portrait I understand a tight head portrait. I have shot all SLR lenses I mentioned before ( except the CV90 ) o FF and was always at MFD and wanting to get in closer, so know I want a portrait lens in this range for my crop camera . It's a simple matter of preference
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #16
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
I already had some lenses in this range : Planar 85/1.4, Planar 100/2, Summicron-R 90/2 pre-ASPH and the CV90/3.5. So yes, I am looking at something faster than my Elmar-C, but I could live with something like a 2.8. Problem is my budget does not allow for something spectacular and expensive. This is the reason I was looking at these two alternatives. The Canon and Nikkor LTM lenses are hard to find around here and getting them from overseas costs a lot. I found some information about the Tele-Elmarit, but rather scarce info about the Sonnar.

Regards, Stefan
In this case you will be choosing a lens for smaller size. I also own the Contax 1.4/85 and 2/100. You won't do better IMO but, you may get a smaller lens. The Konica M hexagon f2.8/90mm is an Ernostar and a fabulous lens. Much more compact than any of your current reflex lenses. It's modern in rendering and has a fantastic build quality. Finding one in Germny should not be the problem finding a Nikkor may be. Also since you use a mirror less the J9 would be a very inexpensive solution. It does not focus correctly for RF coupling but you won't have a problem on NEX or GXR. That lens goes usually under 100EUR.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #17
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,453
How about the Contax G 90/2.8 Sonnar? It is an awesome lens and it is light and small.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #18
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
 
ottluuk's Avatar
 
ottluuk is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Age: 31
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
I already had some lenses in this range : Planar 85/1.4, Planar 100/2, Summicron-R 90/2 pre-ASPH and the CV90/3.5. So yes, I am looking at something faster than my Elmar-C, but I could live with something like a 2.8. Problem is my budget does not allow for something spectacular and expensive. This is the reason I was looking at these two alternatives. The Canon and Nikkor LTM lenses are hard to find around here and getting them from overseas costs a lot. I found some information about the Tele-Elmarit, but rather scarce info about the Sonnar.

Regards, Stefan

The modern ZM Sonnar 85/2 is spectacularly expensive. 2000€+, maybe a lot more since it's discontinued and not many were made I guess.
You might want to trawl around leicashop.com. A little while ago they had a couple of Canon 85/1.9s, a bunch of the original, non-tele Elmarit 90/2.8-s and a Komura 105/2, all for under 400€. And a dizzying amount of other stuff. They are based in Vienna and shipping within EU is reasonable. (no affiliation; bought from them, fast service, item as described)
__________________
Ott Luuk

------------------------------
GRD III | 40D | M4 | 3,5C

Tumblr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #19
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
Both, as under portrait I understand a tight head portrait. I have shot all SLR lenses I mentioned before ( except the CV90 ) o FF and was always at MFD and wanting to get in closer, so know I want a portrait lens in this range for my crop camera . It's a simple matter of preference
ah.. you like a 135 for your portraits


Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
How about the Contax G 90/2.8 Sonnar? It is an awesome lens and it is light and small.
a bit over sharp wide open maybe? How is the bokeh on that one, hopefully better than the very harsh 45 and 28. Very good value at around 175-225USD, that's for sure--but how does he use it on his GXR? Is there a contax G to M adapter?

how about this:



or perhaps:





the portrait lens that made nikon's reputation.

or if you are feeling lucky, you might find a mechanically solid:

or just save time and get a canon 85/2

this all assuming you want things a bit forgiving wide open--as classic portrait lenses are...but since you like an EFL of 135--maybe you want to see those tiny pores too?

OK my final and best suggestion: nikkor 8.5cm 85/2

Rock hard glass, zeiss performance, at a price between the canon and the real contax zeiss.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #20
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
It's a funny discussion, since as noted, the GXR has a 1.5x crop an hence 85s and esp 90s are well beyond a portrait FOV.

For APS-C the best portrait FLs are 50-60.

Do you want a lens for portraits, or an 85-90?
Not true at all - not even nearly. This is personal opinion being stated as fact. For a long-time the classic "portrait lens" range (and lenses to suit) have been considered to be the 90mm-135mm range in 35mm field of view terms. There are innumerable 135mm lenses considered to be "portrait" lenses and the OP has already stated they prefer a tighter crop, so why make our own limitations theirs ?

This is therefore NOT a "funny discussion" at all. It is a reasonable discussion based upon the OP's requirements and the history of photography rather than your own beliefs.

Indeed, some "fashion" photography shoots (many of which are a less-tight crop than a head-shoulders portrait) are conducted with a large aperture 200-300mm lens (obviously at a longer distance than normal). This is also to be "allowed" !
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #21
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS View Post
Not true at all - not even nearly. This is personal opinion being stated as fact. For a long-time the classic "portrait lens" range (and lenses to suit) have been considered to be the 90mm-135mm range in 35mm field of view terms. There are innumerable 135mm lenses considered to be "portrait" lenses and the OP has already stated they prefer a tighter crop, so why make our own limitations theirs ?
90-135? are you high? just kidding.

give me a break, the classic portrait lenses are 75 to 105--is that controversial now?

Of course you can shoot a portrait with anything from 12 to 400mm or more.

The most coveted portrait lens on earth today?

The helios 40--one stop at fred miranda will tell you that. The most most poplular? the roki 1.4, both 85 of course.

sheesh.

PS 135 is longest lens that will even couple on an RF----what is the latest zeiss or leica 135 portrait lens?

in fact let's just quote leica:
"The new 75 mm Summarit-M replaces the portrait focal lengths of 90 -100 mm for digital use"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #22
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
9
The most coveted portrait lens on earth today?

The helios 40--one stop at fred miranda will tell you that. The most most poplular? the roki 1.4, both 85 of course.

sheesh.
And for good reason, it's a magic lens. For the OP, you can have it in M39 (the Helios 40) or M42 (the 40-2).



A bit front heavy on a u4/3 or APS-C camera though

For the OP, if the Nikkor is hard to find, I repeat, try the Summicron v3, should be available somewhere used in Germany. And much smaller than earlier versions, since Leitz moved from double Gauss to Ernostar from v2 to v3.



Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #23
kzphoto
Registered User
 
kzphoto's Avatar
 
kzphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,180
The v3 summicron is phenomenal. Prices are creeping up into the 1200+ range. The 90/2.8 Hexanon is great, expect to spend 500-600 for a clean copy.

As a heads up, If you're running into the MFD of your lenses at 1 meter or .9m, the only 90 that focuses to .7m is the newer 90 Macro Elmar-M.

If you're using the lens on a GXR, consider the OUFRO. Basically an M extension tube. Will let your 50mm lenses focus as close as 1 ft, if I recall. Could be fun with the 90 mm as well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #24
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,453









90/2.8 Sonnar (in Contax G mount)
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #25
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
90-135? are you high? just kidding.

give me a break, the classic portrait lenses are 75 to 105--is that controversial now?

Of course you can shoot a portrait with anything from 12 to 400mm or more.

The most coveted portrait lens on earth today?

The helios 40--one stop at fred miranda will tell you that. The most most poplular? the roki 1.4, both 85 of course.

sheesh.

PS 135 is longest lens that will even couple on an RF----what is the latest zeiss or leica 135 portrait lens?

in fact let's just quote leica:
"The new 75 mm Summarit-M replaces the portrait focal lengths of 90 -100 mm for digital use"
Controversial ? Yes - that's what I was saying. If you are going to include a 75mm lens as a portrait and exclude a 135mm as a "classic portrait lens" that would certainly be a controversial viewpoint. The 3 most common portrait focal lengths (the "classics") are the high speed 85mm (often a 90mm on Rangefinders, sometimes - though far less often - an 80mm or a 90mm on an SLR), 105 and 135 lenses (Nikon's Defocus Control Lenses are available as a 105mm or a 135mm).

I don't know why we are bringing up 135mm lenses being hard to focus (or "couple" ) on a rangefinder when - to the best of my knowledge - none of the Sony Nex series or the Ricoh GXR are rangefinders, so it is an entirely irrelevant point . Your belief that a 90mm is not a portrait lens when it is on a crop camera is what we are discussing.

Maybe you are saying few people use 135mm lenses on a rangefinder due to this difficulty and that this somehow proves it is an inappropriate focal length for portraiture ? In which case, the SLR world say "Hello" to you.

I'm not sure if you even read the quote by Leica that you posted, but what they are saying is that on a Leica M8 (1.3x crop factor), the 75mm lens becomes equivalent to (replaces) the 90mm focal length which is often used as a portrait lens. This has not been in dispute by either of us ... 90mm is an appropriate focal length for portraiture (along with the other "classic portrait focal lengths" of 75mm,85mm,105mm and 135mm). This is simple history, though it may be of greater familiarity to somebody who knows something of SLR's rather than just Rangefinders.

At least you now acknowledge that ANY lens can be used as portraiture, which is radically different from your prior (erroneous assertion) that a 135mm equivalent is "well beyond a portrait FOV" ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
It's a funny discussion, since as noted, the GXR has a 1.5x crop an hence 85s and esp 90s are well beyond a portrait FOV.
... which is simply what I corrected you on. So, it appears we are now in agreement.

PS - Leica has their Apo 135mm lens, so that would be the latest "Leica 135mm portrait lens" - not that that is of any relevance to this discussion, but you asked the question, so ...
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #26
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 52
Thanks for the hints guys. I also had the Contax G 90/2.8 on the NEX, but found it flimsy to focus with the adapter ( didn't try the Metabones one ). Also, I would rather keep only one legacy mount to the NEX, and that would be the M-mount, just in case the next generation of NEX cameras does not support WA lenses that good and I have to switch to Ricoh.
I think I should have specified this, but I when I was asking about the 85/2 Sonnar, I was thinking about the old Sonnar for Contax rangefinders, to be adapted with and Amedeo adapter, not the ZM 85/2 that is out of the question.

Regards, Stefan
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #27
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,357
I've only used three rangefinder 90's. M-HEX.. great lens and has slide out lens hood. Contax-G.. Great lens, but not such a great choice when focusing with the NEX adapters. Leica 90mm f/2.0 APO ASPH .. the sharpest and largest of the bunch.

The NEX E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 gets rave reviews.. and considering the mediocre E-Mounts out there..this is good. Supply should loosen up soon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #28
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7
The most coveted portrait lens on earth today?

The helios 40--one stop at fred miranda will tell you that.
And for good reason, it's a magic lens.
Seconded:


(And on a Nikon, too )
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #29
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 35
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
... and I have to switch to Ricoh.
if you stick to SLR lenses, like Leica-R or Minolta MD, there are adapters to use it on the Ricoh, too.

Well, and here comes my recommendation: Minolta 85/1.7 for a smooth rendering, 85/2 for exceptional performance at f2.

I also have the Hexanons and have a hard time deciding between the 90/2.8 Hex and the 85/2 Minolta, both superb lenses, but the latter one being a bit smaller and lighter and of course a stop faster.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #30
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS View Post
Controversial ? Yes - that's what I was saying. If you are going to include a 75mm lens as a portrait and exclude a 135mm as a "classic portrait lens" that would certainly be a controversial viewpoint. The 3 most common portrait focal lengths (the "classics") are the high speed 85mm (often a 90mm on Rangefinders, sometimes - though far less often - an 80mm or a 90mm on an SLR), 105 and 135 lenses (Nikon's Defocus Control Lenses are available as a 105mm or a 135mm).

I don't know why we are bringing up 135mm lenses being hard to focus (or "couple" ) on a rangefinder when - to the best of my knowledge - none of the Sony Nex series or the Ricoh GXR are rangefinders, so it is an entirely irrelevant point . Your belief that a 90mm is not a portrait lens when it is on a crop camera is what we are discussing.

Maybe you are saying few people use 135mm lenses on a rangefinder due to this difficulty and that this somehow proves it is an inappropriate focal length for portraiture ? In which case, the SLR world say "Hello" to you.

I'm not sure if you even read the quote by Leica that you posted, but what they are saying is that on a Leica M8 (1.3x crop factor), the 75mm lens becomes equivalent to (replaces) the 90mm focal length which is often used as a portrait lens. This has not been in dispute by either of us ... 90mm is an appropriate focal length for portraiture (along with the other "classic portrait focal lengths" of 75mm,85mm,105mm and 135mm). This is simple history, though it may be of greater familiarity to somebody who knows something of SLR's rather than just Rangefinders.

At least you now acknowledge that ANY lens can be used as portraiture, which is radically different from your prior (erroneous assertion) that a 135mm equivalent is "well beyond a portrait FOV" ...



... which is simply what I corrected you on. So, it appears we are now in agreement.

PS - Leica has their Apo 135mm lens, so that would be the latest "Leica 135mm portrait lens" - not that that is of any relevance to this discussion, but you asked the question, so ...
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.

I shoot portraits with my 28 all the time, but I don't call it a portrait lens, nor would anyone else who works for a lens manufactuer.

However the distinction between the historical meaning of the term and the fact that you can shoot portraits with a 1500mm seems too much for modern thinkers.

I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #31
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
if you stick to SLR lenses, like Leica-R or Minolta MD, there are adapters to use it on the Ricoh, too.

Well, and here comes my recommendation: Minolta 85/1.7 for a smooth rendering, 85/2 for exceptional performance at f2.

I also have the Hexanons and have a hard time deciding between the 90/2.8 Hex and the 85/2 Minolta, both superb lenses, but the latter one being a bit smaller and lighter and of course a stop faster.
If I would take SLR lenses into consideration I would probably pick up either a Sonnar 85/2.8 as a lightweight version, or a Leica 90 Cron - I liked that lens very much, even if it was 1 stop slower than the 85 Planar that replaced it.
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #32
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.

I shoot portraits with my 28 all the time, but I don't call it a portrait lens, nor would anyone else who works for a lens manufactuer.

However the distinction between the historical meaning of the term and the fact that you can shoot portraits with a 1500mm seems too much for modern thinkers.

I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.

Except that I am on the "historical side" (75mm to 135mm are the "classic" portrait lengths) and you are saying that a 135mm is unsuitable:

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
It's a funny discussion, since as noted, the GXR has a 1.5x crop an hence 85s and esp 90s are well beyond a portrait FOV.
You can argue the minutia all you want about a 105mm being acceptable and "classic" for portraits, and 135mm being too long, but I would LOVE to play that game with you ... where does it switch ? 108mm is acceptable but 120mm isn't (115mm is borderline "classic" and 118mm is "Rennaisance" ?).

No one has mentioned 1500mm lenses (do you REALLY need to make ridiculous and spurious overstatements to cover the fact that your argument is worthless), but I have certainly mentioned 200mm and 300mm being used by portrait and fashion photographers. If you believe that "smashes subject's faces" then don't do it - but acknowledge other people (being paid very well to do this for a living) disagree with your "black and white"/"right and wrong" assessment. Maybe they know what they are doing even if it is different from what you would do ?
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #33
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
 
batterytypehah!'s Avatar
 
batterytypehah! is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 1,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.

[...]

I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.
Maybe it's intentional, maybe not. The fact is you do come across as nasty in your posts, even when you claim to be apologizing. It's distracting and doesn't serve the discussion.
__________________
WANTED: Fujimoto/Lucky 70M negative carrier

“Hair-splitting, of course. But hey, it's a LEICA. Probably there are those who get excited about the colour of the hairs you split.” – Roger Hicks

Contax IIa + Leica IIIf + M3 (project) + Zorki-1 (project) + Fuji GS645 + FED-2 + Vitomatic II + Revue 400SE + Olympus XA + more + still more
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #34
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 52
I have not heard anything about the old Contax Sonnar lens. Would be interesting bcause they seem to be somehow not considered in the forums. The japanese variants of the Sonnars are, since those were available in LTM, but the Zeiss somehow is neglected. Maybe I should simply give it a try. Problem is, right now I ca not afford experiments, since buying and selling costs time and money

regards, Stefan
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #35
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,198
yes Japanese lenses often came with LTM-option, while legendary Zeiss, that was what everybody else copying, only Contax.

Amadeo adapter is highly regarded here in RFF, most Contax lenses work on correct adapter, except some wide ones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #36
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by batterytypehah! View Post
Maybe it's intentional, maybe not. The fact is you do come across as nasty in your posts, even when you claim to be apologizing. It's distracting and doesn't serve the discussion.

Thankyou. However it is pretty clear who and what he is. A "Troll" will start an argument for the sake of it, not acknowledge any flaws in that argument (no matter how clearly presented) and try to get people riled for maximum impact ... Hell, in another thread, he even tried resorting to reversing things completely and attributing MY arguments to himself and using them against me, whilst attributing his own argument to myself. At first I was upset (it was such a bizarre and unprecedented experience) but then I realised that it was a deliberate Troll (or someone acting as such to cover an irrational argument which their fragile Ego is unable to relinquish). He wants and needs attention - I've decided he won't get it. I do appreciate the support, but please don't bang your head againt a brick wall - he just is what he is and he probably can't even help it ... donations are surely accepted somewhere for this kind of "condition" ... I'm only just starting to learn (too late) that arguing with a dumb person is just, well, "dumb" !
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #37
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS View Post
Except that I am on the "historical side" (75mm to 135mm are the "classic" portrait lengths) and you are saying that a 135mm is unsuitable:
I implied 135mm was beyond the FL which is considered a "portrait lens"

I was wrong. Alot of people think 135 should be in there, and there are several specialized 135 portraits lenses.

Though I own 8 135s, including a soligor 135/2, I did not know this.

I was wrong

I was wrong

I was wrong

I was wrong

k?



Quote:
Originally Posted by batterytypehah! View Post
Maybe it's intentional, maybe not. The fact is you do come across as nasty in your posts, even when you claim to be apologizing. It's distracting and doesn't serve the discussion.
Was meant as humor, sorry.

I do think the idea that a portrait lens is any lens you shoot a face with is ridiculous.

I find it interesting that those most infuriated by my comments seem to have offered no suggestions whatever to the OP. Call me what you want, but I thought about his questions and answered it with a number of suggestions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #38
roboflick
Registered User
 
roboflick is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
Hello everybody,

I am searching for a nice portrait lens for my NEX actually, maybe to be used with a M-mount GXR. So things like rangefinder focusing are not an immediate issue. I was contemplating either the Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar with adapter or the thin Leica Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8. Any opinions ?

Regards, Stefan
I bought a jupiter 9 from fedka.com for around 100 dollars, beautiful lens with nice multicoatings and fully serviced, no focus play and beautiful glass. Beautiful sharp portraits with superb bokeh and isolation of the subject.

I no longer have any desire for the zeiss lens. not for 5 times the price You wont get that silky feel of focus and magnificent german build quality however. But it is 90 percent there, in build and 100 percent there optically

Nik
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #39
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
 
batterytypehah!'s Avatar
 
batterytypehah! is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 1,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I do think the idea that a portrait lens is any lens you shoot a face with is ridiculous.

I find it interesting that those most infuriated by my comments seem to have offered no suggestions whatever to the OP. Call me what you want, but I thought about his questions and answered it with a number of suggestions.
I've already told you in the other thread what I think about your latest remarks.

And no, you did most certainly not answer the OP's question, at any point. He was asking about 85/90 lenses and explained that he was aware of the crop factor and liked it, but that didn't keep you from veering off on your own little crusade for the one true portrait lens. You have some nerve to be playing the victim now.
__________________
WANTED: Fujimoto/Lucky 70M negative carrier

“Hair-splitting, of course. But hey, it's a LEICA. Probably there are those who get excited about the colour of the hairs you split.” – Roger Hicks

Contax IIa + Leica IIIf + M3 (project) + Zorki-1 (project) + Fuji GS645 + FED-2 + Vitomatic II + Revue 400SE + Olympus XA + more + still more
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2012   #40
David Murphy
Registered User
 
David Murphy's Avatar
 
David Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: California
Age: 59
Posts: 2,301
The Tele Elmarit is a nice lens, compact and light, but somewhat prone to glass problems (haze). The 80mm F2 Sonnar for Contax rangefinder is a masterpiece of optical and mechanical engineering (there are pre-and post-war versions, the prewar versions are uncoated, but still pretty damn good). A worthy alternative to the Sonnar is the 85mm F2 Nikon lens. Nikon and Contax RF mount versions of the Nikkor 85/2 exist, and are not too hard to find.

None of these lenses are inexpensive, but they are worth the money!
__________________
Canon L1, Leotax S, Bessa R2C, Konica Autoreflex T, Canon FX, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT-101, Nikon F, Exakta VX, Miranda Automex II, Leotax K3, Yashica Mat LM, Leotax S, Pen FT, Rollei 35S, Ricoh Singlex TLS

http://legacycamera.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:29.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.