A small, light and fast 85mm

[gnarayan]

I'm particularly fond of 85/90s and use an 85/f2 on my OM bodies most of the time. I'd like something around that length in LTM or M mount. So far my solution has been the Canon Serenar 85/1.9 but it gets very little use because its big and does not balance well on my M6TTL. Not a fan of its long focus throw either. So what <$500 alternatives exist with around the same aperture and focal length that are smaller, lighter and have a shorter focus throw than the Canon?

Cheers,
-Gautham

[Dave Wilkinson]

If you can find a GOOD ( the important bit! ) example, a Jupiter 9 -f2 can give exellent results for a lot less dough!, and being alloy, is light and handles well on an 'M'.
Cheers, Dave.

[ferider]

Jupiter-9 (very hard to get a good one) and the black (lighter than the chrome) Nikkor 85/2.

Cheers,

Roland.

[Krosya]

Jupiter 9 - if you can find a good one - fast, cheap and very good glass, when it is adjusted to focus correctly:

[Dave Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by ferider

Jupiter-9 (very hard to get a good one) and the black (lighter than the chrome) Nikkor 85/2.

Cheers,

Roland.

Roland......SNAP!

[Dave Wilkinson]

Welcome to the J9 appreciation society! .....but I actually found that on the odd occasions I used that length - I could live without the extra speed, and the VC Apo-Lanthar was the best thing since Jack Daniels!
Dave.

[gnarayan]

Thanks for the replies all. PHSNEs show is this weekend and I was going to go hunt around and wanted to know what to look for.

I'm not surprised by the J9 appreciation society - I remember B&W portraits using the J9 from Irakly Shandize where he compared it to the Summicron 90 and I was impressed.

To get a good J9 - straight from Fedka or are there other sources? What about the Nikkor? I'll keep an eye out at PHSNE for the latter but it sounds like it might not be worth getting a J9 from there with the QC unless I know it is a good copy.

[ferider]

IMO, the only safe way to get a working J9 is from somebody (here at RFF, for example) who can show you close up and infinity test shots.

Yuri/Fedka does infinity collimation only. They do not adjust focal length, which is necessary more often than not to get the majority of J9s out there into specs.

Do yourself a favor and look for the Nikkor. Less time wasted, plus it's sharper at f2 and very usable as a general purpose short tele f2.8 and up.

Your 85/1.9 Canon lens also came in lighter black, but is very difficult to find (and costs usually more than US 500).

I just got myself an 80/1.8 Komura lens, which fits your specs too, but haven't tried it out yet.

One lens that you might consider as well is the CV Heliar 75/2.5. Half a stop slower but affordable, very good optically and tiny !

One more piece of advice: your OM 85/2 is an Ernostar. If you want similar drawing, an Ernostar or Sonnar variant will give you that (including the Nikkor and J-9).

Best,

Roland.

[kully]

If you want small and light - forget the Jupiter-9 or other LTM 85s.

Get a 90mm tele-elmarit - small and lovely.

I think EmilGil here on the forum has one for sale.

[dexdog]

Canon 85/1.8 (black only) weighs in at 470 grams, significantly lighter than the 605 grams for the 85/1.9 serenar. IIRC, the Canon 85/1.8 weighs about the same as the Nikkor 85/2 black and chrome (I used a kitchen scale on my examples recently). The Canon usually sell for $400-$600, depending on condition. Both the Canon and Nikkor are excellent lenses

[kxl]

Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson

If you can find a GOOD ( the important bit! ) example, a Jupiter 9 -f2 can give exellent results for a lot less dough!, and being alloy, is light and handles well on an 'M'.
Cheers, Dave.

Getting a good one is such a crapshoot you might be out $500 before you actually do find one.

The only other option is to just go with a 90mm, which opens up the possibilities.

[Roger Hicks]

Make up your mind. Small and light OR fast. Though I don't find my last-series pre-aspheric 90/2, bought new 25+ years ago, unnecessarily big.

Jupiter-9s are wonderfully romantic but seldom all that sharp. Even a perfect one is fairly soft at f/2, simply because it's a pre-war Zeiss Sonnar with coating. There has been progress in lens design since!

Tashi delek,

Roger

[ferider]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Make up your mind. Small and light OR fast. Though I don't find my last-series pre-aspheric 90/2, bought new 25+ years ago, unnecessarily big.

Jupiter-9s are wonderfully romantic but seldom all that sharp. Even a perfect one is fairly soft at f/2, simply because it's a pre-war Zeiss Sonnar with coating. There has been progress in lens design since!

Tashi delek,

Roger

For size reference:



From left to right: Nikkor 85/2, Summicron 90/2 v3 (smaller than the Canon 85/1.9), and Summilux 75/1.4. Nikkor and Jupiter-9 are practically identical in size.

Cheers,

Roland.

[gnarayan]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Jupiter-9s are wonderfully romantic but seldom all that sharp. Even a perfect one is fairly soft at f/2, simply because it's a pre-war Zeiss Sonnar with coating. There has been progress in lens design since!

Roger, I'm not too worried about how sharp it is wide open. While there has been progress in lens design, grad student stipends have not stretched commensurately Light and fast, and soft wide open while not costing more than I can afford is a perfectly acceptable trade off for me - precisely why I like the OM 85.

This has been very useful - I'll kep an eye out for J9s, Nikkor 85s and the Canon 85/1.8

Cheers,
-Gautham

[Krosya]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Make up your mind. Small and light OR fast. Though I don't find my last-series pre-aspheric 90/2, bought new 25+ years ago, unnecessarily big.

Jupiter-9s are wonderfully romantic but seldom all that sharp. Even a perfect one is fairly soft at f/2, simply because it's a pre-war Zeiss Sonnar with coating. There has been progress in lens design since!

Tashi delek,

Roger

Well Roger,
If you look at my post above - those were taken at f2 and look pretty sharp to me, so I dont know how you can say it's not sharp. Maybe you never had a good one?
OP - if you can live with 2.8 - I'd get a M-Hexanon 90/2.8 - great lens, sharp, compact, well built and not too expensive. Actually thats my current 90mm lens. My other long RF lens is Nikkor 10.5cm/2.5 in LTM - but its heavier and harder to find. Yet superb optics! I have one of those too - you can see look at my photos to see some shots from both.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Krosya

Well Roger,
If you look at my post above - those were taken at f2 and look pretty sharp to me, so I dont know how you can say it's not sharp. .

How can I say it's not sharp? As a result of around 30 years of comparing them with sharper lenses, eg later Summicrons (NOT the big early chrome one), in real prints, not web images. I must have owned at least half a dozen, and had friends with at least half a dozen more. Were they all bad? I doubt it. And if they were as sharp as (say) a late Summicron, why would anyone pay ten times as much for the Summicron? Or Tele-Elmarit? Or Summarit?

Even those of my friends who call their Jupiters sharp are seldom inclined to pretend that they are anywhere near the front rank.

Cheers,

Roger

[ampguy]

Are there any 85/90s that give the look of a PC F mount Nikkor in 105/2.5? I'd like something like this in M mount (or LTM), but 85 or 90.

How about that thin TE?

[johannielscom]

Originally Posted by ferider

...I just got myself an 80/1.8 Komura lens, which fits your specs too, but haven't tried it out yet....

Best,

Roland.

Hi Roland, may I trouble you for some shots with that lens? I recently bought the 28mm f3.5 W-Komura and its a keeper for sure. So was the 35mm f3.5 Kyoei W.Acall, which was made by Komura as well, as rumour has it.

Would love to see some shots with it. Too bad they never made a 50mm...

[ferider]

Originally Posted by CLE-RF

Hi Roland, may I trouble you for some shots with that lens? I recently bought the 28mm f3.5 W-Komura and its a keeper for sure. So was the 35mm f3.5 Kyoei W.Acall, which was made by Komura as well, as rumour has it.

Would love to see some shots with it. Too bad they never made a 50mm...

As soon as I have them

Cheers,

Roland.

[Brian Sweeney]

The Nikkor and J-9 are both Sonnar formula lenses. I've used a 1975 J-9, shimmed and adjusted, on the Contax along with a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 'C'ontax. The Nikkor is sharper and has higher contrast. The Nikkor is also heavier and cost 6x as much. The J-9 uses easier to get 49mm filters, the Nikkor uses 48mm filters.

I use both. I've also just picked up a 1960 J-9, and shimmed it. BUT: the helical is not as tight as it should be, and will need disassembling and lubing.

[drewbarb]

When I sold bicycles, we used to say to customers that bikes could be strong, lightweight, and cheap; pick any two (of these descriptors).

Looking for a short tele that is fast, compact, and affordable reminds me of this mantra. Sure, you might be able to find something that fits the bill for you, but it strikes me that you are going to have to make a compromise somehow.

[jslash6]

wondering if anyone has any impressions on the Komura 80/1.8. i'm too looking for fast tele and am torn between the Nikkor or Komura. the Canon would be nice but might break the bank.

[Brian Sweeney]

I found the build quality on the Komura 135/3.5 was not as good as the Nikkor or Canon. The aperture blades on mine came apart, and they bent beyond repair. The "rivets" popped that held them in place. I know this happens on lenses, but it's the only one that ever did that to me. The Komura 200/4.5 is "decent" but not a great performer. Bought as a curiousity.

Of course, the 85/1.8 could be a different. I would not pay the outrageous prices often seen on Ebay for it.

[ferider]

I got it at a decent price, Brian, not from Kevin.

Should be a clean Ernostar, maybe even a copy of the original. I know the 100/2 is. I'll see and report.
BTW, I have diagrams for most of the Komura lenses now, if anybody is interested.

Cheers,

Roland.

[Krosya]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

How can I say it's not sharp? As a result of around 30 years of comparing them with sharper lenses, eg later Summicrons (NOT the big early chrome one), in real prints, not web images. I must have owned at least half a dozen, and had friends with at least half a dozen more. Were they all bad? I doubt it. And if they were as sharp as (say) a late Summicron, why would anyone pay ten times as much for the Summicron? Or Tele-Elmarit? Or Summarit?

Even those of my friends who call their Jupiters sharp are seldom inclined to pretend that they are anywhere near the front rank.

Cheers,

Roger

So, by the same logic,- Zeiss ZM, Hexanon, Nikkor etc lenses are not as sharp? Simply because people are willing to pay more for Leica?
Did you and your friends have bad samples? Maybe. Or maybe they were not able to focus accurately. I dont know. Plus you cant compare old lens to late Summicron - how about compare it to Summicron from the same era.
But I remember we had same argument about Canon 50/1.2 LTM lens. Me and many others posted many photos from that lens that show how good it is. I may not have your experience, but I can show actual photos that speak for themselves. Web images or not. I'd really like if you posted a photo from a fast lens, like Noctilux or Summicron 90/2 wide open that YOU took and YOU think is sharp. Yes it would be a web image, but better than nothing. I'd like to see what you consider sharp, as it seems that what I find sharp, isnt sharp to you. How about it?