Price of 85mm primes?

[df cardwell]

What I would like explained is why the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 is generally regarded as an excellent lens (and I have seen first hand evidence to that end), while the FD version is by all accounts a complete dog...

Sometimes judgement is a little harsh. Back in the '70s BOTH the Canon and Nikon were regarded as soft-as-a-grape by camera clubbers, but as indespensible by journalists and fashion shooters. Today, the outlook is a little different on the Nikon. It would be interesting to shoot the FD again today to compare with my memory, I bet it would be pretty good.

No doubt though, the EF 85 is just a brilliant lens.

d

 

[MattKing]

I have a Zuiko 85mm f/2.0 that competes only with my 35mm f/2.0 for my photographic affection - sharp, small, light, and 49mm filter size. If I recall correctly, it is one of the first Zuiko floating element designs too.

I wonder if the reason for the high prices and large aperatures for the 85mm lenses can be attributed to the fact that the 85mm lenses are relatively close to the focal length of the 50mm "standard" lenses, so it was necessary to make them "special", in order to attract the interest of the dedicated photographer, as compared to the casual snapshooter.

All I know, is that the combination of an Olympus body (chose one, any one), plus a 24mm f/2.8, a 35mm f/2.0, and an 85mm f/2.0, is my idea of 35mm nirvana.

Matt

 

[gnashings]

Sometimes judgement is a little harsh. Back in the '70s BOTH the Canon and Nikon were regarded as soft-as-a-grape by camera clubbers, but as indespensible by journalists and fashion shooters. Today, the outlook is a little different on the Nikon. It would be interesting to shoot the FD again today to compare with my memory, I bet it would be pretty good.

No doubt though, the EF 85 is just a brilliant lens.

d

Are the optical designs that very much different, I wonder?

 

[Soeren]

Well the reason for making a "fast" lens is the buyers need the speed and therefore will shoot it wide open. Because of that it need to be reasonably (sp) sharp at e.g f/1.4 and that costs. I don't consider the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor expensive and if bought used it's in the same range (or cheaper) as the 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and
50mm f/1.4. I don't know anything about lens design but would there be any significant difference in effort between f/1.8 and f/2.8 in a 85mm for a SLR. There is in 105 I know but....... In other words. When does speed start to cost ?
I must say I love the results my 85mm f/1.4 gives me and to me it's worth every last penny. 95% of my shots are done at f/1.4 and I havn't gone beyond f/4.0 yet.
Cheers Søren

 

[benjiboy]

85 mm f1.8

Sometimes judgement is a little harsh. Back in the '70s BOTH the Canon and Nikon were regarded as soft-as-a-grape by camera clubbers, but as indespensible by journalists and fashion shooters. Today, the outlook is a little different on the Nikon. It would be interesting to shoot the FD again today to compare with my memory, I bet it would be pretty good.

No doubt though, the EF 85 is just a brilliant lens.

d

I have owned and used the Canon F.D.n 85mm f1.8 lens for many years and am more than happy with it, I used to have the 85mm f1.8 Ai Nikkor I found both to be good portrait lenses, I don't know if the EF 85 is the same lens design as the FD, but I think some of the EF range are.

 

[sanderx1]

Sometimes judgement is a little harsh. Back in the '70s BOTH the Canon and Nikon were regarded as soft-as-a-grape by camera clubbers, but as indespensible by journalists and fashion shooters. Today, the outlook is a little different on the Nikon. It would be interesting to shoot the FD again today to compare with my memory, I bet it would be pretty good.

No doubt though, the EF 85 is just a brilliant lens.

d

One of the answers is that several optics making companies took a look at what results they were getting and what Planars were doing, found them to be excellent, and sent their designers to design their own versions of the Planars.

 

[df cardwell]

Are the optical designs that very much different, I wonder?

Look at the Canon Museum !

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

You can look at all of Canon's 85's from 1948 on.

 

[df cardwell]

...snip....

I wonder if the reason for the high prices and large aperatures for the 85mm lenses can be attributed to the fact that the 85mm lenses are relatively close to the focal length of the 50mm "standard" lenses, so it was necessary to make them "special", in order to attract the interest of the dedicated photographer, as compared to the casual snapshooter.

.....snip

Matt

By 1933 Contax offered an 85/4, 85/2.8, and 85/2.0.

Fast film was EI 12.

When FAST film meant a sunny day exposure of 1/50 @ f/8 there was greater need for lens speed than now !

In 1933, having an 85/2 lens meant that one could make a windowlight portrait at 1/10 @ f2 !!!

The 85mm lens has been a staple for close to 75 years, and from the beginning, was commonly a fast lens. They were chosen for speed and used at maximum apertures. As photographic traditions evolved, we’ve become accustomed to the look of an 85mm portrait, at a fast aperture. We still like it, and we still shoot at f/2, even if sometimes we do it with 400 film under a Hazylight.

 

[gnashings]

Look at the Canon Museum !

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

You can look at all of Canon's 85's from 1948 on.

I might have been a little inspecific in my initial posts - I am not personally condemning the FD 85mm - I was just wondering what the contributing factors may be in its percieved inferiority to the EF version. Perhaps its just a function of reputation with not much in the way of actual reasons?

Don,

Thanks for the canonmuseum address - but I am familiar with it. What I was really after is some "critique", as frankly, the actual technical specs don't tell me enough to judge a lens. What I mean is, nothing jumps out at me with a "ah! that's why!" (I am not nearly well-versed enough in lens design) - I was more looking to hear some "user testimony". Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.

Peter.

 

[df cardwell]

I might have been a little inspecific in my initial posts - I am not personally condemning the FD 85mm - I was just wondering what the contributing factors may be in its percieved inferiority to the EF version. Perhaps its just a function of reputation with not much in the way of actual reasons?

Don,

Thanks for the canonmuseum address - but I am familiar with it. What I was really after is some "critique", as frankly, the actual technical specs don't tell me enough to judge a lens. What I mean is, nothing jumps out at me with a "ah! that's why!" (I am not nearly well-versed enough in lens design) - I was more looking to hear some "user testimony". Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.

Peter.

Gosh, I have no idea. Back in my youth, the Canon and Nikkor 85 were simply seen as fine, premium lenses. So to, all the other makers ! As to why a particular lens gets a bad rap, or a mixed, defies understanding. Short of rounding up a large sample and shooting some film, the best things I can think of is to find some evidence of it being a poor design, or assuming it maybe wasn't so bad !

In the early '70s I sometimes got to assist a wonderful photographer ( I think my only skill was being able to find good places for dinner ) and he was a passionate Canon shooter. Hated Nikon. And he had the 2 good reasons I think one could use to make a rational choice between the two back then.

First, he was left eyed and he invariably stuck his thumb in his right eye whenever he used a Nikon f2. No problem with the layout of a Canon F1.

Second, he shot Leica as well. The Nikon aperture scales and shutter speed ran in opposite directions than the Leica, but Canon were the same.

That's it. Most pros made the choice on similar basis, but too many photographers sought some mystical reason for one or the other brand, and justified their choices however they could. At one time or another, I've heard every good lens described as a loser.

As for the 2 versions of the Canon FD, and the EF, evolution, I'm sure it was something like this:

Version 1, the big pretty 1974 version was probably an update of the FL lens, evolved from the R lens before it. I would expect the FD 85/1.8 to display every good lens trait today.

Version 2, the new FD lens of 1979, was basically the same lens in a smaller package. I would expect new glass availability may have made it possible to make the lens a little smaller.

EF, a 1992 redesign probably necessary to allow for the internal focus for the EOS system, and as good a time as any to improve the lens as they could. It was far more complex than the prior lens, but Canon had learned a few things since making their first SLR 85mm in 1961 !

 

[gnashings]

Gosh, I have no idea. Back in my youth, the Canon and Nikkor 85 were simply seen as fine, premium lenses. So to, all the other makers ! As to why a particular lens gets a bad rap, or a mixed, defies understanding. Short of rounding up a large sample and shooting some film, the best things I can think of is to find some evidence of it being a poor design, or assuming it maybe wasn't so bad !

In the early '70s I sometimes got to assist a wonderful photographer ( I think my only skill was being able to find good places for dinner ) and he was a passionate Canon shooter. Hated Nikon. And he had the 2 good reasons I think one could use to make a rational choice between the two back then.

First, he was left eyed and he invariably stuck his thumb in his right eye whenever he used a Nikon f2. No problem with the layout of a Canon F1.

Second, he shot Leica as well. The Nikon aperture scales and shutter speed ran in opposite directions than the Leica, but Canon were the same.

That's it. Most pros made the choice on similar basis, but too many photographers sought some mystical reason for one or the other brand, and justified their choices however they could. At one time or another, I've heard every good lens described as a loser.

As for the 2 versions of the Canon FD, and the EF, evolution, I'm sure it was something like this:

Version 1, the big pretty 1974 version was probably an update of the FL lens, evolved from the R lens before it. I would expect the FD 85/1.8 to display every good lens trait today.

Version 2, the new FD lens of 1979, was basically the same lens in a smaller package. I would expect new glass availability may have made it possible to make the lens a little smaller.

EF, a 1992 redesign probably necessary to allow for the internal focus for the EOS system, and as good a time as any to improve the lens as they could. It was far more complex than the prior lens, but Canon had learned a few things since making their first SLR 85mm in 1961 !

Thanks - I appreciate the insight. I was mainly going by the photozone.de write ups and some people who have used the lens being kind of lukewarm on it. Frankly, your way of looking at it sounds more logical - I would be leaning towards that version than any other scenario. That EF 85mm sure is nice though - and the USM system is just wonderful! Actually, since this thread is about prices of 85mm lenses, I have to say, the FD version is a bargain - I have considered buying one, but have been swayed by all the bad press... I am beginning to think that perhaps I gave into something that I don't really like - illogical, sheep like following of public opinions!
Funny you should mention the Nikon - Canon "directional" differences. I mean, I don't shoot professionally, so its not a life and death matter - but, I have two operational 35mm bodies right now - one Nikon, one Canon. Canon has been my main system, but recently, all my glass and my EF (EF model, not system) body was stolen... so as it ends up, I have to go to the Nikon for some things (I have some crappy 3rd party lenses for it... but they are at least in my hands, as opposed to somewhere in a pawn shop...). This is not a bad thing - I like the little Nikon just fine, but I never really had to use it unless I felt like it. Well, a couple of weeks ago, I had "job" that required both B&W and colour, so I loaded my F1 with B&W, the FG with colour... Man... going from one camera to the other was giving me fits! I am glad to hear I am not the only one!

Peter.

 

[benjiboy]

Peter, the FD 85 is such a crap lens that although I have had one more than fifteen years I have very recently bought a second one, my original one is still perfect but because I like it so much if anything happened to it I would be lost without it, and I figured that at £38 ($ 75 Canadian) from a big downtown photo shop complete with a 12 month warranty it was cheaper than getting my existing one repaired if it ever needed it. Someone must have made a mistake at the shop I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the price in the window, so I " made them an offer they couldn't refuse " (who needs Ebay at these prices) and scurried home with it in my hot little hands.

 

[gnashings]

Peter, the FD 85 is such a crap lens that although I have had one more than fifteen years I have very recently bought a second one, my original one is still perfect but because I like it so much if anything happened to it I would be lost without it, and I figured that at £38 ($ 75 Canadian) from a big downtown photo shop complete with a 12 month warranty it was cheaper than getting my existing one repaired if it ever needed it. Someone must have made a mistake at the shop I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the price in the window, so I " made them an offer they couldn't refuse " (who needs Ebay at these prices) and scurried home with it in my hot little hands.

Ben,

I hope I didn't come across as a know it all - nothing more annoying than someone asking a question and then refusing to listen to the answers! - I was just really thinking out loud since frankly, I don't see how this lens could be so bad. I think Don really put it in good perspective - sometimes opinions seem to be self fulfilling prophecies driven by many factors (most of them of dubious reliability). That deal you got sounds excellent - and they do seem to be popping up at decent prices on eBay, too. Thanks for the input - much appreciated, as always.

Peter.

 

[PhotoJim]

I am keeping my eye out for 85 primes after getting a Jupiter 9 for my Kiev. I would love to get a non AI 85/2 Nikkor but they are thin on the ground and not cheap, same goes for an OM 85.

Don't overlook the AF 85/1.8 (D or non-D). Because it has rear focusing, it handles pretty nicely when used manually. I paid $75 Canadian for mine used, which was a good deal, but you should be able to get one for $150 fairly easily. Amazing piece of glass.

 

[kunihiko]

I didn't know that FD version 85/1.8 had reputations like that. I have had a New FD 85/1.8 for years. I loved it and still love it.
When I got an EOS body, I bought an EF85/1.8 too. I didn't know its opt design was different from FD's, so I was expecting EF gives me what I get from FD. After several rolls of films, I sold the EF and backed to FD.
Sorry for not having any specific reasons. I know this is just my personal taste.

 

[benjiboy]

I don't feel offended Peter, and understand that your motives are not bad , it's just that I feel that not just this particular lens but pro. quality marque lenses produced by the major manufacturers in general are better lenses than most people are photographers including myself .

I just think we worry too much about the hardware, and our time and effort would be better employed in studying, and practicing our craft,
I don't think that anyone ever asked Shakespeare what sort of pen, or Rembrandt what brush he used.

 

[gnashings]

I just think we worry too much about the hardware, and our time and effort would be better employed in studying, and practicing our craft,
I don't think that anyone ever asked Shakespeare what sort of pen, or Rembrandt what brush he used.

Very true - I know I get cought up in the gear-race too often when thinking of a purchase. Simply put, the above view Ben puts across is probably something I should remind myself of more often!

kunihiko,

Thanks for the input - its always good to have another voice of reason on record I am surprised you disliked the EF version, though - I have used it and seen results that my EOS-packing friends got and was quite impressed!

Some of my favourite shots of mine have come from equipment that does not have a stellar reputation - various Russian made cameras and lenses, nothing fancy - I really should know better!

Thanks for all you input - and sorry for hijacking the thread a bit!

Peter.

 

[skiparvid]

2 85mm Primes

I've got 2 fast 85's. One is a Canon 85mm f2 FDn that I've gotten good results with. Bought it at the camera store for a lot more than I should have paid, but I hadn't discovered ebay at the time. The other is an 85mm f1.5 Lithagon (manual) in the Pentax screw mount. I've had it since 1960, but haven't parted with it for sentimental reasons. Back in the day, loaded my Practica FX3 with HS Ectachrome, and took pictures in what I considered very low light. Screw mount bodies long gone, but the Lithagon still takes up space. Skip G.

 

[Joe Brugger]

Getting back to the SMC Takumar 85/1.8 -- I used this along with a 28/3.5 for newspaper work in the 1970s and the 85 was as good a lens as you could ask. Nicely balanced, very sharp, color-neutral and good contrast. Very easy to focus. It was much nicer to handle than the SMCT 105.
I don't think the Takumar 85 was very common. By the 70s, Nikon had a pretty good grip on the press market and the 85 was fairly expensive for the average Honeywell Pentax user.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

My J-9 just came in today from Ukraine, and it's a nice little piece of glass. The focal really is just right for portraits. It's like a 135mm with more room to breathe.

I'm not sure yet about the traces of oil on the aperture blades, though. The focus is OK, the aperture moves freely, but I'm just concerned about dust sticking to it. Any thoughts?

 

[Paul Howell]

It may cost more to have the lens cleaned than the lens cost cost, but if the image quaility is up to par I would have it cleaned.

 

[DBP]

I don't think any Jupiter 9s are auto aperture, so a little oil on the aperture blades is irrelevant. It's a nice lens.

As for the original question, I just looked at KEH and the 85/2s seem to be around twice the price of the 105/2.8s for screw mount takumars. Twice the speed = twice the price - seems reasonable, and better than the difference between 50/1.4s and 50/2s in most lens mounts.

 

[Claire Senft]

The only 85 mm lens I have owned were a used 85mm 1.8 Serenar..if I recall correctly in about 1962 which I used on a Leica IIIf red dial using an Imarect finder.

In about 1965 I bought one of the last new Nikon SP from Altman's in Chicago with 4 lens... 35 2.5, 50 1.4, 85 2.0 and 135 3.5. The lenses were all bought used.
Although none of the lenses were all that good wide open they were quite usable stopped down a couple of stops or more.

I shot a lot of K10, K25 and Panx withe the cameras.

 

[Cooki]

- I am not personally condemning the FD 85mm - I was just wondering what the contributing factors may be in its percieved inferiority to the EF version. Perhaps its just a function of reputation with not much in the way of actual reasons?

Possibly it's just 40+ years of technology advances. One of my co-workers here at the store recently bought the new EF 85 1.2 and it is absolutely stunning in its resolution and quality, you can literaly get a depth of field shallower than your subjects nose while shooting portrait. I have used it on my A2E a few times now. I just get all drooly over it and keep asking him why he would waste such a nice peice of glass on a digicam
Cooki

 

[benjiboy]

Price of 85mm Primes

Can anyone illuminate me as to why the lenses of 85mm focal length reach such extravagant prices nowadays? I was checking prices around, and for the Takumars in M42 mounts, the 85 reach at least twice the price of 105 ones. Is it just a question of rarity or were they already expensive to produce?

I think it's economics it's the economy of manufacturing scale, the more they make and sell the cheaper they get explains the discrepancy in the prices IMHO, they must sell a hell of a lot more 100mm lenses and 135mm lenses than 85mm, this also applies to other less popular optics.