Why are 85mm lenses so expensive?

[benveniste]

I can think of a few reasons.

• For decades now, with the exception of "normal" lenses like a 50mm for 35mm film, "prime" lenses have been niche items. Nikon, for example, sells about 5 times as many 50mm lenses as 85mm. So the margin for the manufacturer has to be higher.
• 85mm is significantly different from 50mm. For example, you might take a "head-and-shoulders" portrait with an 85mm at around 5 and a half feet distance. With a 50mm, the same framing would require you to move in to about 3.25 feet. The difference in perspective is quite noticeable.
• Although this is an analog group, digital workflows allow people to examine their results at higher magnifications more easily. As a result, several manufacturers have created 85mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses with better corrections of aberrations than in the film era.

I don't consider $300-$400 to be "extremely expensive," but compared to high-volume zooms I can see why people do.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Funny enough, i'm purchasing a second FDn 85/1.8 today! Yay!

You'll enjoy your lens. It has a beautiful softness when it's shot wide open at f/1.8. It's has some heft though.

 

[reddesert]

"Expensive" is relative. For example, here's a 47th St Photo ad from Popular Photography, 1989, scanned at google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=Yg_5lVaHf-4C&lpg=PP1&dq=popular photography&pg=RA2-PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false
New, a Nikon N4004s body-only is (was) $285, a 50/1.8 AF is $60, 50/1.4 AF is $195, 85/1.8 AF is $350.
The Nikon FM2 body-only is $350, 85/1.4 AI is $570, the 105/2.5 AI is $250, the 135/2.8 is $250.
These are in 1989 dollars, multiply by 2.09 to get 2019 dollars - so that 85/1.8 AF was over $700 in today's dollars, but today you can't give an N4004s away.

We used an 85/1.4 in a scientific instrument I worked with around that time, it was always a massive, expensive, unusual piece of kit. Professional low-light shooters maybe had one, but normal people didn't lug one around.

One should be able to take a nice portrait with any lens in the say 75-110 mm range if one establishes a good connection to the subject.

 

[btaylor]

Agree with the the opinion on the Jupiter 9. Beautiful rendering if you get a good one, it took me a few tries. One for Contax and one LTM. If they aren’t right mechanically they are worthless. 100mm lenses are pretty close to 85mm and much less expensive. When I bought my OM1 there was no way I could afford the 85mm Zuiko, the 100mm worked nicely, still have it.

 

[eli griggs]

Back in the early 1980's I bought a Canon 85mm 1.2, which my F1 wore most days as a standard lens and with which I made many beautiful Ballet stage performance shots, in colour but also in b&w.

Outside, stopped down, it gave me very nice results and the flare with colour film, was often quite nice.

I only shot Ektachrome then, well actually, pretty much always, since the late 1970s, with the rare occasion of Kodak Colour negatives, and that lens did no disappoint me in the least.

I've always preferred Canon Glass, for SLRs, though in rebuilding my 35mm kit now, I'm also keeping an eye out for Pentax Super Takumar m42 stuff.

Canon glass is always crisp, clean and is great with b&w and colour, given, I believe, superior results than Nikon, though I have and do shoot Nikon and like the results.

P.S.I have no shot that particular slide film much and have yet to try the new Ektachrome.

 

[ic-racer]

I would like to see some specifics. For example, the camera system that I use was marketed with three "normal' lenses, depending on photographer preference. They were the 35mm 1.4 Distgon, 50mm 1.4 Planar and 85mm 1.4 Planar.

The 35mm 1.4 was more expensive than the 85mm 1.4. $2,070.00 vs $1,620.00.
This is from a 1990 price list so today's list prices would be 35mm 1.4 = $4,082.94 and the 85mm 1.4 = $3,195.34

 

[plummerl]

The Zuiko 85mm f/2 lens is a wonderful, small lens! Mount to front is only 1.9" (48mm).

 

[flavio81]

You'll enjoy your lens. It has a beautiful softness when it's shot wide open at f/1.8. It's has some heft though.

Oh yes I will, i already had one, this is a second "backup" copy! I also have the Nikkor-H 85/1.8 which is also a great lens, with an entirely different construction. Regarding heft, the Nikkor is huge and heavy compared to the FDn.

 

[flavio81]

One should be able to take a nice portrait with any lens in the say 75-110 mm range if one establishes a good connection to the subject.

I'd say 58-200mm range!

 

[flavio81]

Back in the early 1980's I bought a Canon 85mm 1.2, which my F1 wore most days as a standard (...)
I've always preferred Canon Glass, for SLRs, though in rebuilding my 35mm kit now, I'm also keeping an eye out for Pentax Super Takumar m42 stuff.

Canon glass is always crisp, clean and is great with b&w and colour, given, I believe, superior results than Nikon, though I have and do shoot Nikon and like the results.

I think I found a new friend here in the forum...(see my signature)

Now that many cross-brand lens tests are available out in the webs, I see that more often than not the Canon FD lenses top such comparisons, at least regarding contrast and sharpness.

One aspect FD lenses are not "tops" is flare handling (I'd say the SMC lenses are on average better) and rendering or "bokeh". All Canon teles have excellent rendering, but in the other focal lengths sometimes the rendering can be a bit bland. In this aspect I am a bit more satisfied with some choice pre-AI Nikkors i have: 35/2, 58/1.4, 85/1.4; this trio has wonderful rendering. I think this is related to the choice of aberration balance by the lens designers -- it seems the Canon lens designers favored high MTF and perfect astigmatism correction; and IMHO this ends up in neutral blur characteristics that sometimes can be perceived as "bland" or unexciting.

 

[eli griggs]

You may be correct, but Canon made/makes so very many lenses in the same focal length, that it difficult to compare upon an even ground.

The F1AE and A! kit of which that 85mm was a part of included the f24-35mm Series L, a f1.2 50 05 58-58, I forget which, the 50 Macro, the f2 135, their fastest 200mm and the black f4 Series L. I think I'm no remembering another Series L, but my point is, I never felt I had an issue with excess flare and the lenses, especially the 85, allowed me to use it as a positive part of some photograph.

I also have to admit, I am just recently, last few years, getting into M42 And SMC K glass, which is quite nice, considering that I can use it with Canon fd and Nikon , as well as M42 cameras (I'm looking for a Pentax SP1000) when I have the cash to hand), and and of course, Pentax., so eventually I can make a direct comparison on the Non-L Canon glass, and Nikon, etc.

Until then, I consider it a mater of nuance, topic and personal preferences for the looks each of use are trying to achieve.

By-the-way, I can think of no higher praise for Canon Glass, than your signature. Nice Going.

Eli

 

[AgX]

I did not even know hat Canon sold a 85mm lens as kit lens.
As already said, I hardly come across any 85mm lens, of whatever make.

 

[flavio81]

I also have to admit, I am just recently, last few years, getting into M42 And SMC K glass, which is quite nice, considering that I can use it with Canon fd and Nikon , as well as M42 cameras (I'm looking for a Pentax SP1000) when I have the cash to hand), and and of course, Pentax.

I have a small collection of M42 lenses (incl. Takumars) and K-mount lenses: M 20/4, M 28/2.8, A 28/2.8, SMC 28/3.5, M 35/2, M 40/2.8, M 50/2, A 50/1.4, K 105/2.5, SMC 135/2.5. Plus the famous carl zeiss jena 20/4, 35/2.4 and 135/3.5.

I'd suggest a Spotmatic F instead of the SP1000. Or if money is a problem, a Spotmatic II (they go under the radar). Watch out for prism desilvering, it affects the SPII /F cameras depending on storage conditions.

Otherwise a Pentax MX with the M42->K adapter will work just fine. Try to get the original flangeless adapter, which sits inside the mount, otherwise the lens won't reach infinity (but will get close to it).

Pentax lenses can be awesome. Super-Multi-Takumars are better built than manual focus Nikons and Canons (any era). They're also quite compact.

Regarding the images they make I get the feeling that Pentax (Asahi Optical) computed their lenses for best rendering at mid apertures, that is, for actually creating beautiful images, instead of aiming to beat the others in MTF charts (Canon) or optmizing for "Press" use -- maximum central sharpness at full aperture (Nikon).

I own three MX cameras and a Spotmatic F. The MX is a masterpiece and i wouldn't be too sad if I lost all my F2/F3 and F-1/F-1N bodies and only got my MX cameras left.

 

[flavio81]

Whenever I look for listings, it seems like 85mm lenses, especially fast F2 or lower, seem to be extremely expensive, around $300-$400 for F1.8 or faster.

I know this is the classic portrait photo length, and it seems like it would be an interesting challenge to use a slight telephoto prime lens, but I feel like the difference for portraits between a much cheaper, say, 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 lens or 28-75 2.8 lens would not be much different.

Is it that a lot of people want the "best" bokeh, subject isolation, flattering "slimming" distortion at this focal length, fast shutter speed to freeze action, etc. These all seem like merits, but not worth the cost for me personally.

Addressing the original topic,

To put some perspective, here are some prices of Popular Photography (sept 1981) catalog:

FD lenses
28/2.8 = $104.95, a representative of an 'inexpensive' lens.
85/1.8 = $148.50
100/2.8 = $128.50
135/2.8 = $129.95
135/2.5 = $149.50

Nikon AI (same dealer)
28/3.5 = $139.95, a representative of the cheapest professional 28mm Nikon had (this is a beautifully built lens btw)
85/2.0 = = $197.50
105/2.5 = $229.50
135/2.8 = $177.95

Some interesting observations.

The 135/2.8 and 85/1.8 have more or less the same physical aperture (circa 47mm). So they are equally capable of producing the same amount of defocusing (plus the 135 would perceptually provide more background blur due to having extra compression. In other words, the background objects get larger.) so in absolute terms they have the same aperture, even though the f-speed is different.

The 135/2.8 lenses are slightly less expensive than the 85/1.8 or 85/2 lenses in the same family.

However today the price difference between them is much bigger. I think this is simply because of 135mm lenses being more plentiful while 85mm lenses not so much.

Brand new, however, the price difference wasn't so strong, as we can see.

As noted above, 85mm is a "classic portrait focal length". But so is 100/105 and I dare to say 135mm too.

 

[flavio81]

The Zuiko 85mm f/2 lens is a wonderful, small lens! Mount to front is only 1.9" (48mm).

Everything else (cost, technological state of the art) being equal, making a lens more compact will create some performance penalty, this penalty might be increased distortion, less corner performance, stronger vignetting, uglier coma, etc.

Pentax users have experienced this. When comparing contemporary K and M (compact) lenses, that is, same state of the art, same brand, same focal lengths... invariably the K lenses, which are bigger, outperform the compact tiny M lenses. I also experienced it when using a loaned OM2 with the 55/1.2 zuiko and comparing the negs with my Canon FD 55/1.2 which is way bigger and heavier. Moreover the FD was an older computation than the zuiko, straight from 1968 (FL 55/1.2).

Of course this is being fussy -- M lenses (and OM lenses) just fine for real-world purposes. And I love my M lenses just as Zuiko fans love their OM glass.

 

[ic-racer]

I noticed flavio81 mentioned current prices of some 85 and 135 mm lenses, so I checked some E-bay auctions for the two lenses I had mentioned above. That is the Rolleiflex SL Zeiss 35mm 1.4 vs Zeiss 85mm 1.4. The current Ebay asking prices are just about the same for both of those. Pretty much the same USD $1100 to $1500 range for both.

 

[DF]

"Always wanted an 85 f2 MD/MD ROKKOR for my X-700's.
Too $$pricey.

 

[benjiboy]

I have the Canon 85mm f1.2 L lens I bought it new almost thirty years ago, it was ruinously expensive at the time it cost a months pay, it's big and heavy but at that time was the cutting edge of lens technology, and since portraiture is my main interest it has been worth every penny , no company has ever made a better 35 mm portrait optic I.m.o. if you want first-class fast portrait lenses you have to be prepared to pay for them, there is no cheap way round.

 

[darkosaric]

Until couple of weeks ago I never owned 85mm lens. I use Nikon, so I have a bunch of 50mm and 105m lenses, did not feel need for 85mm.
But then I picked up 85mm f1.8 AF for 150 euros, and I must say - it is a great lens, wide open, stopped down, really great. Without dedicated hood - small and compact, focuses fast, nice lens to have.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Fast sharp light AND cheap? I really think that Nikon hit it out of the park with this lens by not making another 85mm f/2 Ais but a solid update on their epic and legendary 85mm f/1.8 H and H.C. The 1.8 was a useful pro lens in the F period when Nikon had a particular dominance in 35mm photography; I seem to recall the David Hamilton character in the movie Blowup using one.
Yeah that Nikkor AF 85mm 1.8 is a real sleeper; my former shooting partner shot that all the time and I printed most of her negs and it is a fine lens.
Sometimes a bit busy bokeh at a full length bride shot but easy to modify with just shooting at proper f/stops she favored 2.8-4 all day long and wide open at night and I agreed. I probably made the price just go up, but it has always been a fine lens undervalued.

 

[mshchem]

I have a 20 year old Nikon 85 f1.4 AF D. It's my favorite lens of all time. Beautiful to look at as well as use. I've seen used examples at the local camera shop,min very nice shape sell for $400 US. It's perfectly happy on a F or the latest D6. Made in Japan, almost all metal.

 

[Arthurwg]

I use this lens (Nikon 85mm F1.4 AF-D) as well and love it. Kinda heavy but perfect. Used it today.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ha my next point I was about to bring up about the Nikkor AF 85 1.8; the real main reason why many never try or use it is because it will forever be compared to the same era 85mm AF 1.4 which in its own is a legendary lens.

 

[flavio81]

Fast sharp light AND cheap? I really think that Nikon hit it out of the park with this lens by not making another 85mm f/2 Ais but a solid update on their epic and legendary 85mm f/1.8 H and H.C. The 1.8 was a useful pro lens in the F period when Nikon had a particular dominance in 35mm photography; I seem to recall the David Hamilton character in the movie Blowup using one.
Yeah that Nikkor AF 85mm 1.8 is a real sleeper; my former shooting partner shot that all the time and I printed most of her negs and it is a fine lens.
Sometimes a bit busy bokeh at a full length bride shot but easy to modify with just shooting at proper f/stops she favored 2.8-4 all day long and wide open at night and I agreed. I probably made the price just go up, but it has always been a fine lens undervalued.

Fine lens indeed, one of Nikkor's finest ever. Mine is an Ai-modified H version. I had the 105/2.5 but liked this one even more.

 

[JPD]

It's a versatile focal length, a short tele, and fast. Nice for portraits and wedding photos with unsharp backgrounds. Since it's a short tele it can also be used for street photography, and you don't have to get too close to the subject. It's handy for those situations when a 50 mm is too short and a 100 mm is too long.