Why are 85mm lenses so expensive?

[brainmonster]

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.

 

[Ai Print]

Expensive is a relative term these days that's for sure. I have a 105mm 1.4E that cost me $2200, $300-$400 for a good lens is really not all that bad.

 

[ColdEye]

What mount? I used to have the Nikon 85/1.4 ais and af, but sold them because I stopped taking pictures. Now that I am taking pictures I am using a Rokinon 85/1.4 for Nikon and I like it better (seems pretty similar to me minus AF). Plus you can get them for around $120-$150 if you are patient enough on ebay.

 

[abruzzi]

I think that most 85mm primes were expensive lenses to begin with, so on the used market (and your probably-accurate supposition that some people in the digital world only seem to shoot wide open) they remain more expensive that a lot of other lenses. However there are exceptions. I got my Nikkor 85mm ƒ1.8 nine months ago for $80. Thats abnormally low, but you can usually find them easily for $150. Now, its not AI, but thats fine with me, since most of my Nikons are pre-AI as well.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yeah the real question is why the consumer mass produced Nikkor 85mm f/2 is valued more than the legendary classic the 85mm f/1.8. Designing faster than f/2 70-100mm lens was not the easiest and this focal length benefited from computer ray tracing ($$$ in computer time back in the day) as well as glass advancements and of course the advancements in Multi-coating.

 

[AgX]

I do not think one may do the conclusion something is expensive today, because it was expensive in the past.

What I experience though is that I hardly ever come across a 85mm lens in the wild at all.

 

[eli griggs]

Brainmonster, which mount are you looking for and are there other makers lenses that will properly adapt to your camera/system?

 

[Paul Howell]

In the old days, meaning manual focus, fast 85s were uncommon, not that many were produced in comparison to 105 and 135, although fast 105 and 135 were also expensive. A 85 1.7 or so has really large elements, expensive to make, had to be made pro level construction, and to get the boka you want more blades in the aperture also make it more expensive. For AF bodies, some of the manual focus 85s are less expensive.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A fast 85mm lens is a big piece of glass.

If you want great optics worth much more than their price and if you shoot film get a Canon FD mount body. There are plenty of FD 85/1.8 lenses out there for around $200 or less. The FD 135/2.0 is also first rate—really just as good as any Canon L lens, but about half the price of the FD 85/1.2L, which has probably gone up in price in recent years due to the easy ability to adapt FD lenses to digital mirrorless cameras and digital video cameras.

 

[MattKing]

A fast 85mm lens is a big piece of glass.

Not necessarily.
My Zuiko 85mm f/2 lens - I affectionately call it Jane in honour of Jane Bown - is a wonderful and compact lens.
If you wonder about the name, do a google search on Jane Bown, and I expect you will understand.
It is useful though to understand that fast 85mm lenses were often the only 85mm lenses in a line, they were produced for a segment of the marketplace that would pay a premium and they were produced in relatively small numbers.
The high volume lenses purchased by the masses were more likely to be a relatively slow 70-210mm zoom.
Jane Bown, arguably at her best, using an 85mm f/2 Zuiko lens:

lens.

And by the way, if you are working with 135 film, an 85mm lens is very different than a 50mm
That environmental portrait of Samuel Beckett would have looked horrid if Ms. (or should I say Commander) Bown had used a 50mm full frame. Also, if the stories are accurate, if Ms. Bown had been close enough to fill the frame using a 50mm, the extremely upset Mr. Beckett might have done her harm!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I just checked BH for EF mount 85mm lenses. 85 1.8 lens for 99 USD. 85 1.4 is 249 USD.
Those are new. Working on film EOS cameras.
Used Nikkor-H 85 1.8 Auto is around 200 USD.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I'm in agreement with David Goldfarb here, a fast 85mm lens is big.

I used an 85mm f2.0 AI-S Nikkor for a test period, then tried the 85mm f/1.4 AI-S, chalk and cheese in both size and output. The f2.0 was smaller, used a far smaller filter size and was also not super sharp; in fact it was soft. The 85mm f1.4 Nikkor by comparison was big, heavy, sharp as anything and has floating elements to allow for very close focusing, it also sports a large hood.

I picked up my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AI-S second hand in 1994, along with my Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-S these are the two best lenses I have in 35mm photography. I paid the equivilant of $800 USD in 1994 for my 85mm lens and that hurt, but I have never regretted it.

Mick.

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, even the LTM Jupiter 85mm is huge compared to other FSU LTM lenses, and the 90mm sun and 135 LTMs look quite slim next to it.

The Jupiter 9 is a sonnar, F2, and good ones give beautiful results.

It is no only available in LTM, But Pentax K, Contact, M42 mounts which can be used with adapters to fit many system mounts.

Pricing is also no nearly as high as other makers, so you might think about using one of these.

Cheers


This is sonar

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

85/1.8-2.0 lenses are a little more comfortable in size than the superfast ones like the Canon FD or EOS 85/1.2L (I owned the FD version at one time), or my current one, the Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE. The Zeiss 85/1.4 is a beautiful lens, but is a heavy, solid chunk of glass, and while it’s nice to have the option of f:1.4 when I need it, and the brightness wide open makes focusing easier, I don’t absolutely need it that often.

 

[guangong]

I have a non AI 85 f2 for my Nikon F cameras, and a Nikon “c” Sonnar clone for my Contax IIa. I have a Jupiter, but discovered that even if glass is good, shoddy mechanical construction made lens unusable.
Considering what these lenses cost when new, any clean used lens is a bargain.

 

[narsuitus]

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 purchased my second lens (middle lens in photo) for my Nikon SLR in 1969 for $142.75. It was a used Nikkor 85mm f/1.8.

Today, I could purchase that same lens for less than $300.

Slightly telephoto lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[jtk]

I always preferred 85 for Nikon and Canon film...currently 50/1.4 and 100/2 for Pentax film.

Obvious advantage of fast lenses is accurate/fast focus in low light. Especially good for digital.

Pentax 50/1.4. adapted for Samsung 30mp APS: ultra sharp, wonderful bokeh, equiv to 75mm 1.4 ff

Never liked Nikon 105 and hated 43-86 (very popular, Nikon's mechanically and optically worst).

 

[jtk]

Not necessarily.
My Zuiko 85mm f/2 lens - I affectionately call it Jane in honour of Jane Bown - is a wonderful and compact lens.
If you wonder about the name, do a google search on Jane Bown, and I expect you will understand.
It is useful though to understand that fast 85mm lenses were often the only 85mm lenses in a line, they were produced for a segment of the marketplace that would pay a premium and they were produced in relatively small numbers.
The high volume lenses purchased by the masses were more likely to be a relatively slow 70-210mm zoom.
Jane Bown, arguably at her best, using an 85mm f/2 Zuiko lens:
View attachment 250940 lens.

And by the way, if you are working with 135 film, an 85mm lens is very different than a 50mm
That environmental portrait of Samuel Beckett would have looked horrid if Ms. (or should I say Commander) Bown had used a 50mm full frame. Also, if the stories are accurate, if Ms. Bown had been close enough to fill the frame using a 50mm, the extremely upset Mr. Beckett might have done her harm!

Yes. Excellent example. Zooms got popular because Vivitars et al were cheap: undemanding "market segment". 50 and 135 were often virtually free with new cameras.

 

[halfaman]

I'm in agreement with David Goldfarb here, a fast 85mm lens is big.
I used an 85mm f2.0 AI-S Nikkor for a test period, then tried the 85mm f/1.4 AI-S, chalk and cheese in both size and output. The f2.0 was smaller, used a far smaller filter size and was also not super sharp; in fact it was soft. The 85mm f1.4 Nikkor by comparison was big, heavy, sharp as anything and has floating elements to allow for very close focusing, it also sports a large hood..

85 mm f/2 AI-S no good?

I use a Minolta MD 85 mm f/2 with and it was a gorgeus lens in my XD-11. I sold that equipment and swithch to a FM2. I bought recently the Nikon equivalent expecting to have a similar perfomance. Not used yet.

 

[dynachrome]

I have five 85mm lenses. They are: 85/1.8 Konica Hexanon, 85/1.8 Canon New FD, 85/1.8 Canon FL, 85/1.8 Nikkor H and 85/2 AI Nikkor. They are all good. Most amateurs years ago bought 28mm and 135mm lenses after getting the standard 50-58mm lens with their camera. They wanted something much wider or much longer than the standard lens, not just a little wider or a little longer. I got my first SLR in 1971 with a standard lens. My next lens, in 1972, was a 28 and the one after that was a 135, in 1973. The rest is history. Most 135s from that time only focused down to about five feet. If you did not use a fractional diopter close-up lens or a short extension tube, they weren't very useful for portraits. Some 135s did show up with closer focusing. These included the 135/3.2 Konica Hexanon, which went down to three feet, an RE Topcor which came with a removable helicoid, a later 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 which went down to three feet and a 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing which went down to 1:2. There were also some oddball 135 lenses which had a separate helicoid for the front element group. Most of these were not too sharp. I actually like shooting portraits with a close focusing 135. For photographing small children they are more useful than an 85. A macro lens in this range can also come in handy. I have had good luck with my Minolta cameras using 100mm Rokkors so I haven't tried to get a Minolta 85. Nikon probably made more 85s than the other companies and this is why their 85s are more reasonably priced now. I'd like to have the last 85/1.8 Nikkor, the 'K' model, just to have improved coating. I like my 85/2 AI. I don't know whether sample variation is why some people don't like this lens. I don't think I can justify getting an 85/1.4 or 1.2 Nikkor or Canon FD lens for portraits because I would never want to use them wide open for that purpose but I might be tempted by an off brand 85/1.4 for general low light picture taking.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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.

I have a Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 and they're not that expensive. It's one of my favorite lenses.

 

[Pioneer]

One of my favorite medium telephoto lenses is my Elmar 90/4 ltm on my Leica MA...

Ooops! Sorry, not very fast is it?

Regardless, it is still an excellent portrait lens.

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, even the LTM Jupiter F2 85mm is huge compared to other FSU LTM lenses, and the 90mm sun and 135 LTMs look quite slim next to it.

This is a proven Sonnar design, and you can use an adapter to mount it in LTM, M42, Contax or one of the other mounts the came/come in.

These lenses are also affordable.
IMO.

Cheers

 

[Ian Grant]

One reason for the cost is it's a less popular Focal Length so there's less economy of in terms of scale ofproduction.

Id love aan 85mm f1.9 SMC Takumar, I used one years agoand love it, however I now have a great 105mm f2.8 Super Takumar with the full aperture coupling for mt SP F. However I'm in lust for a particular fast lens between 50m (58mm) and 135mm and it's a 75mm f1.5 CZJ Biotar as a companion to my 58mm f2 Biotar, but they are expensive.

One issue with these lenses is anything that can be easily adapted to a digital camera has rocketed in potential value/sales price.

Ian

 

[flavio81]

I have a Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 and they're not that expensive. It's one of my favorite lenses.

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