Krosya
Konicaze
ZM Sonnar 85/2 is amazingly expensive, aparently had some production problems as they released it later than planned from what I hear. This cant be good for business.
On the other hand, having used Nikkor LTM 85/2 and Jupiter 9 (85/2) - both Sonnar designes, both are very good if found in good condition, I cant help but wonder why in the world did Zeiss go through all the trouble with a new version instead of just taking one of those lenses and just updating it with new coating/built and be done? Could be a superb, fast modern 85/2 lens that would sell amazingly even at the price of their oddball 85/4 Tessar lens. I know I'd get one for sure.
Its descisions like this - making 2 lenses that dont sell well - one cause its super expensive and the other - cause its just not needed, really, I'm afraid will put this company out of business.
Oh well, I'll just keep using my old Jupiter 9 when I need at fast long lens.
On the other hand, having used Nikkor LTM 85/2 and Jupiter 9 (85/2) - both Sonnar designes, both are very good if found in good condition, I cant help but wonder why in the world did Zeiss go through all the trouble with a new version instead of just taking one of those lenses and just updating it with new coating/built and be done? Could be a superb, fast modern 85/2 lens that would sell amazingly even at the price of their oddball 85/4 Tessar lens. I know I'd get one for sure.
Its descisions like this - making 2 lenses that dont sell well - one cause its super expensive and the other - cause its just not needed, really, I'm afraid will put this company out of business.
Oh well, I'll just keep using my old Jupiter 9 when I need at fast long lens.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Hardly. Check what else they do. Still camera lenses are a small sideline, and are not made unless they think they will be profitable or enhance the company's reputation.
With new glasses, and modern computer programs, it's not that hard to redesign a lens and make it better. Also, some of the old glasses may no longer be available, so they probably had to redesign.
At least as importantly, Zeiss is synonymous with the best, and the German built ZM lenses are intended to be landmarks of performance (source: conversations at Oberkochen). Simply reintroducing an 85-year-old design, even if they could easily have done so, would not have been what they were trying to do.
Cheers,
R.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Zeiss also wanted to enhance close focus capability with the new 85f2. This did require a "floating" element design and it gave them a lot of trouble, both technically and "legally". Supposedly Leica AG jumped on them for it - claiming that is was too close to the patented system used in the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75f2 Summicron.
Zeiss had to get back to the drawing board and re-invent the whole thing. It is a very good lens - but I cant stand the ergonomics of it. Too "tapered" to hold on to.
The other problem is that there are a lot of good, used 85/90's out there used - so they have to come up with something that sways the buyer towards their "improved" design at a substantially higher price. The 85/90 focal length is popular as a portrait lens and does not require "bitingly" sharp images - a slight softness at wide open is preferable in most cases. Your Nikkor 85f2 and Jupiter 85f2 are case in points - sharp, but not clinically so.
Zeiss had to get back to the drawing board and re-invent the whole thing. It is a very good lens - but I cant stand the ergonomics of it. Too "tapered" to hold on to.
The other problem is that there are a lot of good, used 85/90's out there used - so they have to come up with something that sways the buyer towards their "improved" design at a substantially higher price. The 85/90 focal length is popular as a portrait lens and does not require "bitingly" sharp images - a slight softness at wide open is preferable in most cases. Your Nikkor 85f2 and Jupiter 85f2 are case in points - sharp, but not clinically so.
Krosya
Konicaze
Thanks for your replys. Yet I still think that if they just updated the old design - they would sell a lot more units.
Also, what about the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5? Is it much different from the old sonnar 50/1.5 and Jupiter 50/1.5? Is it just an update of the old design? Or they did the same thing here as well as ZM 85/2?
Also, what about the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5? Is it much different from the old sonnar 50/1.5 and Jupiter 50/1.5? Is it just an update of the old design? Or they did the same thing here as well as ZM 85/2?
f16sunshine
Moderator
What I don't understand is why they called it a Sonnar?
The Scheme looks much more Guassy than Sonnarish.
The Scheme looks much more Guassy than Sonnarish.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
The C- designation marks the 50/1,5 as 'classic' or 'compact' (Zeiss seems never to have decided which they preferred) and it's Japanese-built so it's not held up as a 'landmark' or 'state of the art' lens, even though several Cosina/Voigtländer lenses assuredly are. I'm pretty sure, without checking, that one of the cemented groups in the old Sonnar design was split in the C-Sonnar. No doubt Tom can confirm or correct this.
The main reason for the original Sonnar design was to keep the number of air/glass surfaces to a minimum, because in the days before coating this greatly increased contrast. Leica's fast rivals to the Sonnar had higher resolution but lower contrast. With the introduction of coating the Leica lenses became a good deal contrastier while retaining the same sharpness.
Cheers,
R.
The main reason for the original Sonnar design was to keep the number of air/glass surfaces to a minimum, because in the days before coating this greatly increased contrast. Leica's fast rivals to the Sonnar had higher resolution but lower contrast. With the introduction of coating the Leica lenses became a good deal contrastier while retaining the same sharpness.
Cheers,
R.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, maybe Zeiss should have done a 85/2 "C" - for Classic and make an updated version of J-9/Nikkor. 
And if they could also make it 'Compact' - be even better.
And if they could also make it 'Compact' - be even better. Roger Hicks
Mentor
Well, maybe Zeiss should have done a 85/2 "C" - for Classic and make an updated version of J-9/Nikkor.
Quite possibly, though I suspect -- I don't know -- that a C-85 might not have met their requirements for image quality, especially with regard to focus-shift. This is however pure speculation on my part.
Cheers,
R.
ruby.monkey
Mentor
Because it's a fast lens, and because the name resonates with the sort of photographer that would be interested in Zeiss glass?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Oh, you cynical fellow. But look at the so-called 'Tele-Tessar' too. At 5 glasses in 3 groups it's neither tele nor Tessar.
Cheers,
R.
thrice
Established
Roger, isn't that a classic Tessar? Similar to a Cooke triplet (though apparently not derived from it) with a cemented doublet as the rear group?
Even though they replaced the front element with a cemented doublet, is it not still a Tessar? The overall 'shape' of the front group is almost identical to the single element in the tessar design. I'd imagine it's slightly better corrected than a traditional tessar but tessars are very well corrected already so rendering shouldn't change much.
Technically speaking of just "elements and groups" it is a Heliar design I guess. However, the central element has a different radius of curvature on either side, like a tessar, whereas a heliar has equivalent radii of curvature on either side of the central element.
Last edited:
thrice
Established
Roger,
The ZM C-Sonnar has the foremost (of lens axis) set from a 6-element Sonnar (usually 50/2 like a jupiter-8) and the rear group of the 7-element Sonnar (original Zeiss 50/1.5, jupiter-9, jupiter-3, nikkor 85/1.5). Yes you could say they just moved one of the glass lenses and used an "air lens" in the front group, but the shapes of the other elements are changed so I don't think that's a fair simplification
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Daniel,
Well, yes, that's it really. It's certainly not tele, and once it stops being a Cooke triplet with a cemented rear group it stops being a Tessar in my book; I regard this as a piece of pure marketing.
Likewise your point about a C-Sonnar: it's a semi-legitimate name that owes more to marketing than to optical design. The thing is, I find it vastly superior to any 'true' Sonnar I've ever tried: I always thought that both Tessars and Sonnars, though landmark designs, were somewhat over-praised by their more fervent devotees, especially in the light of later, better designs (such as indeed the Heliar). The only Tessar I've ever had that I really, really liked was a 150/6.3.
Cheers,
R.
thrice
Established
That's fair Roger, although the 50/1.4 Nikkor is a direct copy of a 7 element Sonnar formula, yet somehow rather sharp (like the C Sonnar) compared to most 50mm Sonnars and slightly faster. I think glass types, coatings and manufacturing tolerances make quite a difference.
On the topic of the 85/2 Sonnar, I'd say Zeiss just want to be able to say they have the 'best' 85/90 f/2.0 lens. A matter of taste of course, but the good copies of this lens seem to be able to slightly nudge out the 90/2 APO Summicron, especially in close quarters.
On the topic of the 85/2 Sonnar, I'd say Zeiss just want to be able to say they have the 'best' 85/90 f/2.0 lens. A matter of taste of course, but the good copies of this lens seem to be able to slightly nudge out the 90/2 APO Summicron, especially in close quarters.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Zeiss have always aimed to be the best: and in optics at least, they have almost always succeeded. I would not lightly question their engineering decisions. Marketing, unfortunately, is a quite different pan of shrimp.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I find modern Leica lenses to be too contrasty for my taste. I had the 90mm Summicron APO ASPH and it was sharp and high contrast, so much I did not care for it. The 75AA I got to replace it was similar. I didn't like the WATE for the same reason. Seems I am more of a Leitz man than a Leica man which is good because I am not having GAS attacks. The ZM 85/2 has that classic Zeiss look, sharp but not overly high contrast with very nice bokeh. I only got it a few weeks ago but so far it is a keeper. I wouldn't pay the new asking price so it was fortunate I found one used. And I agree the 90mm Elmarit-M is the deal of the century given its asking price.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
That's what you think; that's what I think; and that's pretty much what the designers at Zeiss think, according to what I was told at Oberkochen.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Why a 'no-brainer'? Not a lens I care for at all.
That's not saying that I'm right and you're wrong: I'm just curious as to why you dismissed everything else, quite so emphatically.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Not 'dislike', just 'don't care for' as in 'can't see any compelling reason to buy it'. I prefer the results from the 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar, which is only 2/3 stop slower and a lot cheaper, though I fully take your point about the sliding hood versus the Voigtländer monster.
Then again, until I got the 75 Summicron, I dd use 90s a lot, and I like speed -- which is why, 25+ years ago, I bought the last pre-aspheric version Summicron. Well, actually, swapped a brand new one (sealed in box) for a tri-lens turret that stood me in £100: one of my best deals of all time.
It was just your emphasis I was surprised by. The 90/2.8 is a very fine lens, but not, in my book, a 'no brainer'.
Cheers,
R.
Hacker
黑客
The Zeiss Sonnar is huge, and I sold it as it was very awkward to use. Build wise, very very sturdy, and the coating is marvelous. I actually prefer the Nikkor 8.5cm LTM which strikes a delicate balance in terms of sharpness and contrast for portraits.
For lenses in this focal length (75-90mm), I cannot recall handling a poor performing lens.
For lenses in this focal length (75-90mm), I cannot recall handling a poor performing lens.