Penceler
Established
So I'm seriously considering the zm85. How limiting is f4? Part of this lens's purpose will be portraits and, well, f4? I do like the look but how is size and handling? Opinions appreciated.
Thanks
John
Thanks
John
ferider
Mentor
f4 by itself is not a problem in most cases.
But given you can have much smaller, cheaper, well built and just as sharp (90/4 Elmar-C, or Rokkor), I never felt attracted to the ZM lens.
But given you can have much smaller, cheaper, well built and just as sharp (90/4 Elmar-C, or Rokkor), I never felt attracted to the ZM lens.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Never used the Zeiss, but my M-Rokkor is filling my needs at f/4. It's nice to handle, and I asked it to come along for a walk around town with my 50 and 35. Didn't cramp my style one bit.
Seriously, I think I'm with ferider here. I think Zeiss is great (just ask me about my Biogon), but I'd like more flexibility (size, weight, max aperture) if I'm going to spend for it.
Seriously, I think I'm with ferider here. I think Zeiss is great (just ask me about my Biogon), but I'd like more flexibility (size, weight, max aperture) if I'm going to spend for it.
rscheffler
Well-known
It has been about 4 years since I used a Tele-Tessar for about a month on an M9. My recollection of the lens was it's very good, but nothing magical. Where I perhaps would take issue with it is as already noted by others - it's not particularly small (as in short) compared to some other slow ~90mm options, though it is rather narrow. I also recall having some trouble nailing focus with it at nearer distances, but it could have been an RF calibration problem and I was quite new to the RF world at that time. Technically, for farther distance work, it seems to hold up quite well to much higher priced, high performance 85s/90s, as seen in this test by Jim Kasson on a Sony a7II.
Given what the ZM cost new, and assuming used prices are not down all that much now that the lens has been discontinued, I'd be more inclined to spend about that much money on an M-mount converted (with RF coupling) Zeiss 90/2.8 Contax G lens, which supposedly is more typical of Zeiss rendering, is very sharp, a stop faster and similar size. Otherwise I'd just save the money and get a Rokkor 90/4.
Given what the ZM cost new, and assuming used prices are not down all that much now that the lens has been discontinued, I'd be more inclined to spend about that much money on an M-mount converted (with RF coupling) Zeiss 90/2.8 Contax G lens, which supposedly is more typical of Zeiss rendering, is very sharp, a stop faster and similar size. Otherwise I'd just save the money and get a Rokkor 90/4.
mfogiel
Mentor
I always advise a lateral solution: you buy Contax Aria or similar, plus the Sonnar 85/2.8.
Cheaper, more flexible, and no need to change lenses. A great alternative is also Pentax ME Super or MX with the 85/2 or Olympus OMx with the 85/2 or 100/2.8.
Cheaper, more flexible, and no need to change lenses. A great alternative is also Pentax ME Super or MX with the 85/2 or Olympus OMx with the 85/2 or 100/2.8.
Pioneer
Mentor
There is nothing wrong with the Tele-Tessar. In short, like most Zeiss lenses, it produces very high image quality.
I use it quite a bit and have never found the relatively slow aperture to be limiting at all. If you buy one and use it I doubt you will be disappointed. But only you can tell.
This is what I can say about my Tele-Tessar. It always does exactly what I want without any drama. It is quite sharp right from wide open. It has a tiny bit of vignette at f4 but that is all. By f5.6 it is gone. There is no distortion that I can find.
The biggest reason that there are not a lot of fans on the forums is the f4 maximum aperture. That, and the fact that there are faster lenses out there. I do, however, find it interesting that many of those "faster" lenses have to be stopped down to f4 for the best image quality.
But, in today's world, faster, more megapickels, and higher iso are better. Slower, less megapickels and lower iso just don't cut it.
Even though I do enjoy working with this lens it does have some downsides. As others have mentioned it is a longer lens. That never really bothered me and without the hood the lens does not interfere with the viewfinder. With it on it does protrude a little bit at close range focusing.
Next, it will not provide the same out of focus blur at f4 that f2 lenses will. If that narrow depth of focus is important in your work you won't care for this lens. I am not saying that you can't get nice bokeh, you can. You will just have to deal with the fact that you will have more depth of focus to get your subject sharp and in focus than those lucky guys and gals with the f2 lens deal with.
You may need to learn to work with faster film or with a tripod, since there are times when you need a slower shutter speed to get your shot. I have shaky hands to start with so I use a monopod or tripod a lot of the time anyway, but that is another topic.
Finally, you have to use those god awful, silly, zeiss lens caps.
I use it quite a bit and have never found the relatively slow aperture to be limiting at all. If you buy one and use it I doubt you will be disappointed. But only you can tell.
This is what I can say about my Tele-Tessar. It always does exactly what I want without any drama. It is quite sharp right from wide open. It has a tiny bit of vignette at f4 but that is all. By f5.6 it is gone. There is no distortion that I can find.
The biggest reason that there are not a lot of fans on the forums is the f4 maximum aperture. That, and the fact that there are faster lenses out there. I do, however, find it interesting that many of those "faster" lenses have to be stopped down to f4 for the best image quality.
But, in today's world, faster, more megapickels, and higher iso are better. Slower, less megapickels and lower iso just don't cut it.
Even though I do enjoy working with this lens it does have some downsides. As others have mentioned it is a longer lens. That never really bothered me and without the hood the lens does not interfere with the viewfinder. With it on it does protrude a little bit at close range focusing.
Next, it will not provide the same out of focus blur at f4 that f2 lenses will. If that narrow depth of focus is important in your work you won't care for this lens. I am not saying that you can't get nice bokeh, you can. You will just have to deal with the fact that you will have more depth of focus to get your subject sharp and in focus than those lucky guys and gals with the f2 lens deal with.
You may need to learn to work with faster film or with a tripod, since there are times when you need a slower shutter speed to get your shot. I have shaky hands to start with so I use a monopod or tripod a lot of the time anyway, but that is another topic.
Finally, you have to use those god awful, silly, zeiss lens caps.
Penceler
Established
tele-tessar
tele-tessar
Thanks all for you thoughts. The Rokkor is certainly looking like a reasonable alternative but there is just something about the tessar that keeps drawing me in. It so concerns me I'm finding myself agreeing with a guy named "pioneer"
but I guess "penciler" is no bargain either.
Time to sit and do nothing for a few days and hope things sort themselves out.
Thanks again
John
tele-tessar
Thanks all for you thoughts. The Rokkor is certainly looking like a reasonable alternative but there is just something about the tessar that keeps drawing me in. It so concerns me I'm finding myself agreeing with a guy named "pioneer"
but I guess "penciler" is no bargain either.Time to sit and do nothing for a few days and hope things sort themselves out.
Thanks again
John
WJJ3
Well-known
Thanks all for you thoughts. The Rokkor is certainly looking like a reasonable alternative but there is just something about the tessar that keeps drawing me in. It so concerns me I'm finding myself agreeing with a guy named "pioneer"
Time to sit and do nothing for a few days and hope things sort themselves out.
Thanks again
John
FWIT, I use the M-ROKKOR, and am happy. I choose the CLE version because it has a proper M mount focus cam. Its always plenty sharp, all over, every aperture, all distances. Little bit of fall-off wide open. Bokeh effects / depth of field subject isolation are possible, and out of focus areas never distract. At one point I considered the Tele-Tessar simply because it focuses down to 90cm. That in itself seemed appealing to me. The ROKKOR is marked to 1 meter, but focuses slightly past. I actually measured my copy and its closest focus distance is about 95cm. The extra 5cm close focus is not a deal breaker for me. I use a 40.5mm→39mm step down ring and 39mm filters on mine which does not vignette the corners at all.
Some landscapes here.
I have a couple portraits that I can dig up if you are interested...
The new 2.4/90 SUMMARIT is really appealing. But my M-ROKKOR does such a great job for $250 that I can't even begin to think about laying out the $$$ for the Leica lens.
uhoh7
Mentor
Will, I never saw the M-Rokkor look better
As you note, keep in mind Put's daily favorite 90: the Summarit. I think it's the same size as the ZM 85/4 and tiny bit heavier. Fantastic lens, only the APO beats it.
Prices have come way down on the f/2.5 version. 8-900 today I think.
F/2.5 on this lens is so good you can shoot infinity long landscapes and see fine details on the edges. Better than even the great Elmarit-M 90
It smokes the CV 90/3.5 APO which is not shabby.
Vienna Creek Narrows by unoh7, M9 90/2.5 @f/4
As you note, keep in mind Put's daily favorite 90: the Summarit. I think it's the same size as the ZM 85/4 and tiny bit heavier. Fantastic lens, only the APO beats it.
Prices have come way down on the f/2.5 version. 8-900 today I think.
F/2.5 on this lens is so good you can shoot infinity long landscapes and see fine details on the edges. Better than even the great Elmarit-M 90
It smokes the CV 90/3.5 APO which is not shabby.
Vienna Creek Narrows by unoh7, M9 90/2.5 @f/4
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I chose the thin tele-elmarit 90 because it is f/2.8 and tiny. I seldom use 90mm so its small size is important else I would just leave it at home. I considered the ZM but it is too slow for my uses especially with a yellow filter in front.
WJJ3
Well-known
Will, I never saw the M-Rokkor look better
As you note, keep in mind Put's daily favorite 90: the Summarit. I think it's the same size as the ZM 85/4 and tiny bit heavier. Fantastic lens, only the APO beats it.
Prices have come way down on the f/2.5 version. 8-900 today I think.
F/2.5 on this lens is so good you can shoot infinity long landscapes and see fine details on the edges. Better than even the great Elmarit-M 90
It smokes the CV 90/3.5 APO which is not shabby.
Vienna Creek Narrows by unoh7, M9 90/2.5 @f/4
thank you
im really happy with my little ROKKOR. Your image is showing the potential of the SUMMARIT though, and not helping me stay content over here 
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
Zeiss 85mm f4, Sony A7II
Roger Hicks
Mentor
For portraits, why not an 85/2 Jupiter?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.