jcolwell wrote:
It's probably because very few of us actually own one. Self not included.
I have it and I was going to mention it in my post but then deleted to leave only 3 at the top. I agree, it's hard to beat for bokeh and color, and its unique character is preferred by many over all other lenses. But then the list of choices opens even more because you'll have to consider wonderful Biotar and Helios 40 portrait lenses, Primolplan, Angenieux, Astro Berlin and many other great names from the past... The ~80mm portrait lens realm contains more diversity than any other focal distance, even more than normal primes.
Ataboy wrote:
The ~80mm portrait lens realm contains more diversity than any other focal distance, even more than normal primes.
Hence my difficulty picking a lens to replace the 85 f/1.8 I just sold and the reason for this thread. Of course more conversation about alt glass is always great.
Hello, My name is Jason, I am an 'Altaholic'. I've purchased 5 new lenses in the past month, although I am sure there are others here who are even worse (better?).
The Zuiko 85 F2 is known as the "Queen's lens" in our house as Jane Bown used it to when hired to take portraits of the Queen. She used it at F2.8 almost exclusively though did use a 50 sometimes too. Well I'd give 5% credit to the lens. http://tinyurl.com/6duky86
Mike
Michael Gordon wrote:
The Zuiko 85 F2 is known as the "Queen's lens" in our house as Jane Bown used it to when hired to take portraits of the Queen. She used it at F2.8 almost exclusively though did use a 50 sometimes too. Well I'd give 5% credit to the lens. http://tinyurl.com/6duky86
Mike
Some wonderful portraits by Jane Brown in that link. A nice bit of photographic history looking at those pictures of beloved (and not so beloved) people.
Anyone have experience with an/or an opinion on the Asahi Super Takumar 85mm f/1.9?
I see one on fleabay in M42 that would be easy to convert to EOS.
I have and love the C/Y 85/1.4. It is cheaper than the Contax N but has many similar attributes, including good close focus sharpness. I picked up a Rokinon and fully expected to have it replace tge Contax. Instead, it went back to Amazon a week later. Compared to the Contax, the Rokinon was mush for sharpness and built like a Lego. I am perhaps the only one here who is unimpressed by the lens (my copy at least - NOT the photos that others have gotten from theirs.).
I hate to run to the 'bad copy' theory, but I have no other explanation, and I don't have the time to order others in hopes of getting a more typical one.
Grenache wrote:
Compared to the Contax, the Rokinon was mush for sharpness and built like a Lego. I am perhaps the only one here who is unimpressed by the lens (my copy at least - NOT the photos that others have gotten from theirs.).
sebboh wrote:
what's the difference between the takumar 85/1.8 and 85/1.9? i've always wondered.
Depends which one's you're comparing. The SMC Takumar 85/1.8 (M42) and SMC Pentax 85/1.8 (K-mount) share the same optical formula with 6 groups of 6 elements, and both have excellent reputations. I owned the SMC Takumar 85/1.8, and it was an execllent lens.
The older Auto-Takumar 85/1.8 (M42) and three variants of the M42 Takumar 85/1.9 have a different optical formula with 4 groups of 5 elements, and nothing special in the way of a reputation.
It's similar to the relative performance of older Pentax lenses at 135mm: the SMC Takumar 135/2.5 and SMC Pentax 135/2.5 are beauties (I've owned both), but the Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) K-mount lens is a dog, with a confusing name, as it's not M42.
jcolwell wrote:
Depends which one's you're comparing. The SMC Takumar 85/1.8 (M42) and SMC Pentax 85/1.8 (K-mount) share the same optical formula with 6 groups of 6 elements, and both have excellent reputations. I owned the SMC Takumar 85/1.8, and it was an execllent lens.
The older Auto-Takumar 85/1.8 (M42) and three variants of the M42 Takumar 85/1.9 have a different optical formula with 4 groups of 5 elements, and nothing special in the way of a reputation.
It's similar to the relative performance of older Pentax lenses at 135mm: the SMC Takumar 135/2.5 and SMC Pentax 135/2.5 are beauties (I've owned both), but the Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) K-mount lens is a dog, with a confusing name, as it's not M42.
thanks a bunch! i've long been confused by the subtleties of pentax lens naming for anything other than the 50/1.4 and seeming irreconcilable prices on what appears to be the same lens.
