I've just published a review which owes a huge debt to @Fred Miranda!
A couple of years ago Fred showed various samples and so on which persuaded me to look at this relatively obscure little lens, that many might dismiss because of it's speed. I've loved it ever since! Thanks Fred.
The Carl Zeiss 4/85 ZM should not be ignored.
Check out Fred's samples, and my pretty detailed review is at
Vignetting and Distortion has some references to a wrong lens.
To the review: Thank you very much. It's a lens that is on my list for a longer time now.
I have two comments:
It looks like the biggest issue with this lens is microcontrast? It looks like you always have some glare(?) in any picture that reduces the details in very dark parts. Non of the pictures shows a proper black point. The darkest parts are more around 5% grey.
Regarding the 85/1.4GM. You are right, it seems to make no sense to compare these two. But you can use the GM for landscapes and it does a great job. It's a reason why I didn't tried the Carl Zeiss 4/85 ZM and also tho Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 yet. Even though they are much lighter.
sebbe wrote:
Vignetting and Distortion has some references to a wrong lens.
To the review: Thank you very much. It's a lens that is on my list for a longer time now.
I have two comments:
It looks like the biggest issue with this lens is microcontrast? It looks like you always have some glare(?) in any picture that reduces the details in very dark parts. Non of the pictures shows a proper black point. The darkest parts are more around 5% grey.
Regarding the 85/1.4GM. You are right, it seems to make no sense to compare these two. But you can use the GM for landscapes and it does a great job. It's a reason why I didn't tried the Carl Zeiss 4/85 ZM and also tho Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 yet. Even though they are much lighter....Show more →
Yes I agree that the GM or some such lens will do a great job for landscape. There are two reasons to choose the ZM: sunstars and size/mass. If you don't care much about these, or if you like the kind of sunstars the GM produces, then your choice is made!
Hmm. I know these images contain a proper black point, because the black clipping comes on. Maybe there is something that makes it seem that way to you?
Thanks for the proofread! The vignetting and distortion sections will come later.
DavidBM wrote:
Yes I agree that the GM or some such lens will do a great job for landscape. There are two reasons to choose the ZM: sunstars and size/mass. If you don't care much about these, or if you like the kind of sunstars the GM produces, then your choice is made!
Hmm. I know these images contain a proper black point, because the black clipping comes on. Maybe there is something that makes it seem that way to you?
Thanks for the proofread! The vignetting and distortion sections will come later.
You're right the black point seems to be right. But maybe you point at it with the comment about sunstars with the GM. I'm hardly shoot against the sun. And most of your shots are against the sun. Maybe it's just the glare of the sun.
To show you what I mean I took a few shots, inverted luminance on them and pushed the saturation with a mutliply mask.
In the top-left you can see how the blue sky "bleeds" into the branch and the whole picture has some glare of the sun.
The red sign on the top-right colorize the shadows right of it (but this may be because of the window).
And in the lower-right picture it's again the jellowish sky that bleed into the trees (on the right) beside the glare of the sun over all parts.
The lower-left picture is not shot against the sun and it's good here.
Edit: Below your pictures is one of mine with the loxia 21/2.8. All shadows seems to have the right color without bleeding and there is only a short range of sun glare. But there is much less dynamic range in that and it's also FL21 and not 85. Mayber it would look much worse then.
sebbe wrote:
You're right the black point seems to be right. But maybe you point at it with the comment about sunstars with the GM. I'm hardly shoot against the sun. And most of your shots are against the sun. Maybe it's just the glare of the sun.
To show you what I mean I took a few shots, inverted luminance on them and pushed the saturation with a mutliply mask.
In the top-left you can see how the blue sky "bleeds" into the branch and the whole picture has some glare of the sun.
The red sign on the top-right colorize the shadows right of it (but this may be because of the window).
And in the lower-right picture it's again the jellowish sky that bleed into the trees (on the right) beside the glare of the sun over all parts.
The lower-left picture is not shot against the sun and it's good here.
Edit: Below your pictures is one of mine with the loxia 21/2.8. All shadows seems to have the right color without bleeding and there is only a short range of sun glare. But there is much less dynamic range in that and it's also FL21 and not 85. Mayber it would look much worse then....Show more →
Agreed the L21 does better at avoiding bleeding and glare with the sun in the frame.
But then the sun is a much smaller part of the image, and in my experience longer lenses do worse with the sun in the frame. My sense is that ZM85 does very well with the sun in the frame for an 85, though I expect the Loxia 85 might do even better despite its more complicated construction, given that this is a respect in which Zeiss have improved.
DavidBM wrote:
Agreed the L21 does better at avoiding bleeding and glare with the sun in the frame.
But then the sun is a much smaller part of the image, and in my experience longer lenses do worse with the sun in the frame. My sense is that ZM85 does very well with the sun in the frame for an 85, though I expect the Loxia 85 might do even better despite its more complicated construction, given that this is a respect in which Zeiss have improved.
Thanks, that was my assumption too. Your replies are very helpful. It seems that I have to rent the ZM and also the loxia once and see if one of those two attracts me enough to buy it.
Fine work as usual David. In the alternatives section, the Leica 90/4 macro Elmar is reputed to be a fine performer and even smaller and lighter tho pricey. Just FYI.
David, lovely review. I have always very much liked the ZM 85 f/4 and your review highlights both it strengths and the few weaknesses it has very well. In the end, I don't have the lens, however, because of one lens that you don't mention as an alternative--the Leica M 90 f/4 macro, which is even smaller and performs almost as well. The Leica is collapsible so very tiny to carry and weighs a mere 230g (so 280g with the Hawk's). It of course does close up quite well too making it a bit more versatile and really isn't affected by the cover glass issue. For hiking I prefer it to the ZM 85 f/4, but it is significantly more expensive. It even has 10 aperture blades so sunstars very similar to the ZM and Loxia lenses.
edit: looks like Stephen (Luvwine) and I posted at almost exactly the same time
Great review David. I recently received a copy from a fellow FM member and have as yet to put it through its paces. After some initial backyard testing, there were a couple of things I noticed.
Across the frame sharpness is excellent at infinity as you noted. However compared to my CV 90/3.5 lens in F-mount, it has less depth of field at the edges and corners. Branches 40-50 feet from me were in crisp focus with the CV at f/5.6, but ever so slightly back-focused with the ZM. I wonder if there isn't a bit of gentle outward field curvature at the edges, or conversely if the CV has inward curvature at the edges, though the infinity corners remained crisp as well on the CV.
The second surprise was just how much the lens flares with a bright light source just outside the frame, even with the hood in place. Fortunately as you described, it is in a very narrow range, and is quite obvious and easy to avoid.
All that said, I think the CV 90/3.5 is a worthy contender as well, excellent at infinity and close-up, and comes with a close-up filter. Interestingly the ZM85 with VM-E helicoid adapter and CV90 with Metabones F-mount to E-mount adapter are almost the exact same weight at 447 grams. Of course if I'm only shooting M-mount lenses, I only pay the adapter weight penalty once, as opposed to twice if using two different mounts and adapters. Overall so far I prefer the color rendition and smaller diameter of the ZM, but the CV should be less money on the used market.
Great review David! I consider the ZM 85/4 outstanding and it's my dedicated 85mm lens for landscapes. Amazing color, micro-contrast and optimum resolution across the field at f/5.6, although corners are very sharp from wide open. My only negative is the lack of EXIF.
I tested this little Tessar against all my 85mm lenses and it always came on top. The Lox 85 beats it at f/4 but after f/5.6, they are very similar at 1:1 across the image field. It's only 340g with adapter and fits in my pocket.
I consider flare performance similar to other 85mm lenses including the FE 85/1.8, GM 85 and Loxia 85.
Your review is important because the 85/4 is not well-known to many Sony shooters and I hope it will shed some light on its performance. I've just posted this thread on the site news.
Had it loved it and a great travel,hiking lens no doubt. But I went for the Loxia 85 a little faster, bigger and heavier but as Fred said it’s killer at F4 across the frame so optimum just comes up sooner in the aperture ring. It’s really a tough call between them but I get Exif data with the Loxia but that comes at a price in money,size and weight. Truly a pick your poison decision they are both that good. Really can’t go wrong
The ZM 85 is what I lug into the mountains because of the size, weight, ruggedness, optical goodness, etc. Compared sharpness with the Lox85 once and basically the Lox wide open is as good as the ZM at f/4 across the frame and the Lox at f/4 is as good as the ZM at f/5.6. They are about the same at f/8.
Have not noticed any obvious contrast issues with this lens. It's not the best lens I have when pointed into the sun, but it's nowhere near as bad as my 85/1.8 Sony (which is it's only real optical weak point).
Steve Spencer wrote:
David, lovely review. I have always very much liked the ZM 85 f/4 and your review highlights both it strengths and the few weaknesses it has very well. In the end, I don't have the lens, however, because of one lens that you don't mention as an alternative--the Leica M 90 f/4 macro, which is even smaller and performs almost as well. The Leica is collapsible so very tiny to carry and weighs a mere 230g (so 280g with the Hawk's). It of course does close up quite well too making it a bit more versatile and really isn't affected by the cover glass issue. For hiking I prefer it to the ZM 85 f/4, but it is significantly more expensive. It even has 10 aperture blades so sunstars very similar to the ZM and Loxia lenses.
edit: looks like Stephen (Luvwine) and I posted at almost exactly the same time...Show more →
+1
Like many here, I have multiple lenses in the 85-90 range. I also picked up the Leica 90/4 for my small landscape lens in that range. Thanks to a tip from a forum member here, I was able to get a used copy in excellent condition for $1,200 ( think because it didn't have a hood) and then picked up a hood for $60.
Steve Spencer wrote:
David, lovely review. I have always very much liked the ZM 85 f/4 and your review highlights both it strengths and the few weaknesses it has very well. In the end, I don't have the lens, however, because of one lens that you don't mention as an alternative--the Leica M 90 f/4 macro, which is even smaller and performs almost as well. The Leica is collapsible so very tiny to carry and weighs a mere 230g (so 280g with the Hawk's). It of course does close up quite well too making it a bit more versatile and really isn't affected by the cover glass issue. For hiking I prefer it to the ZM 85 f/4, but it is significantly more expensive. It even has 10 aperture blades so sunstars very similar to the ZM and Loxia lenses.
edit: looks like Stephen (Luvwine) and I posted at almost exactly the same time...Show more →
I never tried the Leica 90/4 Macro. Is it optimized for close distance?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I never tried the Leica 90/4 Macro. Is it optimized for close distance?
Likely since it's unit focus. The modest maximum aperture allows decent performance at infinity. Conversely, the 3- and 4-element Elmar 90s (which I own) are very respectable with tubes in the 1:2 domain even though they are not macros. I want the Macro-Elmar but prices are stubbornly high.
rico wrote:
. I want the Macro-Elmar but prices are stubbornly high.
They used to sell the Makro-Elmar without the Macro-Adapter-M, but now they only sell the lens with the Macro Adapter. If you can find a used copy being sold without the Macro Adapter, it's about half price.
Apr 10, 2018 at 07:13 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
The MTF charts are quite good at all apertures and my experience is that the lens does very well both close up and at long distances too. Maybe not quite the performance of the ZM 85 f/4, but not far off and it would be interesting to see how close they are side by side.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would say it really isn't optimized for close distances. It is a very simple 4 element 4 groups design. Here is the official Leica data sheet:
The MTF charts are quite good at all apertures and my experience is that the lens does very well both close up and at long distances too. Maybe not quite the performance of the ZM 85 f/4, but not far off and it would be interesting to see how close they are side by side.
The Leica 90/4 with 4 elements is more "Tessar" than the ZM 85/4 Tessar.
"from the Greek word τέσσερα (téssera, four)"
