SMALL tele lens Zeiss sonnar 35-100 or Zeiss 28-85

[Guest]

Thanks both Dieter and Dirk for the further help understanding the information.

And Dieter, you do as well with writing in the English language as many people I know who speak/write English as their first language. I, on the other hand am unable to string together any simple phrase in German (even though my grandparents were fluent). You're way ahead of me

-Lynn

 

[Guest]

Dear Dirk,

i have to complete you in one point:
While the optic design remained the same, there are some different versions of the Sonnar 2,8/85.

1. The origin >mage in West Germany< Type, which i like most. The barrel totaly of metall, the scales engraved, diameter and design like most E55 lenses.
2. With the fabrication in Japan >made in Japan<, there came the barrel, known until now. Aperture ring of "plastic", printed aperture scale (like 1,7/50, 3,5/100). Broader focus ring and slightly less diameter.
May be, also the aperture mechanism was redesigned to fit the coming MM requirements (less weight and spring tension). The lens weight is about 30 gr. less the older type.
3. Then the actual MM type >made in japan<. Like type 2., but MM equipment with newer aperture mechanism.
4. The last series. Like 3., but manufactured in Germany with the introduction of aria body, engraved >made in Germany<, when I´m right.

After twenty years with CONTAX and other systems of different formats, I think the little Sonnar 2,8/85 is one of the finest and most usefull lenses I owned. It convinced me even with extension tubes. The viewfinder ist actually brighter than with the Sonnar 3,5/100 and the focusing helix (?) ist flater, what I prefer. Wonderful lens for landscape and travel. Optical performance even with 1,4/85.

By the way, one of my three Type 1. Sonnar >made in Germany" is to be sold. One in use and one in spare should be enough for me.

There was an ">made in Germany< with MM" on e-bay. As I know, this never existet and Contax/Zeiss refused mechanichal modification from AE to MM because of the expenditure. For landscape, portrait, nature,... MM is of no interest in my opinion.

I like your forum, will you soon scann the MTF of the never sold Apo Tele Tessar 5,6/500 and 8/800, I send you?

regards, Stefan Irmler

 

[Guest]

Servus Dieter!

Some years ago I had the possibility to compare both Sonnars, the 85 and the 100, and honestly said I could not see much difference. I really loved the 100 because it is little more "tele", but summing up I would prefer the 85 because of "2,8", and its smaller size. My first 85 was an old german with metall barrel, but I do not think that the newer "plastic" is worse.

Regards
Wolfgang

 

[Guest]

I have the "Made In West-Germany" version of the 85mm f2.8 for my Arias and have never had a better short telephoto lens. It is more than a match for the 90mm I had when I used Leica M3s. For my Canon EOS system, I opted for the 100mm f2.0. It, too, is an excellent lens, but I keep thinking I should have an 85mm as well. There's something about that focal length that matches the way I see.

 

[Guest]

Hi folks,

I tend to favor the view of the 100mm focal length over the 85. Everytime I pick up a 100mm, either an old Nikon version or of course the incredibly smooth Zeiss MM 2.0, I find the perspective very liking. The 100 pulls your interest in on the subject without crowding them within the frame. The 85 for me while it is great for "environmental" portraits tends to include a few too many distracting elements...especially shooting at the range where you don't want to intimidate your subject. I have the 135/2,8 as well, but the perspective on the 100 tends to put just enough more space around the subject that it doesn't look as strained when trying to take a head and shoulders or waist level portrait. In fact, I am looking at inveting in an AX beyond my Aria, just so I can lease the wonderful 100/2.0 MM for better lens /body balance.

Alan