Any difference between Zeiss N 85/1.4 and 85 of Zeiss N 24-85 zoom

[Guest]

Hi,

I already have N24-85mm zoom with my N1 and I'm interested in N85/1.4
How big difference is between these two lenses if I want to use them for portrait pictures. N85/1.4 is a bit pricy, especially if I have 85mm range on my zoom. I know that optic conditions are different for landscapes and portraits. I've heard that N85/1.4 is soft as it should be for the portraits. If I use my zoom as a portrait lens, will I get worse results?

Kris.

 

[Guest]

I don't have the 85/1.4 but I would imagine the only difference that is noticeable to the human eye would be dept of field. The main question though is, are you going to purchase the 645. I have both the 645 and N1 and I use the 80/2.0 for portraits on my N1 with the adapter and it is awesome. So if you are going to get the 645 go with the 80/2.0 that way if you don't have to purchase two lenses.

 

[Guest]

> This is not an answer to the question, but food for thought (or food for confusion?). My wish list contains the 24-85 and the Makro-Sonnar=AE T* 2.8/100. The 100 is similarly priced to the 85, within a couple hundred dollars I think. Since you already have 85 covered, maybe the 100 would appeal to you. It certainly does to me Portraits, macro shooting, top o= f the line lens ... it's my dream lens, can't wait to own it myself. Maybe yo= u could test one? It may compliment your existing system.

Read about both lenses on the Zeiss site:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-Lynn L.=20

 

[Guest]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the 85/1.4 is soft. There is no comparison between the 85/1.4 and the 85 end of the Zoom. Rarely, if ever will a zoom lens perform as well as a prime lens.

The 100 macro is a viable idea, but won't quite offer the bokeh that the 85 delivers at 1.4. Also, you may want to check how fast the 100 focuses compared to the 85/1.4.

 

[Guest]

Oh, by the way, I have a couple of shots in the Contax Gallery using the 85/1.4...and do a search for fotografz... there is a shot or two with the 24-85
at the 85 end of the zoom. The zoom is quite good and in no way am I discounting its' performance.

 

[Guest]

I agree the 100/f2.8 macro lens is a viable choice. Unless you are looking for speed or the shallow DOF that the 80/f1.4 lens offers, it is a lot of money for this option since you already own the 24/85 zoom.

I like the idea that the 100mm gives you very tight close up for portrait shots and 1:1 reproduction ratio for macro. Also, the 100mm use internal focusing design where the length of the lens does not change when re-focus. The 120mm macro lens for the C645 is huge in macro range.

Please note, the information for the N 100mm is not correct in the Contax web site. For one, the filter size is 72mm, matches my 645 lenses, and it uses the GB-73 hood, also same as the c645 120mm and 140mm lens hood.

 

[Guest]

Hi again,

Thanx for many responses to my question, but I'm still a little confused. First of all N85/1.4 has different use than N100/2. I'm not sure, but I've read in this group (from an owner) that N85/1.4 is soft because it should be soft, as portraits require a little softness (to hide wrinkles). N100/2 is as sharp as can be because it's the macro lens. Of course I can use N100/2 as portrait lens, but I think that N85/1.4 is better because it's built especially for this purpose.

And second question connected to the first one;
Because portrait lens should be a little soft, should I use portrait film, like FUJI NPS 160?
I know that this film is the special film for portraits because it's very soft. So you use soft lens and soft film, finally you will get double (blury) softness result.

Legendary 85/1.4 MM (for RTS3) was too sharp for portraits and Zeiss has decided to build a little less sharp N85/1.4, is that true?

Kris.

 

[Guest]

I have not seen any information officially from Contax or Zeiss anywhere indicates that N85mm lens is designed to be softer, although I have not looked into the MTF chart. It is ideal for portraiture, I think, because of the focal length and the large f-stop to give shallow DOF. Generally, Carl Zeiss lens is dead sharp. This is one of their characteristics. Most people will find Carl Zeiss lens are too sharp for portraiture.

There are various type of diffuser and softener filters to help remove winkles. The best I ever used is the Zeiss Softar by Contax, B+W and Heliopan. it can be used at any aperture for greater depth of field without changing the softness. But for 82mm filter size, it is over $200 each.

For films, manufactures refer their portrait films because of the superb skin tone reproduction, not because they are softer. In fact, the Fuji Portrait NPS 160 that Kris referred to is a newer type of fine grain films thus it is sharper than the old generation. If you look at the Fuji web site, "Captures exceptional detail" and "fine-textured images" are listed as part of its features. A lot of pros and films reviews shows that many prefer the NPC over the NPS because it is more forgiving with mixed light situation and produce more accurate skin tone. To me, it is a matter of personal taste. I am running films test for the NPC, NPS and the NPH and the Kodak Portra NC and have not find my favorite portrait film yet. Any recommendation will be appreciated.

If you are doing B&W, there is technique to use diluted developer for softer image.

 

[Guest]

Here we are!, I've found it!

Post has been sent "by Bernhard Mayr on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 1:22 am" in "Contax SLR C/Y-mount: Carl Zeiss lenses - manual focus: The 100mm f2 Planar"

"The 100/2 is optically outstanding and if this is what you are after, then it is right for you. I have both the 85/1.4 and the 100/2 and besides the difference in focal length, which is not nelegible, they have a totally different character. The 85 is beautifully soft from 1.4-2.8, which also gives a DOF that is quite right for portraits. Stopped down however it is as sharp as it gets which together makese it a very versatile lens. The 100/2 however is much more clinical (read in the Zeiss datasheet what it was designed for), and sharp even wide open and stopped down it is even sharper than the 85/1.4. It's up to you to decide what fits your needs"

Can you agree with this comment? It looks like this guy has tested both of them.

Kris.

 

[Guest]

I forgot,

The comment above is about C/Y mount, not N. The question is if Zeiss repeated the story?

Kris.

 

[Guest]

Macro lenses are designed to be sharp over the entire (flat) field of focus, regular lenses are not which makes them softer in the corners when photographing flat objects relative to macro lenses. The softness of the 85/F1.4 is surely not intended but a "weakness" of the lens when used wide-open, as do (all?) lenses; stopping down always increases sharpness. The fact that you like the softness for portraiture wide-open is a bonus or clever use, however you want to look at it, considering the lens really is "inferior" wide-open because it is intended to be sharp at all apertures....

 

[Guest]

> Kris,

I suspect that the design differences between the N85/1.4 and the N100/2.8 macro are so small in everyday photography as to be of no consequence in the end. Yes the macro lens may be both sharper and more contrasty but that doesn't really matter. If the image is too sharp, it can easily be made softer with any number of softening filters, not least of which are the Zeiss Softars in one of their varying strengths. By the by, I have tried several different types of softening filters and find the Zeiss Softars to be most to my liking. If I could afford more, in different sizes and strengths, I would buy more! Back to the lenses.

If I were in your position, I would be making my choice on the following basis. I tend to shoot portraits hand held with available light in low light connditions. With the 85/1.4 this means that I can get away with shooting at 1/90 sec, and sometimes with certain Contax bodies at 1/60 sec, and an aperture of 1.4 if I need to. Using the 100/2.8 I need either 1/125 or 1/90 sec and 2.8. The difference is a minimum of two stops and a maximim of three stops. This is the crux of your decision. If you can shoot on a tripod and your subjets aren't moving, all of this is irrelevant. In that case you may as well get the 100/2.8 and soften the image with a Softar. If available low light is your environment of choice, the 85/1.4 is irreplacable and the macro just won't do when 2 stops means the difference between getting the shot or not. What and how do shoot? There's your answer.

As to your second question regarding film, I regularly shoot with Fuji colour negative film and it is my film of choice. I use NPS, NPC, NPH and NHGII/NPZ. I do use Kodak Portra VC films but only in certain lighting conditions and only when I have to. Yes, the film makes a big difference, especially with portraiture, but so does the lighting. Try the NPS (low contrast film) in contrasty lighting. Use the NPC in overcast or flat lighting. NPH handles contasty days well but also works fine in flat lighting as long as you give it a bit more exposure, try 320 or even 250. NHGII/NPZ are good in low light and have good contrast and saturation of the light is flat but exposure comments for NPH also apply here. None of these films like much in the way of underexposure so be warned.

You simply have to try the films in the camera/lens outfit you end up buying and see how it performs. Do you like the results? If so, stick with the film/lens lighting combination that you know works the way you want. As a final comment, because of the variation brought about by the printing process, after all every print is a particular printer's interpretation of the image on the negative, you need to find a good pro lab and stick with them through this learning process. If you change labs, or even use a lab whose output varies from operator to operator, you'll get lost. Find a willing subject and shoot lots of film! Good luck,

Gary.

 

[Guest]

Kris,

The Bernhard Mayr comment about the 100/2 refers to a different lens altogether - it's not the C/Y Makro-Planar version of the N series Makro-Sonnar, but more like the 100/3.5 from the Hasselblad range...not a macro lens at all. It (the 100/2 Planar) is very sharp, has very low distortion and is used for architecture, aerial photos, etc where geometry and precise measurement in large objects is important. In comparison with this lens, just about anything is soft!!

As to the use of the Makro-Sonnar…yes, it’s a great lens in controlled conditions, but I’ve only been using it as a macro, studio portrait and landscape lens because it’s long and heavy, very slow to focus and very noisy when focusing. I’m thinking of getting the 85/1.4 for its handling and low light advantages in environmental portraiture.

As far as the varifocals go, the long end of the 24-85 is absolutely fine for portraits if f/4.5 is ok for what you want to do and the short end of the 70-300 is slightly better than the 24-85. It comes down to a cost, quality & versatility decision.

 

[tyurek]

I think the DOF at f/1.4 vs at f/4.5 is a huge difference for portrait photography. I have used the 24-85 at 85/4.5 for some portraits and the only way you can get a soft blurry background is if the background is far enough from your subject. If the subject is standing right in front of a wall for instance, the wall is too much in focus which I find distracting. I believe you will need the f/1.4 to get that dreamy bakground look in your portrait shots. I used the 135 Sonnar at f/2.8 for head and shoulders portraits before, and I felt the need for even less DOF in some of those shots.