What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

The Zeiss Planar 50/1.4

>The Planar 85/1.4 is of course outperformed Sonnar 85/2.8. If you think the >latter fits your budget, you should go for West Germany version(ie, Sonnar >85/2.8 AEG) owing to better color rendition. However, your old Pentax >85/1.8 is a famous mid-tele! Its overall performance may rank above the >sonnar 85/2.8...If you really WANT another budgeted CZ mid-tele lens, you >may consider sonnar 100/2.8(AEG) or sonnar 135/2.8(Japan), the former is >quite rare but it's better.

What compromises do you mean for those fast lenses? Heavy in weight?
 
Both the Sonnar 85/2.8 and the Planar 85/1.4 will have much richer and clea= ner colors than the longer Takumar screw mount lenses. The Takumars that I = have tried have had a cold tone to them. The old screw mount east german Ze= iss lenses also are warmer than the Takumar lenses. If you are shooting bla= ck and white, it will probably be difficult to see any difference at mid-ap= artures whether you use Takumar or Zeiss - they will all be sharp if you ar= e using a fast shutter speed or a tripod. The Takumar lenses are also excel= lent lenses.

I do not believe that you can see any difference between the 'made in Germa= ny' and the 'made in Japan' lenses. All the Zeiss lenses have good color re= ndition.

The Planar 85 is supposedly a little bit sharper at infinity than the Sonna= r 85, and the Sonnar 85 is supposedly a little sharper at shorter distances= , making it good for portraits. I have used both lenses wide open with good= result.

The Planar 85 weighs a lot more than the Sonnar 85. And the Planar takes bi= gger filters (67mm) than the Sonnar (55mm). So the Sonnar is a lot easier t= o bring along on a trip. The Sonnar 85 is the same design as the Sonnar 90 = for the G1/G2, and the users of the Sonnar 90 are very happy with its perfo= rmance, and the Sonnar 90 often gets rated very highly by its users.
 
Thanx again !
I'm going so sell the Takumar 1.8/85 and still look for a CZ 85/100 mm.
In this forum I found the statement, the 2.0/100 might be the best/sharpest lens in this range.

What do you think about it ?
There are not many statements to compare these lenses....
 
we may be a bit of the 50mm/1.4 thread… anyway…

i own a mm 100/3.5 and eventhough i guess its not as good as the 100mm/2.0, this lens is a very good buy (secondHand, 250$<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• so small and deadly sharp.
 
>no meaning to compare the quality between 85/1.4 & 100/2, just think your >purpose to use the lens. For ex&le, 85/1.4 is more suitable for >portraits.
 
Paul,

You'll be hard-pressed to find the 100/2 for under $1000, and that's 2nd-hand. In performance, this lens is pure gold (weighs like it, too). For travel, I need something lighter and cheaper, with the 85/2.8 and 100/3.5 looking equally attractive. The latter is no longer made and damn scarce. Ben, where did you find yours?
 
Hi to everybody. I have a Zeiss planar 1.4. A few days ago I noticed that there is a tinny oil line on the inner blades. It doesn't affect the finctioning of the lens, and the fact is that it seems it is not still crucial. Should I send it just now to the repair or better to wait until it affects functioning? Maybe I send it and in a year is the same... I do not know if this is normal with the passing of time. Thanks. JUAN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top