Best budget friendly 85mm prime??

[hoakin1981]

I am in the market for the best budget friendly 85mm prime to be used on an A7 & A6000. I was thinking of going for the Samyang 85mm f1.4 but I am reluctant due to the whole size/weight combo of this lens which is somewhat high IMO being basically a DSLR lens.

 

Also, I would not mind saving some $$$ as well by buying an older legacy lens provided that it offers excellent sharpness.

 

I realistically do not need the f1.4 but having at least an f2 if not f1.8 would be nice..of course f2.8 is obviously fine as well.

 

Any suggestions?

[C47]

Tamron 90 mm F2.8 Macro + La ea 3 ?

 

Sent from my Aquaris X5 using Tapatalk

[hoakin1981]

Tamron 90 mm F2.8 Macro + La ea 3 ?

 

Sent from my Aquaris X5 using Tapatalk

 

Hi. Thanks for the suggestion but I am not planning on messing with any A-lenses. This adapter/lens combo would be large and also expensive. The point is to choose a smaller and cheaper lens with great optics to be used with a simpler adapter. Also, no macro capability is required from my side.  

[C47]

Okay. Maybe the Minolta MC Rokkor 100 mm f2.5?

It's not 85 mm, yes. But it offers good IQ and only costs around $100.

 

Sent from my Aquaris X5 using Tapatalk

[hoakin1981]

Okay. Maybe the Minolta MC Rokkor 100 mm f2.5?

It's not 85 mm, yes. But it offers good IQ and only costs around $100.

 

Sent from my Aquaris X5 using Tapatalk

 

I find the 100mm F.L. to be somewhat limiting and less versatile in APS-C format but nevertheless a good option to have in mind, thanks.

[PeterWa]

Minolta MD 85mm f/2.0 is very sharp in the whole frame even at f/2

[Golem]

Don't worry about whether a lens is an SLR design.  

For wide angles on any digital camera, SLR lenses

are to be preferred for optical reasons. For longer

lenses such as 85mm or more, there's essentially

no design difference anyway. Except for any classic

design true macro lenses, they are all true telephoto

designs. "Telephoto" is not a FL range or a FoV. It's

an optical formula, opposite concept of "retrofocus".

The former makes lenses physically shorter and the

latter makes them physically longer. Like Alice down

the rabbit hole. 

  

Down that rabbit hole you'll find the Nikkor Ai 85/2.0,

about the size of its contemporary 50/1.4. This is the

smallest Nikon 85 ever made, out of about ten 85's

that they made over time. You can bag one at about

$175, +/- $50. There is an Ai-S [note the "S'] version

that is almost identical but costs more. "S" is for the

Nikons with Program Mode. No other difference, so

no use for "S" on a simple E-N/F adapter.

  

These lenses are as good as ANY fast 85 anywhere

by any maker, and they are tiny compared to nearly

any other SLR 85. The auto-iris mechanism makes

it a bit fatter than a Contax mount or M-mount 90mm,

but the Nikkor fits your hand verrrry well. It's a 52mm

filter size, so it's pretty tidy over all.  

     

  

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

  

   

Even ignoring its stellar optics, one reason to choose

it is the Nikon F-mount. No other mount offers you a

future trove of additional treasures anywhere close to

the range of Nikkors out there. Second place goes to

Canon FD, and they are a distant second. And there

are 4 versions of FD mount, mechanically speaking,

and THAT leads to trouble, even on a simple adapter. 

 

The Nikon F-mount is consistent over 55 yrs. It's only

3 years "younger" than the equally consistent Leica

M-mount. BTW, any Ai Nikkor is about 30 to 40 years

old. An Ai-S can be several years newer.  

   

======================================= 

 

  

I believe this is the best choice, not crazy expensive,

but you CAN find other good 85's for less and use a

cheap adapter and save real money while still getting

great results. Cheap adapters have cheap latches, so

the safest cheap choice would be screw mount, cuz it

has no latch involved :-)

 

If you do find a Canon FD of the OLD style [look it up]

that will be a trouble-free choice for adapting, cuz that

also involves no latch, so again a cheap adapter is OK.  

  

If you use the cheap adapters [$20] for Nikon F-mount

you'll hafta tolerate a wobbly latch. The MetaBones is

$100, but it has a good latch AND a tripod base AND

a much better rear flange [the E-mount end] than any

of the cheaper stuff. Cheap stuff can shed black paint

particles or tiny aluminum shavings into your camera.

There is NO black paint nor aluminum involved in the

MetaBones rear flange. It's chromed brass, same as

the back end of a quality lens. No matter which line of

lenses you finally adapt to, consider the extra $60 to

$80 for a MetaBones adapter [models vary in price].

  

I'm sure when you find and assemble your kit you'll

post pix, of the new kit, plus some results !

[hoakin1981]

Don't worry about whether a lens is an SLR design.  

For wide angles on any digital camera, SLR lenses

are to be preferred for optical reasons. For longer

lenses such as 85mm or more, there's essentially

no design difference anyway. Except for any classic

design true macro lenses, they are all true telephoto

designs. "Telephoto" is not a FL range or a FoV. It's

an optical formula, opposite concept of "retrofocus".

The former makes lenses physically shorter and the

latter makes them physically longer. Like Alice down

the rabbit hole. 

  

Down that rabbit hole you'll find the Nikkor Ai 85/2.0,

about the size of its contemporary 50/1.4. This is the

smallest Nikon 85 ever made, out of about ten 85's

that they made over time. You can bag one at about

$175, +/- $50. There is an Ai-S [note the "S'] version

that is almost identical but costs more. "S" is for the

Nikons with Program Mode. No other difference, so

no use for "S" on a simple E-N/F adapter.

  

These lenses are as good as ANY fast 85 anywhere

by any maker, and they are tiny compared to nearly

any other SLR 85. The auto-iris mechanism makes

it a bit fatter than a Contax mount or M-mount 90mm,

but the Nikkor fits your hand verrrry well. It's a 52mm

filter size, so it's pretty tidy over all.  

     

  

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

  

   

Even ignoring its stellar optics, one reason to choose

it is the Nikon F-mount. No other mount offers you a

future trove of additional treasures anywhere close to

the range of Nikkors out there. Second place goes to

Canon FD, and they are a distant second. And there

are 4 versions of FD mount, mechanically speaking,

and THAT leads to trouble, even on a simple adapter. 

 

The Nikon F-mount is consistent over 55 yrs. It's only

3 years "younger" than the equally consistent Leica

M-mount. BTW, any Ai Nikkor is about 30 to 40 years

old. An Ai-S can be several years newer.  

   

======================================= 

 

  

I believe this is the best choice, not crazy expensive,

but you CAN find other good 85's for less and use a

cheap adapter and save real money while still getting

great results. Cheap adapters have cheap latches, so

the safest cheap choice would be screw mount, cuz it

has no latch involved :-)

 

If you do find a Canon FD of the OLD style [look it up]

that will be a trouble-free choice for adapting, cuz that

also involves no latch, so again a cheap adapter is OK.  

  

If you use the cheap adapters [$20] for Nikon F-mount

you'll hafta tolerate a wobbly latch. The MetaBones is

$100, but it has a good latch AND a tripod base AND

a much better rear flange [the E-mount end] than any

of the cheaper stuff. Cheap stuff can shed black paint

particles or tiny aluminum shavings into your camera.

There is NO black paint nor aluminum involved in the

MetaBones rear flange. It's chromed brass, same as

the back end of a quality lens. No matter which line of

lenses you finally adapt to, consider the extra $60 to

$80 for a MetaBones adapter [models vary in price].

  

I'm sure when you find and assemble your kit you'll

post pix, of the new kit, plus some results !

 

Thank you very much for a very thorough reply. How about the Leica M and m42 mounts?

 

I know that this post Is about an 85mm prime but what would be your opinion on those with a full range of FL in mind? and when I say full I mean a wide angle 15-20, a short medium 28-35, a medium 50, and a long-ish 85mm. All primes of course.

 

Thanks

[Golem]

Thank you very much for a very thorough reply. How about

the Leica M and m42 mounts?

 

I know that this post Is about an 85mm prime but what would

be your opinion on those with a full range of FL in mind? and

when I say full I mean a wide angle 15-20, a short medium 28-

35, a medium 50, and a long-ish 85mm. All primes of course. 

 

Thanks

  

When I wrote that the N-F mount is the treasure trove

I meant it. Problem with other choices is "no treasure

trove". Nikon was the default choice of those who were

seriously into photography, for money or not. That ultra

wide in the 15 to 20 range ? Gonna be reeeally rare in

others mounts. Very vast majority of users who bought

anything other than typical 28, 50, 28-70, and 70-210

bought them in Nikon F-mount. Worse yet, many of the

28, 50, 28-70, and 70-210 in NON-Nikon mount are not

OEM Minolta, Canon, Pentax etc. A lot of it is JC Penny,

Quantaray, Promaster or such. [JC Penny, no kidding.]  

  

 

  

M-mount ? The main use of that adapter is access to

Voightlander lenses .... unless you happen to have a

few Leica lenses left over from the film era. Plenty of

ultra wides from Voightlander, and also middle FLs up

thru 90. And it ends at 90 for a reason, not by chance.

Same reason M-Leica ends at 135: Rangefinders.

[IamJF]

If you think about a complete set I would chose Contax/Zeiss - fits perfect for the Sony cams and they blend perfect with Sony/Seiss lenses. If you want more "vintage" or "pleasing" look and save some bucks try minolta - there are some gems, but they don't reach C/Y.

 

For 85mm in particular - I really like my Minolta 85/2. Very handy, good sharpnes wide open, good contrast. But in comparison to a modern lens less contrast, way more flare (coatings) and you recognice the 6 aparture blades when stopping down. Since I bought the Sony 90/2,8 and some Contax/Zeiss I use my Minoltas quite rarely ...

 

There is also a tiny Contax 85/2,8 which should be a reference in terms of sharpness. But not so easy to catch for a realistic price.

[addicted2light]

Thank you very much for a very thorough reply. How about the Leica M and m42 mounts?

 

I know that this post Is about an 85mm prime but what would be your opinion on those with a full range of FL in mind? and when I say full I mean a wide angle 15-20, a short medium 28-35, a medium 50, and a long-ish 85mm. All primes of course.

 

Thanks

 

If you're intention is, eventually, to get a full range of legacy lenses my advice would be to buy into one single system. Not only the lenses used to be made in the same way - that is not the case anymore unfortunately, with aperture dials etc. changing even in the line of a single manufacturer. But both focusing and aperture will turn in opposite directions between Nikon / Pentax and Contax / Minolta / rest of the world. So mixing brands in the field is annoying.

 

My suggestions for a full lineup would be:

 

SMALLEST solution (not particularly cheap but not outrageously expensive either)

- 15/4.5 / 21/1.8 Voigtlander; the original 15mm will require the use of Lightroom FlatField free plugin if you shoot in color, to remove the purple / magenta color cast at the borders, but it is otherwise fine, considering the focal length

- Minolta M-Rokkor 28/2.8; the sharpest 28mm I own. If you find one with the "bubbles" give it a try, they do nothing to impact image quality, maybe (but just maybe) they can make it slightly more susceptible to flare

- Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2; a wonderful all-around lens, with a FOV slightly larger than the traditional 50mm, and TINY!

- (only if you don't want a 40mm, but insist in a 50mm) Leica 50/2 Summicron DR (Dual Range)

- Leica Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8

 

MEDIUM sized solution (price-wise slightly cheaper than the smallest solution if you opt for primes, a lot more if you buy the zoom, and with a different optical signature, "cooler" colors)

- 18/4 Contax Distagon (search the forum for my mini-review); the lens is quite good even for landscape use on the A7r, even if it is not up to the latest Batis it is not as expensive either; quite small

- 28/2.8 Contax Distagon or (my suggestion) 28-85/3.5-4 Contax Vario-Sonnar (search the thread for Contax glass to see many samples); the 28-85 it is sharper, even for Zeiss MTF, than the corresponding fixed focal lengths, with an amazing rendering and not that big than a modern f/4 zoom

- 50/1.7 Contax Planar; the cheapest Contax you can find, but also one of the sharpest!

- 85/2.8 Contax Sonnar; super sharp

On a side note, should you be interested in video, the 18 / 28 / 50 / 85 are almost the same size, so no need to recalibrate a gimbal

http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/slr/slrmanlenses.html

 

MEDIUM sized solution (price-wise quite a bit cheaper than the Contax, but focusing turns the other way; I prefer the rendering of Contax glass, but it is definitely just a matter of taste)

- 20/3.5 Nikon UD (pre-Ai); I used it only on the Canon 5D mk II, not on the A7r, but once corrected for CA in Lightroom it was pretty darn sharp, and you can usually buy one for 100€ because Nikon shooters cannot mount it on their cameras without an Ai modification

- 35/2 Nikon Nikkor-O pre-Ai; the same optical scheme of the new 35mm Ai, just with a slightly less effective coating and way cheaper (around 60€) for the same reasons listed above

- 50/1.4 or 1.8 Nikon; they are all great, just pick one you can find at a good price and that is not an "E series" (not that "E series" are bad, but why settle when this days they all cost the same?)

- 85/2 Nikon Ai; the poor brother of the 1.8, it is IMO plenty sharp enough and it is quite a bit smaller, lighter and cheaper

[kryss]

Of course there is Pentax for the Connoisseurs.  

[Golem]

Of course there is Pentax for the Connoisseurs.  

  

If you can gather a nice set of the "M" versions, the compact

series introduced with the small bodies such as the "ME", it's

a great idea. Too bad we can't travel back to the 70's and get

most Pentax owners to buy some interesting FLs :-( IOW the

used inventory has little variety to offer.

 

But if you can find the 28, 50, and the tiny 100, thaz a decent

set up. Even that will not be easy. Outside of that .... PITA. If

that 85mm is non-negotiable, rotsa ruck. The verrrry compact

"M" 100 just might convince you to forgive that extra 15mm !  

   

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

 

Another line of "mini lenses", with a somewhat better variety

available, is Olympus OM. Haven't checked, but you might

even find an adapter with an "open-close" switch. I only say

that cuz OM lenses are "normally open", the reverse of most

others except for Canon's FD, and I saw an FD adapter with

such a switch [so you can preset an aperture and not always

be counting clicks]. 

  

EDIT: M42 lenses are also normally open, and I've seen the

adapters for those also having an open-close switch. SMC

Takumars are fairly compact and make an excellent basic

3-lens kit, but again variety beyond basics is rare. OTOH

the SMC Takumar era slightly predated the zoom craze, so

that improves the depth of primes in the available inventory.

 

SMC Takumars are the youngest Pentax M42 lenses. IIRC

there is an 85mm in that line.

[michaeloneworldproductions]

CANON FDn 85mm 1.8 is solids, sharp, very nice bokeh, small and a bargain.

[Gilgenberg]

Mamiya Sekor C 80mm 2.8 N