Price differences old manual lenses

goinggreynow

goinggreynow

Suspended / Banned
Messages
862
Edit My Images
No
Looking to add to my growing collection of old manual (prime) lenses and am interested in something in the 80/90/100mm range.
I have been looking at prices and generally, lenses in this range seem to command much higher prices than 135mms (which appear to be in plentiful supply).
Is there a technical (manufacturing related?) reason for this or is it more a case of (limited) supply and high demand?
Thanks for any thoughts.
 
More or less.
The 135 was ubiquitous, the 85-100 range is a great portrait length on crop, less so on FF, so there's not so many of them.
 
I think it is the case you suggest - that 135 mm lenses are in plentiful supply. 89, 90,100 mm lenses were never as common in the 1970s when I bought my manual focus camera.
 
It depends on the manufacturer as well.
Tamron is a good one for the 90mm, a good buy for the macro capability too, but they are not cheap.
Another option is the 70-150 Tamron, quite a bit cheaper.
Barcelona by Ken, on Flickr

Contax Zeiss 135mm is not particularly cheap, but it is a very good lens.

074e by Ken, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I think that 135mm f2.8's can still be pretty easily found at bargain prices compared to 85mm lenses and 135mm f3.5's are an absolute bargain. Used prices do seem to be rising and the more desirable lenses are now often at eye watering prices.
 
Like others have said, 135mm lenses are in abundance, if the prices rise on one make or model, it's easy to just get the next best thing. The more rare or sought after a lens, the pricier it's going to be. There's a lot of youtubers doing vids on adapting old manual lenses. In particular for mirrorless systems, with focus peaking and zoom focus check using an EVF making these old lenses a doddle to use.

I have a few old lenses myself, adapted to Fuji, including a Carl Zeiss 135mm f/3.5. Lovely lens, but I do find it a little long for portraits, and not long enough for much else - so I also have a Takumar 200mm F4 which I love. That 200mm prime cost me just €75 and it is in almost mint condition.

I know that one of the most sought after MF lenses is the Nikon 105mm f/1.8, and I would love one myself, but they go for €450 or so. That pits it directly against modern AF lenses. The main reason to buy and use the lenses is to save money and have a bit of fun. Plenty of cheap as chips options out there with a little research, that for me is part of the fun of it.
 
kendo1 said:
It depends on the manufacturer as well.
Tamron is a good one for the 90mm, a good buy for the macro capability too, but they are not cheap.
Another option is the 70-150 Tamron, quite a bit cheaper.
Barcelona by Ken, on Flickr

Contax Zeiss 135mm is not particularly cheap, but it is a very good lens.

074e by Ken, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Be careful of the old Tamron SP 90/2.5 (Adaptall-2) version though, as it has a flat rear element which creates a purple reflection when used on digital.
 
Very many thanks for all replies received. Much appreciated.
Re the Contax Zeiss mentioned by kendo1, could I please just check something as I'm getting confused about the various Zeiss lenses. This is the lens made by (West German as was) Zeiss for Contax for which they designed the C/Y mount?
Other Zeiss "Sonnar" 135s seem to be in M42 mount (and much cheaper to buy????)
Thanks
 
goinggreynow said:
Very many thanks for all replies received. Much appreciated.
Re the Contax Zeiss mentioned by kendo1, could I please just check something as I'm getting confused about the various Zeiss lenses. This is the lens made by (West German as was) Zeiss for Contax for which they designed the C/Y mount?
Other Zeiss "Sonnar" 135s seem to be in M42 mount (and much cheaper to buy????)
Thanks
Click to expand...
There are/were two Zeiss Contax mounts in use after WWII. The original Contax mount for the rangefinder cameras (also used by Kiev) made by both Carl Zeiss Jena and Carl Zeiss Opton and also the Zeiss/Yashica joint C/Y Contax SLR mount. They are not compatible.
 
Depending on the vintage some will be radioactive :) I've got Mamiya Sekor 55mm f1.8 that's radioactive but bloody sharp wide open.
 
If you're looking at the shorter end of the range then the Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm Biometars in Pentacon Six mount are common, reasonably priced and perform quite well on a smaller sensor (FF or APS-C)

Bob
 
Mamiya sekor 80mm f1.9 and f2.8 from the m645 are both superb lenses that perform exceptionally well on digital. Being for 645 format means, little to no vignetting at all and sharper corners wide open. There is also a 110mm f2.8 that is supposed to be equally as good. I've got the 150mm f2.8A which is absolutely sublime

These are off the 80mm f1.9, both wide open
Saab 96 by Kyle, on Flickr
KMW_0396- by Kyle, on Flickr

The 80mm f2.8 has smoother bokeh and the advantage of being both tiny and dirt cheap to buy.
The Old Play Ground by Kyle, on Flickr
Rain Drops by Kyle, on Flickr
Sakura by Kyle, on Flickr
 
john.margetts said:
There are/were two Zeiss Contax mounts in use after WWII. The original Contax mount for the rangefinder cameras (also used by Kiev) made by both Carl Zeiss Jena and Carl Zeiss Opton and also the Zeiss/Yashica joint C/Y Contax SLR mount. They are not compatible.
Click to expand...
Thanks, John. I didn't know this. Can I assume then that any 135mm lens I see for sale which says it is for Contax mount and has "Carl Zeiss", "Sonnar" on the front element can only be for the C/Y mount. I don't want to get caught out buying the wrong lens (through my ignorance!).
Also, where do the Zeiss M42 lenses fit into the story?
Thanks

MrDrizz said:
Depending on the vintage some will be radioactive :) I've got Mamiya Sekor 55mm f1.8 that's radioactive but bloody sharp wide open.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up. I've previously read about this and seen some videos - it's sometimes difficult to know if to be worried by this or not! I have had a look at a couple of web sites giving a list of reported lenses but I can't see any in the 135mm range and only one or two in the 80-100mm range. Do you have a specific source of information which I could refer to? Thanks
 
The C/Y Zeiss lenses all show 'Carl Zeiss', type ' 'Distagon', Sonnar', Planar' etc, T*, and serial number. Like this:
DSC_2911e by Ken, on Flickr

I don't have a pic handy of the 135, just a reference shot of the difference between a standard 135 and the Sonnar, Sonnar is on the left:

Contax Zeiss 135 2.8 and Yashica ML 135 2.8 by Ken, on Flickr

Where you can get confused is the Carl Zeiss Jena which was produced in East Germany, but they all say 'Jena' around the lens.
 
Last edited:
kendo1 said:
The C/Y Zeiss lenses all show 'Carl Zeiss', type ' 'Distagon', Sonnar', Planar' etc, T*, and serial number. Like this:
DSC_2911e by Ken, on Flickr

I don't have a pic handy of the 135, just a reference shot of the difference between a standard 135 and the Sonnar, Sonnar is on the left:

Contax Zeiss 135 2.8 and Yashica ML 135 2.8 by Ken, on Flickr

Where you can get confused is the Carl Zeiss Jena which was produced in East Germany, but they all say 'Jena' around the lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ken for the explanation & very helpful to have the photos. So the "standard" 135 photo is there just to show how much larger the Sonnar is? Is that a typical size for most 135s, irrespective of manufacturer?
Thanks. Stuart
 
goinggreynow said:
Thanks Ken for the explanation & very helpful to have the photos. So the "standard" 135 photo is there just to show how much larger the Sonnar is? Is that a typical size for most 135s, irrespective of manufacturer?
Thanks. Stuart
Click to expand...
Yes, the Carl Zeiss is a bit chunky :)
135s tend to be more like the Yashica in the pic. This Yashica ML is the newer version which is shorter than the first version (it's still about 30 years old)
 
I have both the C/Y Sonnar 135/2.8 and the M42 Carl Zeiss Jena S (Sonnar) 135/3.5.

The Contax lens has beautiful pop (contrast) and is built very well, but heavier than the CZJ lens.

The M42 lens has a more subtle rendering, whilst still producing beautiful images. It's quite a bit lighter, but build quality isn't as good. There are frequent problems with aperture blades getting stuck on this model. But...it's much cheaper!

An in the middle alternative is the M42 Jupiter 11A (135/4) which is cheaper than the CZJ lens, but better put together but with lower contrast. The Jupiter 37A addresses the contrast issue and comes in at 135/3.5. Another REALLY great Sonnar clone is the Tair 11A (135/2.8) - this one is really industrial but produces amazing photos.

An exceptional alternative to the Sonnars is the original preset M42 version of the Pentacon or Meyer Optik (same lens) 135/2.8, which is known as the 'bokeh monster'.

Gotta love those classic 135s :D
 
From what I have read around, there is very little difference optically between them. I have the CZJ 135 f/3.5 M42 mount, and it seems a really nice lens, I just need to test it a little more. But when buying that lens I did look into the CZ C/Y *T or whatever, 2.8 - and that's where I remember reading comparisons from [too lazy to go find them again now] - I found a few sites that directly compared them. And though the *T is slightly sharper wide open, when both are stopped down [F5.6+] there's no apparent difference in terms of image quality.
 
BacktotheFuji said:
I have both the C/Y Sonnar 135/2.8 and the M42 Carl Zeiss Jena S (Sonnar) 135/3.5.

The Contax lens has beautiful pop (contrast) and is built very well, but heavier than the CZJ lens.

The M42 lens has a more subtle rendering, whilst still producing beautiful images. It's quite a bit lighter, but build quality isn't as good. There are frequent problems with aperture blades getting stuck on this model. But...it's much cheaper!

An in the middle alternative is the M42 Jupiter 11A (135/4) which is cheaper than the CZJ lens, but better put together but with lower contrast. The Jupiter 37A addresses the contrast issue and comes in at 135/3.5. Another REALLY great Sonnar clone is the Tair 11A (135/2.8) - this one is really industrial but produces amazing photos.

An exceptional alternative to the Sonnars is the original preset M42 version of the Pentacon or Meyer Optik (same lens) 135/2.8, which is known as the 'bokeh monster'.

Gotta love those classic 135s :D
Click to expand...
Many thanks for this. A very helpful reply. Really good to hear from someone who has both the C/Y Sonnar and the M42. Also very interested to read your comment re the Pentacon. Would you believe me if I said that I picked up an old Pentacon a couple of weeks ago from a charity shop but haven't had time to use it yet?? You might then question my rationale for even considering buying the Sonnar at this point in time. I question this myself - is it a bad case of GAS or a sensible decision if the Sonnar can be purchased for sensible money?
I'm going to have a quiet think about it before doing anything.
The reason for getting into 135s is that I took one (a Zuiko OM) motor racing recently and odd as it sounds, I had so much fun doing everything manually, albeit most of the photos still need processing.
 
Last edited:
This is part of an old post that I never really got to the bottom of but sounds like somebody on here might have the answer -
I have an old Carl Zeiss lens from a Contax camera that I've enjoyed using occasionally on a 1 D MK lll with a cheapy M42 adapter. Since I re mortgaged for a 5 ds r I wanted to give the lens a try but read reports of the mirror " sticking" on the 5 d when used with certain older lenses/m42 adapters.

From what I can gather certain longer focal length lenses are OK as they don't protrude too far inside the 5 d but the 2.8/28 is a potential problem lens.

Just wondered if anybody out there who really knows about this stuff can tell me is the 2.8/28 safe to try and/ or does the 5 ds r have a mirror mechanism that is more recessed than on previous models - don't fancy getting it wrong and having a big repair bill - thanks in advance if you can help!
 
Canon brook said:
This is part of an old post that I never really got to the bottom of but sounds like somebody on here might have the answer -
I have an old Carl Zeiss lens from a Contax camera that I've enjoyed using occasionally on a 1 D MK lll with a cheapy M42 adapter. Since I re mortgaged for a 5 ds r I wanted to give the lens a try but read reports of the mirror " sticking" on the 5 d when used with certain older lenses/m42 adapters.

From what I can gather certain longer focal length lenses are OK as they don't protrude too far inside the 5 d but the 2.8/28 is a potential problem lens.

Just wondered if anybody out there who really knows about this stuff can tell me is the 2.8/28 safe to try and/ or does the 5 ds r have a mirror mechanism that is more recessed than on previous models - don't fancy getting it wrong and having a big repair bill - thanks in advance if you can help!
Click to expand...

Sometimes mirrorless is the way to go :)

Have you thought about using a ruler to measure the protrusion distance at different focus distances?
 
kendo1 said:
Sometimes mirrorless is the way to go :)

Have you thought about using a ruler to measure the protrusion distance at different focus distances?
Click to expand...

That's a good call......[emoji106] Looking at the compatibility charts I've seen it only mentions a potential problem is on I think the 5D MK ll.....nothing about the mklll on......I've also seen posts about filing bits off the lens but didn't fancy that......kinda hoping the mirror on the DS R is more recessed.....

I'm away at the mo but something to look at when I get back...thanks!
 
Canon brook said:
This is part of an old post that I never really got to the bottom of but sounds like somebody on here might have the answer -
I have an old Carl Zeiss lens from a Contax camera that I've enjoyed using occasionally on a 1 D MK lll with a cheapy M42 adapter. Since I re mortgaged for a 5 ds r I wanted to give the lens a try but read reports of the mirror " sticking" on the 5 d when used with certain older lenses/m42 adapters.

From what I can gather certain longer focal length lenses are OK as they don't protrude too far inside the 5 d but the 2.8/28 is a potential problem lens.

Just wondered if anybody out there who really knows about this stuff can tell me is the 2.8/28 safe to try and/ or does the 5 ds r have a mirror mechanism that is more recessed than on previous models - don't fancy getting it wrong and having a big repair bill - thanks in advance if you can help!
Click to expand...

Really depends on the lens. I've used many Contax C/Y lenses on a 5D and 6D with no issues e.g. 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 85/2.8, 100/2.8 makro, 135/2.8, 200/3.5, 200/4, 300/4, 35-70/3.4, 80-200/4, 100-300/4.5-5.6

The only one to occasionally clip the mirror was the 45/2.8 pancake.

With M42 lenses, I just check that the glass doesn't protrude more than a couple of mm past the mount before trying it. That said, I stopped worrying after the first few incidents as no damage was done (it was more annoying that I couldn't use the lens unless mounted while using liveview).

If you have any specific lenses you want to double check, try mflenses.com. Plenty of mf experience there :)
 
BacktotheFuji said:
Really depends on the lens. I've used many Contax C/Y lenses on a 5D and 6D with no issues e.g. 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 85/2.8, 100/2.8 makro, 135/2.8, 200/3.5, 200/4, 300/4, 35-70/3.4, 80-200/4, 100-300/4.5-5.6

The only one to occasionally clip the mirror was the 45/2.8 pancake.

With M42 lenses, I just check that the glass doesn't protrude more than a couple of mm past the mount before trying it. That said, I stopped worrying after the first few incidents as no damage was done (it was more annoying that I couldn't use the lens unless mounted while using liveview).

If you have any specific lenses you want to double check, try mflenses.com. Plenty of mf experience there :)
Click to expand...

Ah.... was looking for somebody who had actually tried it out..... thanks for the advice... I'll have a look on mflenses too.... just out of interest if the mirror catches the lens does it jam or just kind of clip it?

I assume in live view you turn it on and then attach the lens...?

Thanks again.....
 
Canon brook said:
Ah.... was looking for somebody who had actually tried it out..... thanks for the advice... I'll have a look on mflenses too.... just out of interest if the mirror catches the lens does it jam or just kind of clip it?

I assume in live view you turn it on and then attach the lens...?

Thanks again.....
Click to expand...

Usually the mirror will get stuck, but the minute you remove the lens, it will flip back into position.

You are correct about the liveview thing :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top