Hi Matt - changed profiles for this one - A real interesting video - especially for those of us who have used Zeiss glass for a now rather long time: Biotar is basically a clone of the Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon design - again Dr Tronnier - its very much a "standard planar design" and as such suffers the planars biggest limitation which is, its very hard to make anything wider than f2 (I know some-one will now mention the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 planar designed for Rollei - its not a planar its an ultron, but Zeiss played lose with names :) ) The Sonnar 50 (which is really an Ernostar designed by Bertele in about 1924/25) obviously was made for one reason which was to beat the hell out of Leica in the 1936 Olympics - Though the 80mm Sonnar - the "rebadged" Ernostar design, is the natural place for the design and the 50mm f1.5 and f1.2 are really at the end of the bubble - Pentax is the only company that made a successful "normal" Sonnar type for an SLR and that is a 58mm f2 Takumar. Sonnars are also "true" focal length lenses as they are triplet type lenses not Gauss, which is why they were hard to make shorter than 80mm and almost impossible wider than 50. No-one has made a (new) true sonnar since the mid 60s. Biotars were designed for full plane (hence planar) sharpness whereas the sonnar was designed to be as wide open as possible after 1934 (newpapers took the centre of the image) - few 75s or 80s produced by anyone not using a sonnarish design, got beyond f2.8 for a long time. But if you want to really see what a Triplet design can do - Astro-berliner Tachonar - there is a reason its one of the most expensive lenses anywhere!! Main difference between your 80mm Sonnar and the 50mm f1.5 in design (but don't quote me its only 8am here) is that to get the extra stop, Bertele, who came with Erneman to Zeiss created a cemented rear element which took the Ernostar design to 7 elements rather than the 6 as in the 80mm. PS Hektors are "sonnar" type lenses but without the cemented rear element they struggled to compete with the Sonnar. Now a Sonnar v a Hektor - would be interesting - on film Sonnar hands down every time, but would be interesting to see what it does on the sanitisation that is a sensor!
I guess you know I am a Sonnar fanboy, Zeiss or KMZ Jupiter. I have a nice '43 f/1,5 CZJ 5cm that is quite wonderful. I love your work with models as you have mastered lighting and always have a rapport with the model. The results show this. Great work as always. Thanks.
Thank you for this interesting, well made video, as always! I'm curious as to how the Nikkor copies perform compared to the Zeiss and the Jupiter's. I believe their design is identical, but I suspect there might be some coating differences -- I believe that at least the Nikkors are coated unlike perhaps the earliest Zeiss lenses! I know you like the Nikkor 5cm lens so will be interested to hear any comparisons you might draw to the Zeiss lens on which the Nikkor is based.
Servus Matt✌ Thanks for showing and presenting the two lenses, I didn't realise that there is an 80 mm Biotar for Contax mount? There is also the 2/40 mm from Carl Zeiss Jena, but more for the Robot with M40 mount. I really like the 80mm Biotar, certainly a fine piece of mechanics and optics.👌 Lg Anderl
Hi Matt, I just bought your Nikon Z presets. When I unzipped them the resultant 2 files are xmp files. LR Classic on iMac doesn’t seem to like this. A message box pops up saying ‘Unsupported file type’. Any suggestions or instruction how to load into my Lightroom Classic please? Many thanks, Christian.
Great video Matt, always love to see old lenses given a second chance to shine. I have a Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar 1.8/80 MC, that I picked up at a garage sell. How would I adapt it for my M10-R camera or SL2 ?
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaComsince the lens is Praktica mount, I’m looking for a PB to L mount preferably (or PB to M mount) adapter, but sadly can’t locate one.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Mine appears to be a PB mount, so not a rangefinder lens. I can't locate any adapters for this mount. Thanks for your input, always appreciated !
Hey Matt, I was wondering if you could make a video addressing, or just offer some advice on choosing between medium format and 35mm film. I’m looking to get my first legitimate film camera and am stuck trying to decide between both. I wouldn’t have the funds to get the other for quite a while. My main draw to the medium format is the depth of field with compression as well as the overall high resolution and fine grain. I have a hard time imagining carrying around the large medium format cameras though. I would certainly be shooting less, not only because of the smaller amount of shots per roll but also the size of the gear. I’ve only been able to see comparisons through RUclips videos and most of the time 35mm seems to have heavy grain in comparison and other times it seems comparable. If I go medium format I’d probably have to go with the Mamiya 6 or 7 due to portability since I really value having interchangeable lenses. As much as I’d love an SLR or TLR I know I would be unwilling to carry it around after the first few tries. Thanks for any help!
I would argue 35mm as someone who just invested in both formats at the same time. Make your mistakes on that less expensive 35mm 36 expose roll. Find what kind of shots you enjoy taking in your local area, nail them down, and then go back with a medium format camera in the future. Nothing hurts like shooting 8 of your 10 MF shots only to realize you accidentally bumped the ISO dial and the whole roll is ruined 😅. Also, you will find it easier to sell your 35mm camera once the time comes. Just my 2 cents
@@RumoHasIt Fair points. I also thought 35mm might be the practical choice since I can make more mistakes and if I just wanted to see if film and its cost was for me I could buy some cheap slr
I have that 85 as one of 4 lenses for my Contax iia. Very heavy in brass. It's a great lens in my opinion. Traditionally, 85 and 105 mm lenses were the most popular for portraits. Your use of the 135mm could change that trsdition.
Thanks Michael, yes I read the 85mm was really popular for the Contax system when it came out. Yes they sure are heavy! I'll do a video on the Contax II and IIa.
Well, well, Matt is finally bitten by the Carl Zeiss Bug, very good ! Yje Sannar 85mm f/2.0 also comes in Leica mount, they are rare but great, and as a bonus, they are T-coated, just for your info. Now that is the one to get ! Beautiful glass, great rendering, not like Leica but a great experience for portraits !
When I shoot portraits with my Leica cameras, I usually use a normal lens and a 90mm telephoto lens. However, I really prefer to use a normal and telephoto lens on a medium format camera.
Hi Matt, don't you think Leica digital cameras always do something weird to faces ? (i'v got one and love it for the last 15 years) I notice that even with this vintage lens, the weirdness is there.... ( but then, don't all digitals do this to some extent ?) Do you see what i mean Matt ? Why don't you do videos about this and if we can prevent it without going analog ? kind regards from Geneva Switzerland
Hi no not really. It will depend what lens you use. If you mean the skin it will be depend on the lighting and is easy to prevent. The student wanted to try harder lighting here. Film is better for skin as softer and lower contrast
Ah you know I love my M9 but when I see the video I get jealous of your SL. It's so nice to see the flare through the EVF, compared to shoot trial and error with the rangefinder in terms of flares with a vintage lens.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom you got me there... I learned to shoot and develop film with my father's IIa in the 70s. I bought one a few years back and came to love the Sonnar. Bought the Nikkor 85 f2 (C). I now use all my Zeiss and Nikkor S lenses on my Sony A7II, as well as for film. The Nikkor W 35 f1.8 a favorite.
✅ PRESETS - mrleica.com/presets/
✅ FREE EBOOK - mrleica.com/ebooks/
✅ LEICA WORKSHOPS - mrleica.com/workshops/
✅ PATREON - More videos & content mrleica.com/patreon/
✅ LEICA CLUB (Free Welcome Pack) - mrleica.com/leica-club-join-the-club/
✅ NEWSLETTER (Leica, Film & More) - bit.ly/3OLE37t
skyllaney.com - Thanks for the lens!
✅ CHECK EBAY - (US) ebay.to/2F0HoxY (UK) ebay.to/3ijzle2
Tobi - instagram.com/tobias.spranger/
📷 CAMERA BAG: bit.ly/3Uiva6w
📷 SEE ALL MY KIT: mrleica.com/kitlist/
📷 LIGHT LENS LAB discount code - bit.ly/3YXH5ew (Use MRLEICA)
✅ ZOOM: Not sure what camera/ lens to buy? Arrange a call - bit.ly/3lBkdgq
✅ SUBSCRIBED?: Don't miss another video! bit.ly/3qET0ZO
✅ NEED FILM?: mrleica.com/do-you-need-film/
✅ COFFEE: Thank Matt with a coffee - www.paypal.com/paypalme/MrLeica
Hi Matt - changed profiles for this one - A real interesting video - especially for those of us who have used Zeiss glass for a now rather long time: Biotar is basically a clone of the Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon design - again Dr Tronnier - its very much a "standard planar design" and as such suffers the planars biggest limitation which is, its very hard to make anything wider than f2 (I know some-one will now mention the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 planar designed for Rollei - its not a planar its an ultron, but Zeiss played lose with names :) )
The Sonnar 50 (which is really an Ernostar designed by Bertele in about 1924/25) obviously was made for one reason which was to beat the hell out of Leica in the 1936 Olympics - Though the 80mm Sonnar - the "rebadged" Ernostar design, is the natural place for the design and the 50mm f1.5 and f1.2 are really at the end of the bubble - Pentax is the only company that made a successful "normal" Sonnar type for an SLR and that is a 58mm f2 Takumar.
Sonnars are also "true" focal length lenses as they are triplet type lenses not Gauss, which is why they were hard to make shorter than 80mm and almost impossible wider than 50. No-one has made a (new) true sonnar since the mid 60s. Biotars were designed for full plane (hence planar) sharpness whereas the sonnar was designed to be as wide open as possible after 1934 (newpapers took the centre of the image) - few 75s or 80s produced by anyone not using a sonnarish design, got beyond f2.8 for a long time.
But if you want to really see what a Triplet design can do - Astro-berliner Tachonar - there is a reason its one of the most expensive lenses anywhere!! Main difference between your 80mm Sonnar and the 50mm f1.5 in design (but don't quote me its only 8am here) is that to get the extra stop, Bertele, who came with Erneman to Zeiss created a cemented rear element which took the Ernostar design to 7 elements rather than the 6 as in the 80mm. PS Hektors are "sonnar" type lenses but without the cemented rear element they struggled to compete with the Sonnar.
Now a Sonnar v a Hektor - would be interesting - on film Sonnar hands down every time, but would be interesting to see what it does on the sanitisation that is a sensor!
Thanks! That’s super interesting!
I guess you know I am a Sonnar fanboy, Zeiss or KMZ Jupiter. I have a nice '43 f/1,5 CZJ 5cm that is quite wonderful. I love your work with models as you have mastered lighting and always have a rapport with the model. The results show this. Great work as always. Thanks.
Thanks Sandy!
Thank you for this interesting, well made video, as always! I'm curious as to how the Nikkor copies perform compared to the Zeiss and the Jupiter's. I believe their design is identical, but I suspect there might be some coating differences -- I believe that at least the Nikkors are coated unlike perhaps the earliest Zeiss lenses! I know you like the Nikkor 5cm lens so will be interested to hear any comparisons you might draw to the Zeiss lens on which the Nikkor is based.
Thanks! Yes if I ever get one to try I’ll feedback in a video. Yes I love the 5cm Nikkors
Servus Matt✌
Thanks for showing and presenting the two lenses, I didn't realise that there is an 80 mm Biotar for Contax mount? There is also the 2/40 mm from Carl Zeiss Jena, but more for the Robot with M40 mount. I really like the 80mm Biotar, certainly a fine piece of mechanics and optics.👌
Lg Anderl
Thanks! Yes the 80mm is less common for sure but very nice!
Hi Matt fine old lenses.Fantastic to see them in use many thanks.Congrats to your Contax.Bought a Nikon F plain prism black -63.Take care 😊❤😊
Thanks and great stuff, congrats!
It's nice to see different lenses and kit that you showcase. I have never seen these lenses in the US but it's great to learn about them from you.
Thanks! Yes they might be more common in Europe (and the Jupiter lenses in the FSU countries)
Hi Matt, I just bought your Nikon Z presets. When I unzipped them the resultant 2 files are xmp files. LR Classic on iMac doesn’t seem to like this. A message box pops up saying ‘Unsupported file type’. Any suggestions or instruction how to load into my Lightroom Classic please? Many thanks, Christian.
Hi Christian, I’m glad you emailed me too as some days I receive 100+ comments so it takes time to reply to each one. I’m glad you resolved it ok.
Great video Matt, always love to see old lenses given a second chance to shine. I have a Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar 1.8/80 MC, that I picked up at a garage sell. How would I adapt it for my M10-R camera or SL2 ?
Thanks and great! Just get the correct adapter and start shooting!
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaComsince the lens is Praktica mount, I’m looking for a PB to L mount preferably (or PB to M mount) adapter, but sadly can’t locate one.
@@GamachePhoto Zeiss is CRF mount normally. My Pancolar is M42
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Mine appears to be a PB mount, so not a rangefinder lens. I can't locate any adapters for this mount. Thanks for your input, always appreciated !
This is great. Which Amedeo adapter did you use?
Thanks! Just get the one you need for the lens you have. Here it’s CRF to M.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom thank you!
Hey Matt, I was wondering if you could make a video addressing, or just offer some advice on choosing between medium format and 35mm film. I’m looking to get my first legitimate film camera and am stuck trying to decide between both. I wouldn’t have the funds to get the other for quite a while. My main draw to the medium format is the depth of field with compression as well as the overall high resolution and fine grain. I have a hard time imagining carrying around the large medium format cameras though. I would certainly be shooting less, not only because of the smaller amount of shots per roll but also the size of the gear. I’ve only been able to see comparisons through RUclips videos and most of the time 35mm seems to have heavy grain in comparison and other times it seems comparable. If I go medium format I’d probably have to go with the Mamiya 6 or 7 due to portability since I really value having interchangeable lenses. As much as I’d love an SLR or TLR I know I would be unwilling to carry it around after the first few tries. Thanks for any help!
I would argue 35mm as someone who just invested in both formats at the same time. Make your mistakes on that less expensive 35mm 36 expose roll. Find what kind of shots you enjoy taking in your local area, nail them down, and then go back with a medium format camera in the future. Nothing hurts like shooting 8 of your 10 MF shots only to realize you accidentally bumped the ISO dial and the whole roll is ruined 😅. Also, you will find it easier to sell your 35mm camera once the time comes. Just my 2 cents
Hi please see my older 35mm film vs MF video for the pros/ cons of each
@@RumoHasIt Fair points. I also thought 35mm might be the practical choice since I can make more mistakes and if I just wanted to see if film and its cost was for me I could buy some cheap slr
Magníficos lentes Vintage!!
Gracias por el vídeo Matt.
SD. Mexico...
Thanks Miguel!
Gorgeous!
Thanks!
I have that 85 as one of 4 lenses for my Contax iia. Very heavy in brass. It's a great lens in my opinion.
Traditionally, 85 and 105 mm lenses were the most popular for portraits. Your use of the 135mm could change that trsdition.
Thanks Michael, yes I read the 85mm was really popular for the Contax system when it came out. Yes they sure are heavy! I'll do a video on the Contax II and IIa.
Well, well, Matt is finally bitten by the Carl Zeiss Bug, very good ! Yje Sannar 85mm f/2.0 also comes in Leica mount, they are rare but great, and as a bonus, they are T-coated, just for your info. Now that is the one to get ! Beautiful glass, great rendering, not like Leica but a great experience for portraits !
Ah thanks Eric, I didn’t see info on M mount but makes sense.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Rare 1945-46 produced. Specialists stuff.
Wondering if you have ever used a Helios 85mm f1.5?
I've not yet, I've got the 53mm and a 44 but no others yet.
When I shoot portraits with my Leica cameras, I usually use a normal lens and a 90mm telephoto lens. However, I really prefer to use a normal and telephoto lens on a medium format camera.
Yes 90mm give a great look but I still prefer my 50s
where did you accidentally buy a lens in Prague😆🤩
Haha the one down the street from Foto Skoda
Hi Matt, don't you think Leica digital cameras always do something weird to faces ? (i'v got one and love it for the last 15 years) I notice that even with this vintage lens, the weirdness is there.... ( but then, don't all digitals do this to some extent ?) Do you see what i mean Matt ? Why don't you do videos about this and if we can prevent it without going analog ? kind regards from Geneva Switzerland
Hi no not really. It will depend what lens you use. If you mean the skin it will be depend on the lighting and is easy to prevent. The student wanted to try harder lighting here. Film is better for skin as softer and lower contrast
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom thanks for your reply Matt... the rendering on the jupiter photos are very nice special
Forgive me for asking the obvious, but for the flares why not use a 3rd party lens hood? A rubber cheap lens hood with different rings might suffice.
Correct yes, it was a loan so I took the lens to test. If I bought one I would do this.
It shouldn't be to difficult to get a sunshade for that lens?
Yes 49mm thread so should be able to find on eBay. It was only a short term loan so I wont buy one.
Ah you know I love my M9 but when I see the video I get jealous of your SL. It's so nice to see the flare through the EVF, compared to shoot trial and error with the rangefinder in terms of flares with a vintage lens.
Thanks Tobi, yes the SL is much better suited when shooting vintage glass into the light.. but your M9P is way cooler! :)
For me, the Voigtländer 75mm F1.5 is the best for portraits.
It is excellent no question, I like it on film as it's nice and sharp and contrasty wide open.
Unbelievable that they could design a lens special for females in those days. 😂
Haha, aren't we lucky! :)
Old School = Best School
Yes!
Contax IIa.
I have the iia already but I prefer the earlier ii (like my Kievs) so the longer base length. I’ll make a video.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom you got me there... I learned to shoot and develop film with my father's IIa in the 70s. I bought one a few years back and came to love the Sonnar. Bought the Nikkor 85 f2 (C). I now use all my Zeiss and Nikkor S lenses on my Sony A7II, as well as for film. The Nikkor W 35 f1.8 a favorite.
Accidentally ??😂
I walked away and everything.. and then went back haha! Too good to miss up + nice copy of the old lens. (Works great. I've already used it a lot)
🫵🏽
Thanks
WTF!!!
Thanks!
Ah bummer. I was looking for a lens that would work best for male portraits. I’ll keep searching 🫡
haha, I prefer sharp shorter lenses when I shoot with males and harder lighting