| Weight | 65 g |
|---|---|
| Dimensions | 85 mm |
| Focal Length (mm) | |
| Max Aperture (f) | |
| Min Aperture (f) | |
| Aperture Blades | |
| Elements | |
| Sharp (Far) | |
| Rear Mount | |
| Flange-Focal Distance (mm @ ∞) | |
| RF/L Extension (mm) | |
| Contrast |
Reviews
Related to . . .
Related products
-
Agfa Agomar 85/2.8 [V4]
Compare -
Apollo 85-150/3.5
Compare -
Agfa Color-Agolon 90/2.5
Compare -
Appro 100-225/4
Compare -
Bell & Howell Trionar 100/3.5
Compare -
Agfa Agolar 85/2.5
Compare -
Apollo 100-150/3.5
Compare -
Agfa Color-Agolar 250/4.5
Compare -
Agfa Agomar 90/2.8
Compare -
Agfa Color-Agolar 60/2.8
Compare -
Apollo 90/2.8
Compare -
Argus Projection 100/2.8
Compare -
Agfa Agolon 90/2.5
Compare -
Agfa Variomar 80-125/3.1
Compare -
Aldis Anastigmat 152/4
Compare -
Agfa Agomar 70-120/2.8
Compare -
Benoist Berthiot 75/2.8
Compare -
Pentacon AV 150/2.8
Compare -
A. Schacht Travenon 85/2.8
Compare -
Aldis Projection 100/3.2
Compare -
Bell & Howell Trionar 127/4
Compare -
Argus Projection Anastigmat 100/3.3
Compare -
Pentacon AV 200/4
Compare -
Benoist Berthiot 60/1.6
Compare -
AG Optical Trionar 152/3.5
Compare
16:9 –
There’s something inherently unlovable about this lens, despite the filip of its slightly faster than ‘f2.8 standard’ aperture. It’s not the featherweight plastic barrel, or some anti-Isco bias – there are beautifully-rendering lenses in both categories – it’s the below-average contrast, below-average resolution, and restless, smeared bokeh. And don’t expect crisply-bounded ‘triplet bubbles’, either. Harsh and artificial-looking, defocused subjects wander in and out of your attention like a confused extra. Overall, much less appealing than the older, rarer, metal-barrel Gnome 85mm.