Re: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience

[robertmeier@usjet.net]

Mark,

You should try the C/V 40/2 Ultron.  It is an exquisite lens.  I have one in
AIS mount;  it's considerably better than the Olympus 40/2 I used to love.

Bob




On 1/20/04 6:29 AM, "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Funny, my problem with the 75 wasn't focusing - it was focal length; 75
> is a neither-nor length - too tight when you want a 50, not tight enough
> when you want a longer lens. I actually tested it out once and found it
> only got me one of my steps closer to the subject, and that's not close
> enough if I want to get closer than a 50 would bring me. So for me, the
> 85 is definitely superior, as is a 90.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Marty
> Deveney
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:53 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Coming to the rescue of a favorite lens . . . !
>
> B.D. wrote:
>> Nope - he means the Nikon 85 1.4 AIS lens, which as near as I can tell,
>
>> is identical to the current auto focus version. Both are killer lenses,
>> with a "finger print" indistinguishable from >that of the magnificent -
>
>> or it would be if it were an 85 ;-) - Leica >M 75 1.4.
>
> No, and yes.  The AF 85/1.4 Nikon has internal focusing, the AiS does
> not.  The AF has nine elements in eight groups, the AiS has seven
> elements in five groups (even if several Nikon sites say it has seven
> elements in nine groups!?).  Clearly a different design.  The results
> are very similar.  In extreme tests the AF has some color fringing and
> the AiS a little distortion and is softer at the edges.  Depending on
> what you do the softness might be an advantage.  The AF is sharper if
> you like taking pictures of little B&W lines and developing for
> acutance.  People argue about this, of course.
>
> None of this matters much in real life.  I kept the AiS, mostly because
> it has a 'look' more like the Leica-M 75/1.4, which although I love it,
> try as I might, I cannot focus consistently on an M camera.
>
> Gary wrote:
>> Oh please.  While the Nikkor may be sharp, the sun has yet to rise or
>> set on the day a Nikkor has the bokeh of a Leica.
>
> If there is a difference between these particular Nikkor and Leica
> lenses, it's _not_ in the bokeh.  The optical formulas are so similar as
> to make the bokeh of this pair almost indistinguishable (shall we
> conduct a test!?).  The real differences lie in the Leica having better
> coating (making it less flare-prone and having slightly better colour
> saturation) and tighter QC (meaning you're less likely to get a 'dog'
> and that it costs three times as much).  Of course the Leica is a 75,
> the Nikkor an 85.  As B.D. points out, that probably is the most
> significant difference apart from the fact that the Nikkor attaches to
> an SLR and the Leica attaches to an M rangefinder.
>
> The Leica 80/1.4 R might be stellar too, but I never tried it because
> I'm not a big fan of the R cameras.  The best of all the 85's may well
> be the Carl Zeiss 85/1.2 http://www.cameraquest.com/z8512.htm but it has
> a 1 metre close-focus and is like hen's teeth.  The Zeiss 85/1.4 is also
> amazing.
>
> Now, let's all go find one of Kyle's posts and read the last line . . .
>
> Marty
Snip

I'd like to hear more about the optical formulas being so similar between
Leica and Nikon normal to short tele lenses. If that was the case there are
certainly other parameters which determine the image quality a lens can
project on to a chunk of film or charge coupled device - whatever. I,
however am not a Leica snob and lower myself to shooting cheaper and non
German glass on a regular basis. As in Nikon. Gorgeous stuff. My 14 has a
hammered metal finish which certainly rivals the one found new LHSA
collectors edition. It's a great finish which Nikon has now seemingly
abandoned. But theyıve hushed up the little metal munching mice in them
which focal the camera for you.

For me, a real advocate of normal 50mm glass I'm also hot on what I think of
as ³abnormal² glass. Deviant. 45 or a 60. Or a 40 or 75. Cropped normal or
normals with room to breath. As true normal is something like 43.3 a lens
which is closer to that than a 50 I somehow feel there's something to be
said for. At least for me.
So many people think of their 35 as their normal but for me that's baloney.
I'd love a 40 Summicron someday on a CL or even CLE but for now I have 45mm
pancakes for my Nikon's which translates to 67.5 when you multiply it by 1.5
for many DSLR's.
I saw Jim Marshals trays of (80)  portraits almost all taken with a 50 and
at times they have an almost environmental look which works for them. Other
times other shots seem flat and formalized like what you get with a tele.
Thatıs the beauty of a normal or 50. They can work both ways.

Salgato however did his children's portrait book I think with his 60 on his
Leica R which is said to be his most used lens. This year I got a new 60 AFD
for my Nikon DSLR as well as silver halide bodies. On a silver halide body
you multiply by 1 and you get 60; a cropped 50
But I'm finding it as useful as I've dreamed it could have been for years.
And it's a macro.
Also it translates on my DSLR to 90; my most used focal length when shooting
commercially.
I agree a 90 or 85 is not a cropped 50 or altered normal but a real tele.
But there are times you need a real tele and others when you need a cropped
50. The 75 for the M is the only focal length made by lexica I donıt have.
It seems a big glass for it's effect; a cropped 50. But they are starting to
go for chump change as all the lemmings trade in their leica me systems for
the latest and trendiest digital micrometer monstrosity. Me I want the new
90 to add to my collection of 90's which I use... The Elmirit current and
ape Summicron. We'll see if its the focal length or its weight which keeps
it at a much lower percentage of what gets shot in Leica M cameras. I think
it's the weight. Any 90 beside the tele Elmirit is twice as heavy as any 50
or 35. It really is a good reason to just leave it at home and think of your
50 as your lens with reach. The new 90 I feel will change this. It will be
in the photographers kit even when they have traveling light as a top
prerequisite. They also get to have blazing sharpness if they use it with a
fast enough shutter speed, Tripod or flash.

Mark Rabiner

I'd like to hear more about the optical formulas being so similar between
Leica and Nikon normal to short tele lenses. If that was the case there are
certainly other parameters which determine the image quality a lens can
project on to a chunk of film or charge coupled device whatever. I however
am not a Leica snob and lower myself to shooting cheaper and non German
glass on a regular basis. As in Nikon. Gorgeous stuff. My 14 has a hammered
metal finish which certainly rivals the one found new LHSA collectors
edition. It's a great finish which Nikon has now seemingly abandoned.

For me, a real advocate of normal 50mm glass I'm also hot on what I think of
as abnormal glass; a 45 or a 60. Or a 40 or 75. Cropped normal or normals
with room to breath. As true normal is something like 43.3 a lens which is
closer to that than a 50 I somehow feel there's something to be said for. At
least for me.
So many people think of their 35 as their normal but for me that's baloney.
I'd love a 40 Summicron someday on a CL or even CLE but for now I have 45mm
pancakes for my Nikon's which translates to 67.5 when you multiply it by 1.5
for many DSLR's.
I saw Jim Marshals tray (80) of portraits almost all taken with the 50 and
at times they have an almost environmental look which works for them. Other
times other shots seem flat and formalized like what you get with a tele.
Thatıs the beauty of a normal or 50. They can work both ways.

Salgato however did his children's portrait book I think with his 60 on his
Leica R which is said to be his most used lens by far. This year I got a new
60 AFD for my Nikon DSLR as well as silver halide bodies. On a silver halide
body you multiply by 1 and you get 60; a cropped 50 but I'm finding it as
useful as I've dreamed it could have been for years. And it's a macro.
Also it translates on my DSLR to 90; my most used focal length when shooting
commercially. I could have gotten a used Leica R 60 for not that much more
money. And I can forget about autofocus. I am autofocuas.
I agree a 90 or 85 is not a cropped 50 or altered normal but a real tele. A
lens with real reach.
But there are times you need a real tele and others when you need a cropped
50. The 75 for the M is the only focal length made by lexica I donıt have.
It seems a big glass for it's effect; a cropped 50. But they are starting to
go for chump change as all the lemmings trade in their Leica me systems for
the latest and trendiest digital micromoter monstrosity. Me I want the new
90 to add to my collection of 90's which I use... The Elmirit current and
ape Summicron. We'll see if its the focal length or its weight which keeps
it at a much lower percentage of what gets shot in Leica M cameras. I think
it's the weight. Any 90 beside the tele Elmirit is twice as heavy as any 50
or 35. It really is a good reason to just leave it at home and think of your
50 as your lens with reach. The new 90 I feel will change this. It will be
in the photographers kit even when they have traveling light as a top
prerequisite. They also get to have blazing sharpness if they use it with a
fast enough shutter speed, Tripod or flash.

Mark Rabiner


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html