Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henry Ambrose wrote: > > B. D. wrote in part: > >Quite frankly, if I am going to be doing any > >real shooting with any thing longer than a 50 it will be mounted on a > >reflex, which for me means the Nikon 85 1.4, which is as good as > >anything Leica makes, or the the 60 2.8 macro, which is also as good as > >what the gnomes of solms turn out...;-) > > I would accept this if you add in something like "when stopped down to > 5.6 or 8" > because other wise - they ain't ! > > The 60 2.8 is probably the very best that Nikon makes. I use one on an > almost daily basis. It's not so good wide open. Trust me. > > Leica stuff beats it at large apertures. > (in this case at 2.8 which is not so large) > > 85 as well although I have not tried a new AF version, so I could be wrong > (don't think so) > > Henry Ambrose > > PS: doesn't it feel good to argue about camera stuff again? > > PPS: or should we talk about war atrocities and any faint connection > there > might be to Nikon or the Japanese optical industry? > > no, please don't go there ! Sorry, Henry, I have to disagree. The 60 2.8 is tack sharp "wide open," and having owned and used the 75 Summliux, and 85 1.4 Nikon AIS and AF, I have to say that there is not one whit of difference between them wide open or otherwise. Maybe when shooting newspapers on walls one can detect a difference, but when shooting Tri-X under real-life circumstances, the only difference between the 77 Summilux and the 85 Nikon is price, size, and, as with any non-Leica lens, build quality - although the 85 is one of Nikon's better built lenses. B. D.