Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:29:00 -0600


What brand of SLR do you have?  I f Leica, the 28 - 70 works just fine and
can be had for a song these days.  Not the most popular of R lenses, but
quite nice for most situations requiring that range of focal lengths.


                      Daniel Ridings                                                                                                         
                      <daniel.ridings@muspro.uio.n        To:                                        
                      o>                                  cc:                                                                                
                      Sent by:                            Subject:  RE: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience                         
                      01/20/2004 12:49 PM                                                                                                    
                      Please respond to                                                                                                      

There's one single situation I'm involved in that the foot-zoom doesn't
work and that's when I'm taking pictures of the team skaters. I place
myself higher up in the middle of the rink. A 45 would be perfect when
they're in the middle of the rink and a 70 when they're at either end.

So I'm actually on the look-out for one of those otherwise useless zooms:
35-70. Absolutely no useful range in normal conditions, but I would look
pretty silly pendling back and forth on the sidelines at breakneck speed
to zoom with my feet :)


On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, B. D. Colen 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:
> [] On Behalf Of Marty
> Deveney
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:53 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience
> Hi,
> Coming to the rescue of a favourite 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 autofocus 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 Nikkor 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 colour 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 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
> _____________________________________________________________
> Get your Free Global e-mail address at
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
- --
To unsubscribe, see

- --
To unsubscribe, see

Replies: Reply from Daniel Ridings <> (RE: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience)