CV 90mm f/3.5 on D800?

<p>Have any of you used this lens on a D800 and if so what did you think? I'm going to be using it as a light weight/compact lens for landscape-type shots. Though the weight and size are important I still want a sharp contrasty lens that has decent flare/ghosting resistance.<br>

Thanks -<br>

John </p>

<p>I will add that I've been looking for a ~100mm landscape lens that's compact and light for use on my D800. As I climb/hike steep stuff with my gear size and weight are important, but I also want to take sharp images - thus I also want high sharpness and contrast with low flare/ghosting. I usually stop down to f/5.6 or so thus being fast is not so important.<br>

Currently using 105/2.5 AIS for this task, but it can be a bit heavy, has not the greatest flare/ghosting performance and I'm looking for something sharper.<br>

Considering:<br>

90/3.5 CV - Small and lighter, but don't know about its sharpness/contrast/flare/ghosting<br>

100/2.8 Series E - I have one: turns out that it's not the sharpest or highest contrast, but it has even performance across the frame<br>

135/3.5 AIS - A little longer and a little lighter. Don't know if it's sharp enough though and no idea about flare/ghosting.<br>

135/2.8 Series E - Don't know about sharpness, etc. with this lens, but it is light(er)</p>

<p>Thanks - John</p>

 

<p>I think you may have trouble finding something sharper than a 105mm f/2.5. Flare is another matter - do you use a hood?</p>

<p>I'm talking about flare when the sun is in the frame for the most part - I do use the built-in hood on the 105/2.5, but it does no good when the sun is in the frame.<br>

John</p>

<p>Why not the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G? At 321g for the CV 90mm vs 351g for the Nikon G lens, you're looking at a 10% difference in weight, to retain full autofocus, EXIF, contemporary design (which helps with flare and other optical defects), etc. Also, it is a full two stops larger aperture, so it can double as a portrait lens if you'd like. If you want a little longer, I'm not sure how it handles flaring being such an old lens, but the 105mm f/4 micro-Nikkor is nice and light.</p>

<p>John, though I haven't used all of them, none of the lenses you mention is going to be sharper than the 105/2.5 AIS except possibly the Voigtlander. If you have TONS of money to blow you could go for the VC 125mm APO Lanthar which is selling for more than $2000 these days. (It was introduced at like $575..... sigh). I love what I see of the 135/2 AF DC but it's probably heavier than yours. Another expensive lens which you can find used for perhaps $700 is the Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 -- I suspect it is not better than the Nikon AF-S 85's however (f/1.4G and f/1.8G). The 105/2.8 AF-S Micro-Nikkor is much admired. These lenses weigh more than yours. </p>

<p>The 180mm f/2.8 ED (I have the Ai-S but there's an AF-D too) is the sharpest and most beautiful lens I own. Weighs a lot. Regular AIS 200mm f/4 is very sharp and weighs not much at all. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why not the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G? At 321g for the CV 90mm vs 351g for the Nikon G lens, you're looking at a 10% difference in weight, to retain full autofocus, EXIF, contemporary design (which helps with flare and other optical defects), etc. Also, it is a full two stops larger aperture, so it can double as a portrait lens if you'd like. If you want a little longer, I'm not sure how it handles flaring being such an old lens, but the 105mm f/4 micro-Nikkor is nice and light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ariel -<br>

<br />Yes, I've thought about just getting a 85/1.8G, but I'm getting further and further away from ~100mm and I like to keep my primes that I carry at about a 2:1 ratio (20/2.8D, 50G, 105/2.5, 200/4, 400/5.6, etc.). The 85/1.8G solution certainly has it's advantages.<br>

<br />I just looked up the 105/4 AIS Micro and it's actually kind of heavy at 500gs unfortunately . . .</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>John, though I haven't used all of them, none of the lenses you mention is going to be sharper than the 105/2.5 AIS except possibly the Voigtlander. If you have TONS of money to blow you could go for the VC 125mm APO Lanthar which is selling for more than $2000 these days. (It was introduced at like $575..... sigh). I love what I see of the 135/2 AF DC but it's probably heavier than yours. Another expensive lens which you can find used for perhaps $700 is the Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 -- I suspect it is not better than the Nikon AF-S 85's however (f/1.4G and f/1.8G). The 105/2.8 AF-S Micro-Nikkor is much admired. These lenses weigh more than yours.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 180mm f/2.8 ED (I have the Ai-S but there's an AF-D too) is the sharpest and most beautiful lens I own. Weighs a lot. Regular AIS 200mm f/4 is very sharp and weighs not much at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vince -<br>

I've owned:<br>

135/2DC - Not impressed at all. My 135/2 AIS was just as good, if not better, and these weigh a ton<br>

105/2 DC - Pretty good as a landscape lens, but nothing to write home about, especially considering the size and weight.<br>

200/4 AIS - I still own this - my copy at least was great on my D700 - but seriously runs out of gas at anything above 12MP. Nice size and workable weight. Can have major flare issues depending on how you use it.<br>

180/2.8 AF - Same as 200/4 - great at 12MP, but actually is not as good as modern 70-200 zooms. Large and a bit heavy. 180/2.8 AIS - Impressively sharp, but weighs a ton and has some funky ghosting issues at least for the type of shots that I like to do (sun in the frame). </p>

<p>So, it looks like I'm going to try out the 90CV to see if it can replace my venerable 105/2.5 AIS.</p>

<p>John</p>

 

<p>How about something like the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro? I don't think I managed serious flaring with that one. Really nice lens, though on the D800 it probably needs to be stopped down to ~f/5.6 to reach top sharpness (on the D300 I needed f/4, wide open it was slightly soft). From muscle memory, I'd say weight is a bit less than the 105 f/2.5.<br>

Likewise, the Tamron 90mm macro, or Sigma 105mm macro might fit the bill?</p>

<p>But as others, I mainly use the 105 f/2.5, and never saw any of mine flare very seriously - at least not the AiS one (I have an older AI'd non-multi-coated version too, which ghosts a bit more). Are you sure your copy is OK?</p>

<p>Well, I found a dealer that still had the 90/3.5 SL-II CV in Nikon mount so I bought it. Should be here in a few days. I also will be buying a 135/3.5 AIS and a 135/2.8 AIS to give them a try.<br>

I looked at the Tokina 100/2.8 Macro, but it's a bit heavy and large, though it did seem to get very good reviews on the optics.</p>

<p>I'll compare all of these to the 105/2.5 AIS and see how it goes. I'll report back.<br>

John</p>

The 135 f/2 DC is big, heavy, has awful LoCA and isn't remotely sharp on my D800 until f/5.6 (in a brief test). I've been complaining about

mine since I got it - I've just not got around to selling yet. Nice bokeh (LoCA aside), but as one of the reasons I switched to Nikon, it's been a

disappointment. I may have a bad sample, though Nikon has checked it. My 135 f/2.8 AIS is relatively sharp by f/4, and tiny (though being metal, not that light). My DC was

replaced by a 200 f/2 and a 150mm Sigma macro. Both are very big, though. Can't speak for flare (the older 200 that I own is allegedly more

susceptible than the new one), but I doubt they're what you're after anyway.

 

The Tokina may be worth a try; I was going to suggest the 90mm Tamron, which has its front element down a tunnel and is light because it's

plastic. Good luck - I'll be interested if you report on the CV.

<p>Andrew -<br>

My experience with the 135/2DC was the same as yours - that's why it is long gone and the 135/2 AIS is still here.<br>

I just checked on the Tamron 90mm - I think I saw the 90/2.5 version in a camera shop this afternoon.<br>

I'll check it out to see how it does at infinity focus distances.<br>

John</p>

<p>John, you 'll love the size of the 135/3.5. I'd be shocked if it's sharp enough. I was going to mention the Tamron 90/2.5 -- I just got one that's an Adaptall, with a Nikon F and an Olympus OM mount; haven't used it yet. People rave about them. But it's clear that nothing any of us knew to be a beautiful sharp lens is guaranteed to stand up to the D800. I think if I were you I'd go with the 85mm f/1.8G or the older heavier 1.4G. From what I've read, that is. No personal knowledge. These lenses at least reportedly can shine on the D800. </p>

<p>For people looking out for special razor sharp and crisp top glass, should get himself the<br>

brand new<br>

<strong> APO ZEISS Sonnar T* 2.0/135mm!</strong></p>

<p>How about the Sigma 105mm macro? I'm using one of those (last version) on a D800 and have been pleasantly surprised at its performance both at macro distances and at infinity, hard to imagine sharper images really. Not the lightest lens but of its type pretty good. I've also tried an old manual Tamron 90mm SP lens on the D800 too, bitingly sharp, light but fairly unpleasant out of focus highlights with a strange colour to them, probably just the pre digital lens coatings. I'm guessing the newer AF versions of this will have equally sharp performance but with better coatings.</p>

Allan: the current (non-stabilized) 90mm Tamron does have LoCA (colour bokeh fringes) wide open, though they're not an issue stopped

down. The 150 Sigma and 200 f/2 are essentially free of this; I can't vouch for the 105mm OS.

 

Wolf: I'm interested in the Zeiss (and also the normal prime, if I have the disposable income some time). I've no it seen reviews yet - it's LoCA

that interests me. That said, I got the DC lens partly because manual focus of the f/2.8 AIS was annoying for candids, so the Zeiss might

annoy there. It also won't be cheap or light - not my first landscape choice (I'm still wondering about the 21mm...)

<p>Which Tamron 90mm macro are you talking about? The f/2.5 version?<br>

<br />- John</p>

<p>The Tamron I've got is the f/2.8 SP Di (with integrated motor), which I believe is current. Not the latest (and much more expensive) VC USD one. I've not tried the f/2.5.</p>

<p>Indeed the local shop had a 90/2.5 Tamron for sale, but it may have had some coating damage on the front element and I did not have time to fully check it out.</p>

<p>In the mean time last night the 90/3.5 CV SL-II arrived courtesy UPS (including an additional $20 brokerage fee - grrr!). It feels quite dense due to its small size and fantastic build. I'll try to steal a few moments today to make some shots with it if the weather cooperates here in very rainy Seattle.</p>

<p>Also, a late model 135/2.8 AIS is on it's way from Great Britain and we'll see how that does on the D800 when it gets here later in the week.<br>

John</p>

I've had a chance to use the 90 CV a bit on my D800 and I must say that I've been impressed. Pretty darned sharp wide open at long range. Improves slightly upon stopping down and very very even performance across the frame.

 

Up close and wide open I'm even more impressed. Fully sharp wide open and the close focusing distance even without the add-on element is very very nice.

 

John

<p>I do not believe you John. Unless you post some pictures... :-)</p>

Here you go:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1178193/2#lastmessage

 

For some close-up shots.

 

Long range to come.

 

John