If I was to trade my 90 APO.......SLR equivelent?

kristian dowling · March 31, 2002

.......which SLR equivelent would be the closest in performance

in the 85mm f/1.4 range:

1. Canon 85/1.2

2. Nikon AF 85/1.4D

3. Zeiss 85/1.4

4. Leica 85/1.4 (Erwin rates it beloe 75/1.4M)

5. Other...including Olympus 90/2 macro

I am contemplating a trade because I am not too confident in my

ability to focus the lens correctly, especially in fast action

situations. What do we all belive to be the best alternative?

I've owned the AF Nikon in the past and it was excellent (the AIS

version wasn't as good). Please do not recommend any others

than the choices I've listed to make things easier on me.

louis · March 31, 2002

Easy: The Nikon 85 1.4D AF. The finest lens ever.

Bright and easy to focus (both AF & MF). Excellent build.

This lens produces images with the highest levels of

sharpness, contrast and tonality.

With all the sharpness it still produces beautiful portraits due to

the superb tonality. It is not harsh.

Out of focus is smooth, pleasing and allows for the focus

subject to "pop" out of the photo.

The 1.4 is usable.

matthew_pulzer · March 31, 2002

Not sure about the Leica 85/1.4-R, but I can tell you about the 80! I

have both the 80 and 75-M and they are wonderful lenses. A good

friend has the 90 APO and has never really got on with it. However it

is worth pointing out that the depth of field of a 75/80 at 1.4 is

pretty much the same as a 90 at 2.0. My advise is to persevere with

what you've got. Focusing an SLR close up at 1.4 with a portrait lens

can be just as error prone with moving subjects as a rangefinder.

Either way you probably need to loose a couple of stops to give

youself enough DOF to keep a dynamic subject safely within focus.

Nikon? LOL

Canon? LOVL

They still make lenses?

Matt

sait_akkirman · March 31, 2002

I think you are doing yourself injustice. If you can focus a Noctilux

quickly and correctly, you should be able to do the same with a

fast short tele as well.

anon_terry · March 31, 2002

Focusing an SLR close up at 1.4 with a portrait lens can be

just as error prone with moving subjects as a rangefinder.

This statement is meaningless. Sure, it "can" be. But the

reality is that the SLR will beat the rangefinder just about every

time for telephoto focusing accuracy, ESPECIALLY close up. When

using a large aperture telephoto on a rangefinder, you're 100%

reliant on the rangefinder patch to tell you where you're focused at

(I haven't met anyone who will even attempt to scale focus a 75/1.4

or 90/2 on the M at one to three meters). But the problem comes when

the thing you want in focus is not dead center in the frame. Add on

the possibility of subject or photographer movement (or both) and

that thunking sound you hear is your head banging against a brick

wall.

C'mon people, horses for courses.

richie chishty · March 31, 2002

Check out these webpages for some tests of these lenses:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

Rob F. · March 31, 2002

I didn't know there was a zinc lens mount. I thought the lens

materials were always either brass or aluminum.

Rob F. · March 31, 2002

Oops. wrong thread. Nevermind.

ray_moth · March 31, 2002

Kristian,

I would imagine the closest SLR lens to the 90 SAA would be the Leica

100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R. I agree with your comments on the

difficulty of focusing fast short tele lenses on nearby moving

subjects with a rangefinder (I have enough trouble with the 90

Elmarit-M); I find SLR much easier.

eliot · April 1, 2002

Anon Terry is simply wrong in his claim that SLR fats short teles are

more accurate. In fact, if you read Gunter Osterloh's excellent

book, the M RF system (0.72) is still more accurate at the 75 and 90

mm focal lengths, but the crossing point is 135 mm. But the users

who have problems with M focussing are almost certaiunly not using

their camera/lens combo properly. It is not fair to blame Leica when

their products are not used as intended. Anyone who needs a lesson

on the relative accuracy of the long-base RF vs SLR focussing and the

factors contributing to their accuracy should read the relevant

chapter in Osterloh's book. It is the best treatment on the subject.

As far as camera and subject movement, this will equally affect RF

and SLR focussing. It is difficult to understand how anyone can

greater accuracy or inaccuracy of focussing caused by movement to one

system vs the other. This is just not logical.

ray_moth · April 1, 2002

It is logical to claim that focusing on a moving subject is easier if

you can use any part of an SLR ground glass focusing screen than

having to use a small central RF patch, especially if doing the

latter means that you then have to move the camera to compose the

shot. Having to focus using the RF patch is a limitation that

requires more time, which is not usually available if the subject is

in motion such that its distance from the camera is constantly

changing.

I'm not saying it's particularly easy using a manual focus SLR, just

that it's harder still using an RF. Of course, a good autofocus beats

any kind of manual focus for a moving subject.

Some people have mastered the technique of moving with the subject,

to keep the camera-to-subject distance constant in order to avoid

having to re-focus the camera. Another trick is to focus on some

particular point in the field of view and then wait until the subject

moves to that spot. This requires fast response on the part of both

the photographer and the camera.

andy_piper2 · April 1, 2002

Kristian: You might to hold off. Leica has mentioned that a new 'fast

portrait-length' R lens is in the works. Logic (not always a good

predictor when Solms is involved) says that they're trying to put the

90 APO into an SLR mount.

Based on Photodo.com MTF charts - most of the lenses you list are not

even up to the preAPO 90 Summicron wide open - although the Olympus

macro does best, followed by the Canon. (Photodo is behind the times

and hasn't tested the AF version of the Nikkor 85 1.4)

MTF charts ignore: micro-contrast, bokeh, image color and handling.

The Zeiss 85 f/1.4 is slightly better than the manual-focus Nikkor -

not bad considering it's a design from the very end of the Zeiss

Contarex era (c.1968). It's a very compact and easy-handling lens -

67mm filters compared to 72 (or larger) for the Nikkors/Canon.

eliot · April 1, 2002

Ray, waht you say is true about the ground glass focussing, but when

the issue becomes critical focussing accuracy, the central split

image of the SLR focussing screen adds significantly to the focussing

accuracy (this is explained in Osterloh's discussion). If you use

the ground glass rather than the split image RF of a manual focus

SLR, you will get less focussing accuracy.

Don't bet on AF being more accurate than MF. It is certainly faster

than MF for moving subjects, but you never get critical focussing

accuracy with AF. It is just not possible so far to design an AF

focussing mechanism that is optimal for all focal lengths, so AF

systems are optimized for one particular focal length. In practice

AF is acceptibly accurate because of the DOF concept, but if you were

to make great enlargements, you would find that AF is still not as

accurate as MF in critical situations. Pop photography did these

comparisons a couple of years ago, and you may still be able to get a

hold of the article from back issues.

Anyway, the M RF system was designed to be more accurate than SLR

focussing within its lens range. Outside of that range, the SLR

wins. That's one reason Leica never made an RF coupled 200 mm lens

(actually they did make one, but it never got past the prototype

stage). The other reason is the framing and parallax problems

created by these very long focal lengths, which are better suited to

SLRs.

kristian dowling · April 1, 2002

The problem I have is this.....it is very difficult to focus the RF

when I always have to focus and recompose. Time is important

in people photography, and even taking an extra few seconds to

focus the RF can cost me the person's attention, which it has.

And for this, no matter what quality the lens is, is unfortunate and

should be avoided.

And I am asking this question, because I believe that there is no

way of avoiding it. With wide angle lenses, I don't have a

problem, and if I could afford it i would keep the 90APO and buy

something as well...but I can't.

kristian dowling · April 1, 2002

Something that I hadn't thought of is the fact that when I shoot

with my M6/90 APO, the subject doesn't cringe like they did when

I shot with my F5/FM3a and AF 85mm f/1.4D lens. So this needs

to be factored into the analysis too.

jacques_balthazar1 · April 1, 2002

kristian,

I am pretty confident your problem is more with action focusing

with tele + M rather than focusing precision. The 0.72 and 0.85 M

are, I find, very easy and reliable to focus with 75/90 lenses. But I

agree they are not fast to focus: subject's main feature in RF

patch, focus, reframe, shoot, with none of the prefocusing

flexibility of a 35mm lens (even with the latter at f1.4).

I'm sure the 85mm Nikon AF will bring you that speedy

response, even if it is at the cost of a format that you see as a

"threatening" combo. BTW the manual focus 80mm 'lux on a R8

is just as "threatening" as a a Nikon F100+85mm.

Another one to consider, despite your strict instructions: the

Minolta 85mm f1.4 + Dynax 7. A fabulous combination. Do not

believe those who say that contemporary AF is not reliable

enough for such a focal length and max aperture. It is plainly

untrue. And, with the D7 (and Canons) you can take back full

manual control with no fiddling around whenever you feel it to be

useful....

The Dynax 7+85mm f1.4 D is the ultimate 35mm portrait making

machine: the lens is on par with my 75mm 'lux, and the features

of the body (besides AF) will not be seen on Leica SLRs before

2025. That range includes other specialist portrait lenses such

as a 100mm with complete soft focus control and the 135mm

STF with fine and superb bokeh management.

kristian dowling · April 1, 2002

Jaques,

I hear you. The autofocusing accuracy of the newer AF gear is

99% spot on in my experience using the F100 and F5. I've

always been a fan of the Dynax 9, and I guess the 7 is an

excellent camera. And if I am going to go an auto camera, why

ont get the "most automated and technologically advanced". I

always wondered whether the Minolta 85/1.4 was good. Do you

have any example pictures to share? I know the Nikon would be

tough to beat from my experience.

patricks · April 1, 2002

kristian et al,

my 2 cents. Get a fast AF SLR. I thought I could use my M6 TTL as

my ONLY camera, but it is not true. There are occasions when a fast

modern SLR will serve you better. I'm getting one now, thinking for a

F100 or a Contax.

Cheers,

Robin Smith · April 1, 2002

Kristian

There is not a strict R comparable lens to the 90mm APO- but I

recommend the 80mm 'lux - superb and easy to focus. Erwin did not say,

in my recollection, that the 80mm is less good than the 75mm - they

just have slightly different characteristics, they share the same

design philosophy, parameters and age. It is my favorite portrait lens

for fast moving scenes. On fast moving objects I do not think the M is

the best camera and I find a reflex is superior. AF sounds great for

this kind of object, but all I know is that when taking our daughter,

my 80mm and R6.2 more often "gets the shot" than my wife's EOS

(admittedly with the 28-105mm zoom).

jay_. · April 1, 2002

Kristian, of the lenses you listed I would rate the Canon 85/1.2 #1,

followed by the Nikon and Zeiss; however I would not recommend the

Zeiss lens because the MM-mount Contax is extremely hard to resell.

peter_hughes1 · April 1, 2002

Woman w/Mask, Bring Back the Snakes Day, Berkeley, California,

3/23/02</center>

Get an EOS-1v HS and an 85mm f/1.2L.I struggled valiantly for over

a year, first with an M6 TTL and a 90mm Summicron, then with an R8

with a 90mm Summicron-R, to take portraits in the 3 to 5 foot range,

usually using wide apertures (f/4 or wider). Many, if not most, of my

pictures were out of focus--some extremely so, some only slightly

soft.I fiddled around with a Nikon F100 for a short while, then

realized it was a stone ax compared to the EOS line. So, one day, I

put my entire 35mm outfit--an R8 w/2 lenses and an F100 w/5

lenses--on the counter and traded for an EOS-1v w/the 85mm f/1.2L,

the equally magnificent 135mm f/2L, and a 17-35mm f/2.8L to cover the

wide focal lengths. I have never regretted this for an instant. The

1v brings home the goods.The 85mm f/1.2L is twice the lens that

the Summicron is. And the 135mm f/2L is, quite simply, the finest

135mm lens ever made--and, at .9m, also one of the closest-focusing.

Should you want to get closer, Canon (unlike Nikon) makes two

extension tubes which maintain full automation.Finally, note the

portrait above, shot wide open with the 85mm f/1.2L.

peter_hughes1 · April 1, 2002