Leica last pre-asph 90 cron vs. Nikon 85 1.4 AIS

[mark_amos]

I recently posted a question about the latest pre-asph 90 crons vs. the

current Elmarit. I got a lot of great responses, so thank you all.

 

I have an 85 1.4 ais and regularly use both Nikon and M, so I can only hope

that no one will try to tell me how my question is stupid because slr and

rangefinders are different. I know that. I also know that focusing fast lenses

with either system presents challenges. I have found that my best strategy for

avoiding buying equipment I don't need is to talk about it and enjoy the

process which eventually leads to purchasing well considered items only

occasionally.

 

The 85 1.4 Nikon AF is by some considered superior to the ais version wide

open. Likewise, the current apo 90 summicron is sharper than the previous

model. But I have an 85 1.4 ais as a point of reference. Does anyone with

experience with the lens I have care to comment on what the pre-asph 90 cron

might deliver compared to what I know in the Nikon ais from f2?

 

My guess already at the answer is that in the handheld low-light situations I

would likely use the cron, the Leica lens would simply give me the

capabilities I already have with Nikon in my Leica system sensibility. Thanks

and Happy New Year!

[35mmdelux]

the 85mm/1.4 ais is sharper than the 90 pre-ash cron at the wider apertures.

[leicaglow]

I would say this: I think the 85mm f/1.4 is often overstated because of its legend than fact. It is a phenomenal lens, but often other lenses are slighted by this homage. Case in point: I believe my 85mm f/1.8 AF is every bit as sharp as my f/1.4 AIS, and the bokeh is as good on either. (I believe formal, technical tests from Photozone will support this as well). I currently own a 90mm Elmarit that is every bit as sharp as either of the Nikkors. I have previously owned the Summicron, which I think, subjectively, was as good as my f/1.4 Nikkor of the same period. That's just my opinion however, and through personal experience tend to disagree with Paul.

[albert_smith]

Say that both lenses are equal, maybe, maybe not, but say they are. Now ask yourself if this focal length would serve you better on an SLR or on a rangefinder.

 

I have both Leica Ms and Nikon SLRs, and I use the 90mm Elmarit M on the Leicas. It is a fantastic lens.... sharp, contrasty and pretty much perfect even wide-open. On my Nikons, I use 85mm and 105mm lenses, and while they may be a stop behind the Elamrit M in performance, I use them more often based on the SLR viewing of the Nikons.

 

The SLR gives an enlarged view with these lenses making focus and composition easier than the framed crop in the finder of the M camera. The ability to see the selective focus effect in the SLR is nice too. The "everything-in-focus" view in the Leica means that you often don't see the true shot until the film comes back. Rangefinder people will say they can imagine the actual in and out of focus effect, but it is still a guess compared to the SLR.

 

The Leica M is great with my 35 and 50mm lenses, but most often, I grab my Nikon for the medium telephoto shots that show the strength of the SLR. So don't just do a direct comparison of the two lenses, but compare also the process of making them work. The SLR sings with a medium telephoto.

[roland_r]

90/2 v3 + M3 are a killer combo.

[35mmdelux]

Agreed with the above with the following caveats -

 

I have owned all the lenses in question and here is how I line them up:

 

**Best overall (sharpness, boke) - 90mm Elmarit-M (Latest)

 

**On boke only - 1) 105mm Nikkor / 2) 90mm Elmarit-M

 

**Sharpest at 2.0 and wider - 85mm/1.4 ais

 

 

**First Runner up sharp/boke - 85mm/1.8 AF

 

**Second Runner up sharp/boke - 90mm Summicron pre-asph

 

Based on this experience, I sold all and kept the 90mm Elmarit-M. I have no desire to own the 90mm AA.

 

There are other qualitative factors a shooter might choose one over the other, as stated above. Because all of these lenses are excellent, perception and subjectivity play a large role.

 

Best regards and good shooting - Paul

[leicaglow]

It may be worth having a look at this site. I think their opinion matches my experience with the Nikkors anyway. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

I think their review of the f/1.4 Nikkor reflects some pressure they've felt from users' opinions steeped in legend over fact, but there is no denying they are both great lenses.

[mark_amos]

Albert, although I love the view through the 85 1.4, with a 72mm filter and a non retractable hood that is about 85mm in diameter at the end, it is a rather large lens: maybe not compared to a lot of the current high quality Nikon zooms. It weighs 22 oz vs. the Leica cron at 16 oz. I like it or I wouldn't keep it, but on my FM3a, it is not an ideal balance. With the MD12 motor on the FM3a, it feels really good, but that is not a set up I feel comfortable using discretely. The FM3a weighs about the same as an M6: 20 oz, and while people often complain about the weight of the 90 crons because of how wonderfully small and light most Leica normals are, the 90 cron seems to effectively bring the rangefinder set up advantages for lens size to the fast portrait application.

 

So Michael recalls the cron as equal to the 85 Nikkor, and Paul finds the Nikkor a small step ahead. I point out that I am aware of the current Elmarit's prowess, but I have become convinced that f2.8 won't do what I need, especially since I need all the shutter speed I can get in this focal length.

 

How do you guys that went with the Elmarit 2.8 handle lamp-lit interior shots with people at Christmas without flash? I've used 800 Supra and Fujipress and Kodak E200 slide film pushed to 800, and while those are cool and interesting, I've settled on Kodak Ultracolor 400 Professional as the most grain I can handle.

 

I'd enjoy more opinions about the 85 1.4 ais vs. the pre-asph 90 cron. Here is another random 85 1.4 shot, although it is not in the low light conditions I am targeting.

[alan_wilder1]

Mark, I take it that you don't own the 90/2 Summicron, otherwise I'd say try shooting identical objects and compare. Optically, they are too close to call but at f/2 the Nikkor does better in all respects. The Summicron requires precise focus to match the sharpness of the Nikkor and unless you're shooting with an M3 or an M6 with a 0.85x finder, other M's won't be as precise. Exact focus is taxed to the limit in the M system using a 90/2 assuming rf calibration is spot on. Unfortunately many M bodies may not be quite as spot on as you'd think for lenses of this type.

[mark_amos]

Correct Alan. I do not have the cron. I imagine that my M6 is not perfectly calibrated, so I guess I should anticipate a bit of issues. Thank you for the insights. I'm just so tempted by the f2 speed for my Leica in a portrait lens, but it might not be worth the money to try if the concensus is that by a combination of rangefidner limitations and the cron's lens quality, I would be doing well to even equal the results with my nikon 85 1.4 on my FM3a. I'm not giving up on it yet, however.

[alan_wilder1]

I'd also seriously consider the 85/1.8 Nikkor either the AF version or the earlier AI, if your don't like AF lenses. Both perform on par with the 90/2 but the Nikkors are lighter, a tad faster, focus a tad closer with the AF more flare resistant than the AI version yet the AI version was considered the very best 85/1.8 until the introduction of the AF version. Still, I love my 90/2 AA for it's color rendition and bokeh as seen below but under the same shooting situation, I doubt the Nikkor would do worse.

[mark_amos]

Wonderful shot Alan.

[fred_c1]

The "Ai version" Nikkor was 85/2. The f/1.8 was made before 1977, hence pre-Ai.

[robert_clark]

I use the Elmarit M 90/2.8 and find it a superb lens for all the reasons stated above. It really is perfect wide open, and I have never had any focus issues with it (nor with my 135/4). However it is restricted to F2.8 and that is sometimes a limit, particularly for the type of low-light indoor shots you mention. So I too have often wondered about the 90/2. I've never used it, only talked to others who have, and their opinion seems to tally with that mentioned here - its good wide open, but could be better. If I were in a situation where I often wanted f2 I would not hesitate to buy one.

 

You could take your camera to a good shop, run a film through testing all of their available f/2's, get it developed, and go back and buy the one that works best on your body.

 

If after taking it away and shooting in your low-light conditions, and checking the results wide open (on a tripod, so you're testing the lens, not your hands) you are not satisfied, put it on ebay. You wont lose much.

[alan_wilder1]

Actually, the 85/1.8 Nikkor was available as AI but only for a short time until replaced the same year by the less popular but more compact 85/2. See this: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/85mm.htm

[fred_c1]

Alan, that lens was converted to Ai using a factory-made aperture ring just like a million other pre-Ai lenses. (And yes, the very last pre-Ai series had rubber focusing rings.)<P>

 

This is an unconverted sample. See 'em all at <a href=http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html>Roland Vink's site</a>.<P>

 

<img src=http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/n8518.jpg></img>