Leica 75/1.4M, 80/1.4, and Nikon 85/1.4DAF

[jason_b.]

Dear Friends, I am considering the Nikon 85/1.4DAF as a short

tele. However, I have and use leica lenses in the normal and

wide ranges and love them. Does anyone have experiences with

the 85/1.4DAF? I would like to know if the Nikon can hang with

the Leicas wide open in terms of sharpness and contrast, and

most importantly color accuracy and saturation, and bokeh. The

"look " of the lens is important to me. I want the lush look of Leica

lenses, but for other reasons think the Nikon would be a good

choice. Are the differences in "look" between these short teles

significant? Thanks.

 

Jason Brownrigg

[al_kaplan1]

Just consider that at f/1.4 an 85mm has very little depth of field. How will you be sure that the autofocus will decide to focus where you want it to. Leica lenses are very obedient in this regard.

[fotografz]

The Nikon 85/1.4 is a very good lens, one of their better

performers. On a F-100 or F-5 it's a swift and sure focusing lens

even though it is not an AFS model.

 

But Al is right, you need to watch what it is focussing on. When I

shot weddings with one on a D1-X, I always used the more

sensitive center focus and locked on the eyes, then

recomposed. Still faster than any manual focus SLR IMO,

especially in the lower light where a lens like that comes into its

own.

 

However, I prefer the image qualities of the M-75/1.4 over the

Nikon, especially the backgroung Bokeh.

[jay_.]

I owned the manual 85/1.4, it was a stupendous lens. In AF I only had the 1.8, which I could never see the value in the added cost of the 1.4 because the DOF was too limited anyway. To me Nikon's top-end AF is a joke with only 5 sensors, which is why I switched to the 45-sensor EOS. I've heard great things about Canon's 85/1.2, but again, I only own the 1.8. I agree with Marc, there's just something special about the 75 Summilux. However unless I'm shooting something more than 2m away, or almost flat, and dead-still, and using a tripod, I have to stop it down f/2 or better f/2.8 to get enough DOF for the shot to work.

[cameron_sawyer]

I own and use the Nikon 85/1.4 AIS lens. I think you will be very happy with it. Nikon glass in general is noticeably worse than either Leica or Cosina-Voigtlander glass -- the contrast is lower, making the images murkier, and they are noticeably less sharp.

 

However, I think that this difference is less with longer focal lengths. Probably, the advantage of rangefinder lenses -- getting the rear element closer to the film place -- disappears over 50mm or so. The Nikon 85/1.4 does have a fine "look" with a lot of contrast and rendering of very fine detail -- it is my favorite Nikon lens, and in my opinion from this focal length it is better to use an SLR than a rangefinder.

[cameron_sawyer]

By the way, someone mentioned that the 1.4 is unneeded because of the shallow depth of field. I disagree. First of all, this lens is usable wide open if you focus carefully.

 

Secondly, even if you're not shooting wide open, remember that with an SLR (unlike the case with a rangefinder) you can focus more accurately with a faster lens. So if you're actually shooting at F2, you will get a much more precise focus with the 1.4, stopping down a whole stop, than with the 1.8. The 1.4 should also perform better stopped down a whole stop than the 1.8 stopped down only 1/3 stop.

 

Lastly, most people say that the Nikon 85/1.4 is a much better lens optically than the 1.8.

[stephen___4]

Actually I found the 1.4 lens to be much less sharp than the 1.8.

The old pre-AI nikkir 85 1.8 was one of the best lenses I have

ever owned, Nikon or Leica. Tack sharp wide open and all the

way down. I have always regretted trading it for the 1.4.

I have the current 85 1.8 AF lens and it is excellent.

[jay_.]

I agree with Stephen. Those who claim the 1.4 is superior are generally those who've already paid for one ;>)

[jason_b.]

Thanks for the responses so far. As for Auto Focus issues: I only have manual focus

bodies anyway, but the AFD version of the 85/1.4 is a much updated design and is

supposedly a better performer than the 85/1.4AIS and 85/1.8 (all versions).

"Supposedly" is exactly why I am asking you guys what you think.

 

Also, Marc, so o.k. the bokeh isn't as nice, what do you think of its color and contrast

etc.? Thanks again everybody.

 

P.S. How about the manual focusing? Do the Leicas have an edge here in terms of

smoothness of the focusing ring? Is one lens better than the other in terms of

degrees of turn from inf. to max close focus?

 

Jason Brownrigg

[cabophoto]

Jason,

 

I have both the Leica 75/1.4 Summilux-M and the AF Nikkor 85/1.4 (BTW the AF 85/1.4 has a different optical design than the AIS 85/1.4).

 

The AF Nikkor 85/1.4 is optically excellent. Wide open I´d say it beats the 75/1.4, although I haven´t done any scientific comparison shots. The nice thing is that, unlike many other Nikkors, it even has nice tonality and fantastic bokeh. Together with the AF of the F100 it is just great. As you may have read before, focusing the 75/1.4 on an M series Leica isn´t all that easy, espcially if your subject isn´t centered in the frame.

 

Hope this helps

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[cabophoto]

Stephen, Jay,

 

I owned the AF Nikkor 85/1.8 for several years and I agree with you that it is an excellent lens (and a bargain to boot). The 85/1.4 AF probably isn´t sharper (I can´t see the difference on my slides and I don´t have MTF measuring equipment), but I find the bokeh much nicer.

 

Please note that the 85/1.4 AIS is a different optical formula and not that great wide open, at least according to Bjorn Rorslett (www.naturfotograf.com).

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[cabophoto]

P.S.: there´s one thing I forgot to mention : I´m using the 75/1.4 Summilux-M much more than the AF Nikkor 85/1.4. The reason is simple : I do most of my photography with the 35mm focal length on an M6, and I really don´t want to schlepp a Nikon body just for one lens.

 

Carsten

[fotografz]

Jason, The Bokeh of the AF 85/1.4 isn't bad like with some other

Nikon lenses, I just like the specific background qualities a little

better with the M 75. As far as color, I have always liked Nikon's

punchy color, and the contrast is a relative thing. What I never

was fond of was shooting B&W film with any Nikon lens. I'd pick

a Leica M over Nikon when it comes to B&W.

 

BTW, before dumping all my Nikon gear, a pal and I did a "same

tri-pod, same camera, same studio lighting" test between his

85/1.8 and my AF 85/1.4. Could hardly tell any difference...until

we really did some cropping and enlarging...where the 85/1.4

was marginally, but visabily better. Not an issue if you never

have need of severe crops...which I do because during

weddings you can't always be where the action erupts. I now use

a Canon 85/1.2 which is quite an awesome lens for being so

fast. The best is the Canon 135/2 which boggles the mind with

it's clarity, color, bokeh and tack sharp contrast.

[jason_b.]

Once again, thank you to everyone. And thanks for following up

Marc. I feel confident that an 85/1.4AFD would be a choice I

would not regret. Interestingly, no has said much about the

80/1.4 Leica lens.

 

Now that you all have been so generous with you time, I'll press

you for even more info. In addition to the 75, 80, 85mm focal

lengths, I have been wondering about something a bit longer.

the 75, 80, 85mm lengths seem to be still of a "normal"

perspective, even though more narrow a view than a 50mm. So,

for you short tele users, what happen to the feel of the image

when you move up to 90mm or 105mm? I think that 135mm

should definately show foreground / background compression,

but what about a 90 or 105. How do those of you who shoot

weddings feel about this length? 90mm certainly seems to be a

favorite for Leica users, would a 105 give similar feel if I went

with Nikon SLR? I know I'm getting a bit OT here, not to mention

long-winded, but I do appreciate you views and opinions. Thanks

 

Jason Brownrigg

[gary_ferguson1]

Carsten, I used the Nikon 85mm 1.4's, both Ais and AF, for many years until like Marc I sold my Nikon equipment in favour of Canon. Compared to the Leica 75mm 1.4 I'd argue that in the plane of focus the Nikons were sharper, marginally so at distances over about 3 metres, and materially so at wide apertures below about 3 metres. The reason is probably the Nikon's Close Range Correction system, their term for floating elements. However every silver lining has a cloud around it, and in the case of the Nikons it's the out of focus rendition, it's just that bit harsher and "wirier" than the butter smooth Leica 75mm.

 

Incidentally I also agree with Marc's comments regarding the Canon 85mm 1.2 and 135mm f2.0, they're breathtaking, I'd put the 135mm ahead as a portrait lens as it focuses closer and tighter, where as the 85mm is more an out-an-out low light optic.

 

However, my biggest regret in parting company with Nikon is that I no longer have their sublime 105mm and 135mm focus control lenses, these two are the finest all round portrait lenses I've ever experienced.

[fotografz]

I am 100% with Gary on the Nikon AF 105/2 DC and AF135/ 2 DC

lenses. IMO if you get the 85/1.4 you may find that the 105/2 is a

bit close in focal length. These are old time, all metal Nikon Pro

lenses, and built to last. Fab optics.

[james_.1]

Keep it simple- one camera system for 35mm. The look of the 75mm Leica M is something I will never give up. Saturated, gorgeous bokeh, etc.

[jason]

as an old Leica user,over 37yrs,these statements that Nikon lenses totally inferior ar absolutely nonsense.It might feel better to make such statements but Nikkor lenses way more sharp and contrasty than my Leica.I prefer the look of Leica though!!

[richie chishty]

Check out this <a

href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm">Lens

Test</a> report. Very interesting! :

[richie chishty]

Another <a

href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm">

Lens Test</a> report. Very interesting! :-)......

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here the Nikon 85/1.4 AIS lens is used on a Nikon F or an F2 for sports. This is a BIG piece of glass. The hood is even bigger! Focusing is very critical. I use special action screens for the Nikon F/F2; for instant focusing. I bought the lens from a fashion photographer in Chicago; who went to the newer Nikon 85/1.4DAF for his AF Nikons. He said the performance was about the same; he just was going all AF in his Nikkors. <BR><BR>For the M3; I use an ancient LTM Nikkor 8.5cm F2; which is about 1/2 + century old. It is heavy as hell; and not as sharp as the F1.4 F Nikkor at F2; but about the same when at F5.6....... <BR><BR>The 85mm F1.4 is a huge piece of glass; will this be ok? It uses a 72mm filter; the old 8.5cm F2 in LTM uses a 48mm filter. <BR><BR>I love the 85mm F1.4 for indoor sports; at dim gymns; for portraits it is good; but may scare some models because it is so dran huge with a hood! :)

[shambrick007]

What about the 105 f1.8?

[cabophoto]

Gary,

 

<BR>>>and materially so at wide apertures below about 3 metres. The <BR>>>reason is probably the Nikon's Close Range Correction system, their <BR>>>term for floating elements.

<BR><BR>

yes, I think the CRC helps a lot at close distances. Unfortunately it also makes the lens bigger.

<BR>

It can probably be discussed forever if the bokeh of the Leica 75 is smoother than that of the Nikkor 85. Among Nikkors, the 85 is very good in this respect.

<BR>

BTW I´d love to try the 105/2 DC Nikkor.

<BR>

Carsten

[Robin Smith]

Jason

 

I am a big fan of the Leica 'lux 80mm-R. It has very similar performance to the 75mm Summilux and handles beautifully on the R camera. I have not compared it to the Nikon equivalent, but it is the lens I always take out for a portrait shot.<div></div>

[dlegaspi]

i think the Nikon 85/1.4 AF-D is the best thing since sliced bread.