Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>From: Stefan Kahlert >I am curious how the Nikon 85ers compare to the Leica 90mm lenses I've been shooting a 5 element 90/2 Summicron-M and the 6 element 85/1.8 AF-Nikkor. I rarely shoot the two side-by-side or even with the same film. I've sometimes thought about doing a controlled test of the two lenses but am not particularly motivated to engage in such activities unless I suspect a problem. Both lenses have been fine performers so I've just used them without too much concern. Here are a few observations: 90/2 Summicron-M: anyone who read my postings on the 75/1.4 might remember that I like the 90/2. The contrast seems very slightly lower at the nearest focusing distances near maximum aperture. I find this to be useful in portraiture. The rendition of color and brightness are typical for Leica. The lens has qualities I see in the 35 and 50 mm Summicrons. There is a smoothness and realism to the image I find hard to describe without sounding like a man possessed. At far distances, I've found the image quality to be high. The lens packs a punch at f/4 to f/5.6 (also a nice aperture range at near distances) although f/2 and f/2.8 are decent as well. The field looks reasonably flat and the resolution uniform. I hear great things about the current 90/2.8 Elmarit-M but for the way I work, I haven't wanted anything more. Maybe if I tried the 90/2.8 I'd change my mind, but I haven't felt particularly motivated given my satisfaction with the 90/2. Besides, I use f/2 regularly. 85/1.8 AF-Nikkor: I like this lens too. And, for the $200 (used, Ex+) I paid for it, I like it even more. When using a 75/1.4 at maximum aperture and near focus distances, I found the Summilux to have a bit of it's own unique "personality". In comparison, the Nikkor doesn't really have a peculiar fingerprint. It seems as close to an ideal lens as I have used around this focal length. By ideal, I mean ideal in a technical sense. The imaging performance is quite predictable and doesn't change terribly much from infinity to 0.85 meter. Transistions of the image from in-focus to out-of-focus are very clean. The contrast is on par with what I've experienced from other Nikkor primes. Overall, I have found the lens to be universally applicable to about every subject I've approached with it. I've been shooting the 85 without a hood and have noticed that light sources either in the picture or just outside can cause some flare reminiscent of a very large reflected image. Reorienting the lens helps but shielding the front element removes the effect. I have not done the Christmas-light-coma-test with the lens. All that being said, the Nikkor's optical performance is very good. If the photographer wanted something with a unique imaging signature, it might not fill the bill. Given a choice I usually reach for the Summicron. But, for the money, I consider the Nikkor a bargain and shoot it without hesitation. Obligatory disclaimer: all the above IMHO, of course... - Kevin kburke@iterated.com