Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Carsten wrote: > >I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Nikon lenses. From time to >time someone voices an opinion like "the Nikkors produce a brittle" or >"they show bad bokeh". I have some Nikkors for which this is certainly true >(20/2.8 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 85/1.8 AF). Others like the 55/2.8 Micro AIS, the >105/4 Micro AIS and the 180/2.8 AF IF-ED produces images that are very >similar to those of my Leica M lenses. However, mixing images from these >two manufacturers´ lenses in a slide show you quickly realize that the >Nikkors exhibit a much warmer color rendition. That's odd. I've found exactly the opposite. Some time ago I did a series of very subjective comparisions of a 90/2 Summicron R mounted on an SL and an 85/1.8 Nikkor on an F. Same subjects, same exposure. My conclusions were: a) Very little to choose in terms of definition. b) Leica rendition appeared to be a shade warmer and more 'plastic' - probably the 'bokeh' factor. I was going to put these comparisons up on my home pages, but decided not to as there are plenty of people like Erwin who approach these evaluations in a far more methodical and meaningful way. I agree with the point about Nikkor inconsistency. There are some real dogs out there. However, there are also some pretty good guides to the good, the bad, and the ugly Nikkors floating round the Net. Never had this problem with my R lenses, which are amazingly consistent in colour rendition from 21mm ro 180mm. Slan Alex Alex Hurst Cork Florists 19 Winthrop St, Cork Republic of Ireland Tel: +353 21 270 907 Fax: +353 21 271 248 email: corkflor@iol.ie Website: http://www.flowerlink.com/corkflorists Home website: http://homepages.iol.ie/~corkflor/