Re: Nikkor 85 mm (off topic)

[Stephen Gandy <cameras@jetlink.net>]

Bill Welch wrote:
> 
> Stefan Kahlert wrote:
> >
> > "A true dog" would be the last designation I would give to the
> > 2/85. Yes, it is lower contrast than most other Nikkors but it is
> > very good at resolving fine details. This lens is addopted to its
> > application which is potraiture at first hand and I took enough
> > pictures with both lenses to convince myself that the differences
> > between them are moreover a matter of taste and not of quality.
> >
> 
>         At risk of taking us further off topic, but because it looks like
> a lot of us LUGs are Nikon users too, here's what Moose Peterson's Nikon
> System Handbook has to say about the 85/2:
>         ''The 85f2 never seemed to catch on with Nikon users. It was
> intended to fill the shoes of the discontinued 85f1.8 which it really
> couldn't do. ... The lens never changed in design or cosmetics during its
> production run. It's one of the Nikon lenses that is not highly
> regarded.''
> 
>         This book and author rarely has a discouraging word to say about
> Nikon products, so when he does, he probably means it.
> 
> Bill Welch

Moose, Smoose, as in "so what?"

While I probably like his books as much as the next guy, they are only a
starting 
point.  It's not like Moose has the world's monopoly of Nikon truth.

I will take a person's own experience(Stefan's) any day over some other
guy quoting a book instead of his own personal experience with the lens.

I've noticed over the last year a lot of people referring to their 85/2
Nikkor as a "sharp" lens.   Obviously some people like the lens--perhaps
Moose was a bit too hasty in his judgment.    

Stephen Gandy