Re: 85-90 M and SM lenses

[Stephen Gandy <cameras@jetlink.net>]

Nicholas Hartmann wrote:
> 
> Can the LUG in its collective wisdom recommend a Leica M- or screw-mount
> lens that is as good as this Nikon optic?
> 
> Notes: 1) I once tried out a Canadian 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit and was
> underwhelmed: the definition, at infinity and f/8, was perceptibly poorer
> than with either of the Nikkor 85s (f/2 and f/1.8) to which I compared it.
> 2) Marc James Small has sung the praises of the collapsible 90/4 Elmar M,
> and I have no reason to doubt him. The lens appears to have collector
> value, however, and seems expensive for being so ugly and so slow. 3) A
> maximum aperture greater than f/4 is another nice feature of the Nikkor
> lens, so what's with all the weird screw-mount lenses I see in the Woodmere
> Camera flyer every month: 85/2 Canon Serenar; 85/2.8 Steinheil; 85/2.8
> Super Rokkor; 85/2 Jupiter <??>; even <gasp> 85/2 Nikkor. If the optical
> formula of the latter is what was reused for the AI/AIS lens, then my
> search is over, but that's too much to expect...
> 

While the current 90/2.8 is getting raves, the 90/4 for the CLE is also
a great lens.  Do not confuse this with the earlier 90/4 for the CL,
they are NOT the same thing.

Many people praise the current 90/2,  but a few say the older/larger
90/2 is better.  Don Chatterton is among them.   

In Leica screw mount, either of the 85/2 or 105/2.5 are great lenses of
their day, although probably not up to current Leitz standards, still
great picture takers, though.
BTW, the 105 was only made in black/chrome, while the 85 was available
in chrome or black/chrome.   The black/chrome versions are rare and
expensive.

In Canon, the best choices are the 100/2 Black and the 100/3.5 black. 
The 85/1.8 black is just as good, but rare and expensive.   The earlier
chrome lenses are on a lower level.

The 85/1.5's in either Canon or Nikon are best seen as  collector's
lenses, not up to the sharpness of their slower lenses.

The other European 85/90's are all 2nd quality as far as I am concerned,
even the Angenieux which has spotty quality.   

And before Marc can mention it, the Russian lenses CAN be sharp, but it
is a real problem in my experience to find one which works well both
optically and mechanically.  Would you believe lenses which don't even
screw on the camera bodies properly?  

I didn't, but I have found quite a few such Russian beauties.

Stephen Gandy