Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/08/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>>>>>>>>> At 11:52 AM 8/22/98 -0400, you wrote: >Leica makes. It also has an excellent reputation. The 85/1.8, 105/2.5 and >180/2.8 are also considered among Nikon's best. The AF versions are of >equal quality. I thought the 85 1.4 AF was supposed to be better than the MF version. No? <<<<<<<<<< I've used both MF and AF versions. I had the MF version a relatively short time and I've used the AF for maybe 2-1/2 years now, so my memories may not be unbiased, but I find the AF version a bit sharper. It's a new optical design. In fact, I'm on my second AF 85 f/1.4 Nikkor. The first, judging by the serial number, was among the first 200 manufactured. It flared badly. Then, after a year's use, I noticed the inside of the back element was covered with a fine coat of dust. About the same time the grey market price dropped to where I could sell my 85 locally for the price of a new one at B&H. So I did. While I haven't particuarly sought out flare-prone situatuations, I've yet to see flare problems with the new 85. Don't think it's just Leica lenses that can come from the factory with quality control problems. The 85 is my most-used lens and optically is superb. Mechanically, the MF Nikkor or any Leica lens is superior. The 60 mm Micro, 20 mm f/2.8 and 180 f/2.8 AF Nikkors are also outstanding. My dealer (Eric, you know him: Harry at IPAS) says he considers the 180 the optically most-improved Nikkor going from MF to AF versions. And I've capteured indoor available-light photos with my 24 mm f/2 Nikkor that I'd not have gotten with another Nikon or Leica lens. Larry