90mm Leica APO vs. 85/1.4 AF-Nikkor

90mm Leica APO vs. 85/1.4 AF-Nikkor

  • 90mm APO-Summicron

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • 85mm f/1.4 AF-Nikkor

    Votes: 16 61.5%
  • Total voters
    26
Rob-F

Rob-F

Likes Leicas
Local time
6:17 AM
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
7,564
Location
The Show Me state
View My Gallery
Here's another this-lens-or-that-lens problem. While I'm wondering if I need the 90mm APO-Summicron, I'm also considering the 85mm f/1.4 AF-Nikkor. It's the one with the black crinkle paint job that both Bjorn Rorslett and Ken Rockwell rave about and give top rating to. Rockwell even compares the quality of the Summicron to the Nikkor.

The Nikkor is a stop faster; the reflex viewing allows a full-finder view, not the little inset frameline of the Leica. It's autofocus. It weighs one ounce more than the Summicron (not bad) And it's one-fifth the cost of the Summicron.

I I do have the f/1.8 AF-Nikkor. I like shooting it and I like the results. And 85mm seems more in the right ballpark than 75mm. I don't really need f/1.4 too often, but if the IQ is even better than the one I have, I'm thinking I should give it serious consideration.

Just thinking out loud.
 
A more apt comparison for the highly regarded Nikkor 85/1.4 D are to the Leica R 80/1.4 or 75 Summilux. Insofar as all are softer for portraiture at the widest apertures, they share an intended application. That's where the similarities end.
 
My manual focus Nikons are sharper than the old SMCT I used to have.
My Leica lenses from 1980 up to current ones are better than the Nikon of similar age. What is different? Look at the pic and you see the overall sharpness is similar. Difference is micro contrast, ie very small differences in tone are reproduced. I did some tests with my 4 month old daughter around 1985 , single strobe bounced into a 36” umbrella. 100 2.8 ApO picked up skin texture that 90 mm 2.8 Elmar did not find. Do not do beauty shots with the APO unless you like to retouch.
Nikon have improved with G lenses but still do not equal Leica.
 
james.liam said:
A more apt comparison for the highly regarded Nikkor 85/1.4 D are to the Leica R 80/1.4 or 75 Summilux. Insofar as all are softer for portraiture at the widest apertures, they share an intended application. That's where the similarities end.
Click to expand...

I believe the 75 Summilux-M and 80 Summilux-R are used for portraiture, not because they were intentionally made to be soft wide open for that purpose, but simply because their softness was the best that could be achieved until the aspherical technology came along. I understand Rockwell to be saying that the 90 ASPH outperforms the Nikkor at f/2 aperture in the corners, but otherwise the Nikkor holds its own against the 90 ASPH from f/2 and smaller. The Summilux lenses weren't part of the comparison. Rorslett didn't mention any Leica lenses; but he gave the Nikkor a 5 out of 5, ostensibly the highest rating a lens can get.

So I'm thinking that the advantage of the Nikkor filling the whole finder, making composition easier, rather appeals to me. And it's AF and f/1.4 as well! Then again, I might be happier to own the Summicron! Hope that's clearer than my earlier post apparently was.
 
Rob-F said:
I believe the 75 Summilux-M and 80 Summilux-R are used for portraiture, not because they were intentionally made to be soft wide open for that purpose, but simply because their softness was the best that could be achieved until the aspherical technology came along.
Click to expand...

Aspheres don’t make much difference with longer than normal lenses. It’s floating elements that make the difference with long lenses particularly with close-up performance. Aspherical lenses can be used to manage some aberrations, but in general they are only needed in long lens designs to reduce the number of elements.

The Nikkor 85/1.4 AiS has a floating element (Nikon’s ‘close range correction’) and the 85/1.4 AF-D achieves the same outcome by having rear focusing. Theoretically rear focusing lenses have more chromatic aberration but Nikon managed that well in this lens. But you can see some lateral chromatic aberration at 100%, particularly wide open in high resolution digital files like the ones from the D850.

The Leica 90 Summicron ASPH has no floating element, and some residual spherical aberrations, and has some focus shift as a result. It also often has problems in its M mount incarnation with mismatched focus cam curvature which means that rangefinder and optical focus do not coincide. This of course is not a problem with accurate live view. Its contrast is high, but its fine detail rendition is remarkable.

The main consideration is do want this lens as part of a system you might carry, or is it for studio or single use? If you want to carry it and also have an M camera you are already carrying, it’s a lot easier to put a 90 in your bag than to also carry a Nikkor 85 and a Nikon SLR body.

But as far as being ‘good’ lenses goes, you can’t really lose with either of them; both the Leica 90 ASPH and the Nikkor 85 are fantastic.

Marty
 
Straight away no question; get the AF-Nikkor first. Then test a 'cron ASPH against it. You'll save some time and maybe money and get to make wonderful images while doing it.
 
Straight away no question; get the AF-Nikkor first. Then test a 'cron ASPH against it. You'll save some time and maybe money and get to make wonderful images while doing it.
 
You already possess the 85/1.8, a lens 2 generations newer and just 1/2 a stop slower. Not certain what you fancy you’ll obtain with the 85/1.4 D. It’s AF is slower, colors are cooler and doesn’t resolve as high as the lens you already have.
 
OK this is being very useful.

@ Marty: When you say the 90 Summicron ASPH has remarkable fine detail rendition, does it outperform the 85/1.4 D Nikkor in that respect?

@ James: The 85/1.8 Nikkor is better than the 85/1.4? This comes as a surprise! I'm just going by the ratings given them by Rorslett and Rockwell. They both gave the high marks to the 85/1.4 D. Your description is based on having used them both?
 
I use to own a 90/2 AA and it was exceptionally sharp with great color rendition. However unless shooting digital with some form of digital live view, focus calibration of the camera and lens combination has to be spot on, not to mention the shooter's ability nail the RF focus. My previous AA's RF cam was slightly off and had to be tweaked for optimal focus that matched my other lenses. That focal length and fast aperture works best with high EBL finders like an M3 or using an accessory 1.25x eyepiece magnifier for shorter EBL finders in all later models. OTOH the 85/1.4 Nikkor will focus more accurately if moving around a lot especially if the AF is fine-tuned with the body. My personal preference though is the 105/2 DF Nikkor for build quality, focal length and image rendition.
 
awilder said:
I use to own a 90/2 AA and it was exceptionally sharp with great color rendition. However unless shooting digital with some form of digital live view, focus calibration of the camera and lens combination has to be spot on, not to mention the shooter's ability nail the RF focus. My previous AA's RF cam was slightly off and had to be tweaked for optimal focus that matched my other lenses. That focal length and fast aperture works best with high EBL bodies like an M3 or using an accessory 1.25x eyepiece magnifier for shorter EBL finders in all later models. OTOH the 85/1.4 Nikkor will focus more accurately if moving around a lot especially if the AF is fine-tuned with the body. My personal preference though is the 105/2 DF Nikkor for build quality, focal length and image rendition.
Click to expand...

Very Helpful, thanks. You find the 105 DF as good or better than either/both the 85mm AF-Nikkors?
 
Rob-F said:
@ James: The 85/1.8 Nikkor is better than the 85/1.4? This comes as a surprise! I'm just going by the ratings given them by Rorslett and Rockwell. They both gave the high marks to the 85/1.4 D. Your description is based on having used them both?
Click to expand...

Rørslett’s review is from ~2002 and Rockwell’s about 2006. Long before your newer lens appeared. Their findings are on film and early 6MP APS-C digital sensors.
 
I've had the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-D, the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 AF-D (the early one made in Japan, not the later one now made in China), and the 90mm Summicron (the one prior to the APO, looks the same, just no APO).

For Portraiture, "IF" I could get it to focus properly, the 90mm Summicron non-APO was my favorite, hands down. But that's a big "IF". As mentioned above, if anything was even slightly off, the image suffered. So it got sold. Would love to have it now that I have a Nikon Z6 mirrorless which would take the focus issue out of the equation.

I sold my Nikkor 85mm f1.8 AF-D (Japan) and I regret it. It wasn't the greatest portrait lens, but man was it tack sharp, even wide open, and was great for everything else 85mm aside from portraiture. Preferred it to the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-D because it was lighter and faster focusing.

The Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-D is a nice portrait lens, plenty sharp wide open, pleasant bokeh, really nothing to complain about. Just doesn't render as organically as the 90mm Summicron. The images are fine, but not WOW!!!

My 2¢ worth.

Best,
-Tim
 
I own and use the following lenses for head & shoulder portraits:
85mm f/1.4 auto focus Nikkor for 35mm SLR
85mm f/1.8 manual focus Nikkor for 35mm SLR
180mm f/4.5 Mamiya for RB67 medium format SLR
90mm f/2 Leitz Summicron for 35mm rangefinder

All have similar angle-of-views and all are great lenses with excellent image quality. However, for head & shoulder portraits, I prefer the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor because it is the only one that is auto focus and it focuses closer than the others. The 85 auto focus will fill-the-frame with an 18cm subject.

The 85 manual focus will fill-the-frame with a 20cm subject; the 180mm Mamiya will fill-the-frame with a 25cm subject; and the 90mm Summicron will fill-the-frame with a 30cm subject. When I need to fill-the-frame with a head and shoulder portrait of a person sitting across the table from me, too often, the Summicron will not always allow me to do so.

On the other hand, the Summicron does a great job for photojournalism type subjects.




Portrait Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
Rob-F said:
Very Helpful, thanks. You find the 105 DF as good or better than either/both the 85mm AF-Nikkors?
Click to expand...

Never owned the 85 AF version, only the pre-Ai f/1.8 MF version for a little while back in the late 70's. Sharp but tended to flare a little in unfavorable lighting. I've always been more partial to the 105 focal length of which I owned the MF f/2.5, f/1.8 and currently the 105/2 AF DC. BTW, the 105/2 DC 6/6 optical design nearly identical to the 85/1.8 AF versions including RF AF. Even wide open it's sharper than the 90 Summicron M that preceded the AA version. Build quality far exceeds current AF Nikkors and is on par with Leica lenses. Great bokeh with rounded 9 blade aperture producing nearly circular apertures. A fixed plano rear element prevents dust from being sucked into the mirror box with focus. It's only drawback is it's AF is the old "screwdriver" coupling so not lightning fast or no AF on Z bodies or cheaper digital Nikons. OTOH, there's no SW motor to fail either.
 
Rob-F said:
@ Marty: When you say the 90 Summicron ASPH has remarkable fine detail rendition, does it outperform the 85/1.4 D Nikkor in that respect?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you can get the focus right and particularly further away (4m+ object distance). The lack of a floating element makes it perform worse closer.

I agree that the Nikkor 105/2 DC is better than the 85/1.4 AF-D. My 105/2 DC is better than the 90mm Summicron ASPH I had, but I had persistent focus problems with the Summicron. I don’t think of a 105 and an 85 as interchangeable even if they are being used for portraits. Different feel. I like shorter lenses for portraits and use the Leica 75/2 and 80/1.4. The M10M is the new R for me.

Marty
 
I've owned the R 90 APO and 85/1.4 AIS as well as the 85/1.4 AFD.

-90 APO performance at close range is not its strong suit. Bitingly high-resolution lens beginning at 3 or 4 meters but merciless for portraiture, skin tones and texture. Mine is the R version and used on the R8 and M10 with Visoflex, avoiding the RF calibration issues. Unlike the Nikkors, center resolution already high on the Leica, improves but marginally by stopping down.

-Nikkor 85/1.4 D performs noticeably better than the earlier AIS but the colors are just too cool for my tastes and why I sold it.
Nice lens indeed, but I prefer what I've seen from the R80 and M75 Summiluxii better; at wider apertures more natural, a touch glowy and gentler skin rendition for a more pleasing overall look. The added bonus of the R 80 and M 75 Summiluxii is that stopped down, they become razor sharp. Why one would stop them down, I do not know.

Thus, no vote for either from me in the poll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AveryWagg
Early model 90mm Tele-Elmarit advice needed..
Replies
0
Views
505
AveryWagg
AveryWagg
C
Leica LTM LTM Collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron vs. 50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar vs. 50mm f/1.5 Nokton?
Replies
17
Views
1K
shawn
S
C
Leica LTM & M Mount - Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Color-Skopar: First Experience
Replies
8
Views
2K
aw614
A
C
A Little Story: What I Learned About Leica This Year
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
JeffS7444
JeffS7444
J
  • Article Article
Nikkor Fest: 10 Classic Nikon Lenses with “Retro Rendition.”
2
Replies
37
Views
12K
splitimageview
splitimageview
Back
Top Bottom