canon vs. nikon shootout
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 75
- Views 4K
VinceC
Veteran
>>Steinheil Culminar 85mm f/2.8<<
I love it!
I love it!
doubs43
Well-known
doubs43
Well-known
raid
Dad Photographer
I have the Leitz Elmarit 90mm/2.8 and two Elmar 90mm/4 lenses. I find them to be great lenses. I have the Canon 85mm/1.9 but no Nikon 85mm lens. I need a Nikon!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
VinceC
Veteran
>>Even if you had no lenses, you would not need a Nikon. Those things are lifeless compared to the Leitz optics!<<
I believe Mr. Magus has stated elsewhere that he has no experience with Nikon RF optics. His Born-Again enthusiasm for Leica notwithstanding, he is correct that the Leitz lenses are excellent. On the other hand, the extra stop of a fast Nikkor or Canon can make a real difference in available-light shooting. And the Nikkors and Canons are affordable pieces of history that also, 55 years later, take extraordinary photographs.
A tidbit of history ... LIFE magazine photographers were the most discerning, image-quality photographers of their day, and they happened upon the Nikkor 85mm lens in Japan and, in several real-world, informal tests, determined the lens and its 50mm counterpart were generally superior to German optics in photojournalism situations, so they bought several in Leica mount, starting the spread of the Japanese photo revolution to the rest of the world.
The quality and innovation of Nikon and Canon lenses provided a genuine challenge to Leitz. Spurred by this competition, the Leica lenses were significantly improved, and those of the 1960s and later were generally among the best possible optics ever made. By that time, Nikon had retooled for SLR production, followed by Canon.
I believe Mr. Magus has stated elsewhere that he has no experience with Nikon RF optics. His Born-Again enthusiasm for Leica notwithstanding, he is correct that the Leitz lenses are excellent. On the other hand, the extra stop of a fast Nikkor or Canon can make a real difference in available-light shooting. And the Nikkors and Canons are affordable pieces of history that also, 55 years later, take extraordinary photographs.
A tidbit of history ... LIFE magazine photographers were the most discerning, image-quality photographers of their day, and they happened upon the Nikkor 85mm lens in Japan and, in several real-world, informal tests, determined the lens and its 50mm counterpart were generally superior to German optics in photojournalism situations, so they bought several in Leica mount, starting the spread of the Japanese photo revolution to the rest of the world.
The quality and innovation of Nikon and Canon lenses provided a genuine challenge to Leitz. Spurred by this competition, the Leica lenses were significantly improved, and those of the 1960s and later were generally among the best possible optics ever made. By that time, Nikon had retooled for SLR production, followed by Canon.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Leica_Magus said:
I do agree that the two leica lenses I own (Summicron 35 4th and Summilux 75 2nd) look miles better than any Canon/Sigma/Tamron SLR lens I have used, however the CV Nokton 50mm 1.5 looks pretty close (if not as good as) to the Leica Lenses and at a much more reasonable price (1/10th of the cost of a 50mm Summilux).
Unfortunately not all the CV lenses are as good.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
I think Magus meant Nikon SP. (Just to prevent a mad rush of people Googling for some unknown Nikon).
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
raid
Dad Photographer
Leica-Magus: Your enthusiasm for Leizt optics is obvious.
I will one day soon have my own lens shoot-out in the 85mm-90mm range. The Leitz lenses are wonderful for the 90mm focal length [Elmar, Elmarit, Summicron] and my remaining 85mm lens is a Canon with max aperture 1.9.
I need to sell some stuff before even thinking of adding more optics to what I already have.
Maybe I will set a target to get a newer Leica M body with built-in meter. This will require from me that I sell quite a few lenses.
I will one day soon have my own lens shoot-out in the 85mm-90mm range. The Leitz lenses are wonderful for the 90mm focal length [Elmar, Elmarit, Summicron] and my remaining 85mm lens is a Canon with max aperture 1.9.
I need to sell some stuff before even thinking of adding more optics to what I already have.
Maybe I will set a target to get a newer Leica M body with built-in meter. This will require from me that I sell quite a few lenses.
doubs43
Well-known
Ahhhhh........ the old Leica vs Nikon debate is back in vogue. Indeed, if it ever went away at all. I own only one Nikkor lens that fits LTM cameras; a 5cm f/2 Nikkor that came with a Tower camera. In spite of a dinged filter ring and moderate to heavy cleaning marks on the front element, it's an excellent lens. Then again, so are my Summitars which are the newest 5cm Leitz lenses that I own.
I have two 9cm uncoated Elmar lenses and one that is coated. I have an 85mm Jupiter-9 in LTM and pictures taken with it and one of the uncoated Elmars are posted in this thread. All are - IMO - pretty decent shots. I've just bought a Canon Serenar 85mm f/1.9 LTM lens from ebay and I hope to be able to compare it with my Elmars and Jupiter-9 soon. I'd love to own a Nikkor 85mm LTM lens but haven't seen one lately when I've had the money. One of these days........ 🙂
Personally I like the optics of both Leitz and Nikon. I'm not going to take sides because I enjoy them both...... and Canon as well.
Walker
I have two 9cm uncoated Elmar lenses and one that is coated. I have an 85mm Jupiter-9 in LTM and pictures taken with it and one of the uncoated Elmars are posted in this thread. All are - IMO - pretty decent shots. I've just bought a Canon Serenar 85mm f/1.9 LTM lens from ebay and I hope to be able to compare it with my Elmars and Jupiter-9 soon. I'd love to own a Nikkor 85mm LTM lens but haven't seen one lately when I've had the money. One of these days........ 🙂
Personally I like the optics of both Leitz and Nikon. I'm not going to take sides because I enjoy them both...... and Canon as well.
Walker
VinceC
Veteran
Here's a quote from the technical data accompanying David Douglas Duncan's 1951 book "This is War!" --
"Every photograph in 'This Is War!' was taken with a Leica, but fitted with Nikkor lenses... made in occupied Japan. Prior to the outbreak of the Korean War, Horace Bristol, former 'Life' and 'Fortune' photographer now living in Tokyo, and I began experimenting with the whole new line of Nikkor lenses, made by the Nippon Optical Company, Tokyo, and discovered, to our utter amazement, that their three standard lenses [50mm, 85mm and 135mm] for 35mm cameras were far superior, in our opinions, to any standard 35mm lenses available on the open market - British,
American or German.
"Except for wide-angle and extreme telephoto lenses - over 135mm - where we thought the German products to be still superior, we sold every other lens in our outfits... and re-equipped with only Nikkor lenses. The Nikkors that we found best were the 50mm, F1.5 (now superseded by a 50mm, F1.4 clickstop lens); the 85mm, F2; the 135mm, F3.5. ...
"All the photographs in [the chapters called] 'The Hill' and 'The City' were taken with the Nikkor 50mm, F1.5 lens. All the photographs in [the chapter called] 'REtreat, HNell!' were taken with the Nikkor 50mm, F1.4 lens ... that is, all but one, and it, the portrait of the Chinese Communist soldier which opens the story, was taken with the Nikkor 135mm, F3.5 lens. Every photograph used in the making of this book was printed by Daniel Becker, of LIFE darkroom staff. The original prints were all enlarged to 14" x 20", for the double-page plates, and 10" x 14" for the verticle full-page plates. From these originals the publishers reduced the photographs to the sizes reproduced in the book. The set of prints by Dan Becker were, in the opinion of Dan Bradley, in charge of production at Harper & Brothers, THE [original emphasis] finest set of matched 35mm enlargements they had ever seen."
"Every photograph in 'This Is War!' was taken with a Leica, but fitted with Nikkor lenses... made in occupied Japan. Prior to the outbreak of the Korean War, Horace Bristol, former 'Life' and 'Fortune' photographer now living in Tokyo, and I began experimenting with the whole new line of Nikkor lenses, made by the Nippon Optical Company, Tokyo, and discovered, to our utter amazement, that their three standard lenses [50mm, 85mm and 135mm] for 35mm cameras were far superior, in our opinions, to any standard 35mm lenses available on the open market - British,
American or German.
"Except for wide-angle and extreme telephoto lenses - over 135mm - where we thought the German products to be still superior, we sold every other lens in our outfits... and re-equipped with only Nikkor lenses. The Nikkors that we found best were the 50mm, F1.5 (now superseded by a 50mm, F1.4 clickstop lens); the 85mm, F2; the 135mm, F3.5. ...
"All the photographs in [the chapters called] 'The Hill' and 'The City' were taken with the Nikkor 50mm, F1.5 lens. All the photographs in [the chapter called] 'REtreat, HNell!' were taken with the Nikkor 50mm, F1.4 lens ... that is, all but one, and it, the portrait of the Chinese Communist soldier which opens the story, was taken with the Nikkor 135mm, F3.5 lens. Every photograph used in the making of this book was printed by Daniel Becker, of LIFE darkroom staff. The original prints were all enlarged to 14" x 20", for the double-page plates, and 10" x 14" for the verticle full-page plates. From these originals the publishers reduced the photographs to the sizes reproduced in the book. The set of prints by Dan Becker were, in the opinion of Dan Bradley, in charge of production at Harper & Brothers, THE [original emphasis] finest set of matched 35mm enlargements they had ever seen."
raid
Dad Photographer
I can vouch for the Nikkor 135mm/3.5 and the Nikkor 50mm/2.0 lenses. Both lenses are first class in make and optics in my opinion.
VinceC
Veteran
It's moot, really. The best lenses of the 1950s hold up to modern standards but don't pass them. Once I reach a certain level of image quality, I'm pleased, and I shoot old rangefinders for a lot of reasons that don't include getting the absolute best possible lens characteristics. It's more like, I can carry the camera around all day on a shoulder strap without it owning my life, so I can do ordinary things like take the kids hiking and combine it with my photography hobby. And, shooting old Nikons, I just like being a little different. Like when I drove a Corvair. Most of my favorite images are shot at the ragged edge of hand-holdability, where faster stops are more important than utter sharpness. That's why I've been rather fond of Raid's real-world lens tests.
back alley
IMAGES
and before this thread took it's many twists and turns, my query was more like...how does the canon and nikkor 85/2 lenses compare?
good info here though, i may have to look for a nikkor 85 one of these days...
joe
good info here though, i may have to look for a nikkor 85 one of these days...
joe
raid
Dad Photographer
VinceC said:
Vince,
I share what you said above about being pleased with a crtain level of image quality and the fact that using old rangefinder equipment has its charm. I really doubt it that I will buy a modern razor sharp Leitz lens since I would have to be actually needing some lens that I don't have right now. While I don't have your Corvair, I liked to drive my 1977 Mercedes Benx 450SL, but I may have to sell it since nobody is driving it anymore since we got the kids.
VinceC
Veteran
I was disappointed not to see much from the Canon users.
Similar threads
