M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
canon vs. nikon shootout
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 75
- Views 4K
VinceC
Veteran
The thing I like most about the 85/2 is that it is so well balanced with a rangefinder body. It's not so large as to intimidate the person being photographed (which is the main reason I predominantly used RF cameras when I was a working journailst), and it allows a very intimate close-up at what I consider an ideal working distance of about 4 feet. Longer telephotos like the 105 require you to take a step back, and suddenly you're no longer inter-acting with the person being photographed. I like the 50 and 35 for the same reasons.
Actually, I fell in love with 85/2 Nikkor in its later SLR variant. Combined with the camera's mirror box, the lens is essentially the same size as a 50/1.4, and so the person being photographed doesn't feel self-conscious about being under the scrutiny of a telephoto.
Actually, I fell in love with 85/2 Nikkor in its later SLR variant. Combined with the camera's mirror box, the lens is essentially the same size as a 50/1.4, and so the person being photographed doesn't feel self-conscious about being under the scrutiny of a telephoto.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
VinceC
Veteran
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
raid
Dad Photographer
All this talk about Nikon 85mm lenses makes me think of getting one. I will sell "something" and start looking.
raid
Dad Photographer
Leica_Magus said:
I am not so sure that I can make out any noticeable difference in focal length when using an 85mm vs. 90mm lens. The difference must be minimal and maybe it is your personal bias to 85mm lenses, Leica_Magus.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
raid
Dad Photographer
Magus,
You will like the results from the Elmarit. It is an excellent lens as you will experience yourself.
You will like the results from the Elmarit. It is an excellent lens as you will experience yourself.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
raid
Dad Photographer
Magus: I use it more often than either the Elmar or Summicron 90mm lenses. The first is too slow and the second is too heavy. The Elmarit strikes a good balance here.
amateriat
We're all light!
Not without the proper lens hood, for certain. 😀JohnL said:
- Barrett (Former happy F-1 system user)
amateriat
We're all light!
Vince: This shot is sweeter than the avatar image lets on. Also reminds me of my handling someone's Nikon RF when I was roughly the same age (around 1960-61), thus allegedly sealing my fate, calling-wise, if not brand-wise. 😉VinceC said:
- Barrett
C
ch1
Guest
Leica_Magus said:
Ah yes, the ever present dark cloud of a Leican - desparately seeking undeserved adoration instead of well-earned derision for having paid far too much to obtain far too little! 😛
As we say in Noo Yawk - what a crock!
VinceC
Veteran
Thanks for the feedback on the photograph.
I stumbled across this RFF site about a year ago, and it inspired me to go out and buy a few rolls of black-and-white film for my old cameras, which had been packed up in camera bags barely used for half a dozen years. I had mainly been using a good-quality Canon digitial point-and-shoot to take family pictures. But this is one of the photographs that made me remember how much I enjoyed shooting film with a classic old camera.
I stumbled across this RFF site about a year ago, and it inspired me to go out and buy a few rolls of black-and-white film for my old cameras, which had been packed up in camera bags barely used for half a dozen years. I had mainly been using a good-quality Canon digitial point-and-shoot to take family pictures. But this is one of the photographs that made me remember how much I enjoyed shooting film with a classic old camera.
VinceC
Veteran
>>that shot is excellent - but you would have got more micro-contrast with a Leitz lens!<<
To be honest, one of the reasons I fell down the slippery slope of rangefinders was that, when working among newspaper photographers 15 years ago, I kind of enjoyed using severely retro-technology to prove that you don't need the best or the latest or the longest or the fastest or the sharpest to take top-notch, honest pictures ... a techno-junkie fellow photographer was extolling all the must-have features of his new Nikon F4, so I pulled out my newly acquired S3 and described its many advantages. He thought I was a bit daffy. He probably was right.
To be honest, one of the reasons I fell down the slippery slope of rangefinders was that, when working among newspaper photographers 15 years ago, I kind of enjoyed using severely retro-technology to prove that you don't need the best or the latest or the longest or the fastest or the sharpest to take top-notch, honest pictures ... a techno-junkie fellow photographer was extolling all the must-have features of his new Nikon F4, so I pulled out my newly acquired S3 and described its many advantages. He thought I was a bit daffy. He probably was right.
raid
Dad Photographer
"Retro-Technology" ... this is the right word. I just say "I am regressing to the old cameras and lenses". Isn't it a joy to use such wonderfully made cameras and lenses from over 50 years ago.
Tarzak
Well-known
VinceC said:
OK. A late arrival to this thread but I have a Canon 85/1.9 and think it can take a lovely image.
I do seem to have a little bit of trouble getting the focus exactly right (Bessa R). I do often have it wide open (a phase I'm going through) and that can't help.
Anyway, when I do nail the focus and the exposure I'm very happy with the results. The only down side I find (apart from the aperture ring spins with the focus) is that it is just a bit too big and a bit too heavy (real heavy). It's also hard to get out of my Crumpler when mated with the camera.
I have my eye on a Nikon 85/2 has it looks MUCH smaller and is obviously loved by many. I haven't handled it yet so weight may or may not be an issue. Money is, of course.
Any way here is a snap shot of my daughter taken with the Canon 85/1.9
I quickly scanned the print from the lab so it is a bit softer than (my) reality.
I'll see if I can find a sharper one when I get home.
Attachments
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
First Version 90mm Summicron.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4069290
Today, I took an entire roll of film with the Canon 85mm/1.9 at 1.9 and at 2.8. Will post the pics once scanned.
Raid
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4069290
Today, I took an entire roll of film with the Canon 85mm/1.9 at 1.9 and at 2.8. Will post the pics once scanned.
Raid
Peter Klein
Well-known
I've been through The Search For the Perfect Fast 85 or 90. I went through several.
85/1.9 Canon: OK, but nothing spectacular. Didn't improve much stopped down. Maybe I had a bad sample, but I've heard similar reports from others.
f/1.9: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/maratango3.htm
-----
85/2 Nikkor: Wonderful lens. Typical Sonnar rendition, a little soft at f/2, more than good enough at f/2.8. Great in the center, typical Sonnar resolution falloff going toward the edges, and the edges don't improve so much stopped down. I had the very heavy chrome/brass version, which I didn't feel much like carrying around. I used it mostly for classical concert shots.
f/2: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/bravahelen.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/coletti_intense.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/02David.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/03RachelDavid.htm
f/2.8: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/quartet.htm
f/4: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/semiquavers.htm
f/8: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/11downtownfogbird.htm
But the 85/2 Nikkor had a harsh, double-line/bright ring bokeh, especially at wide apertures. That, plus the weight and the loss of definition towards the edges, was why I looked for something better.
f/2: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/roar.htm
-----
90/2 Summicron APO ASPH (borrowed, but I didn't buy): Absolutely spectacular wide open, but a bit clinical, and the focus is such a sharp peak that you have a little less usable depth of field. Very expensive(!) If I made my living shooting concerts, I'd buy one in a minute.
f/2: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-09SchulhofBowsWeb.jpg
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-03LonyaMischaWeb.jpg
-----
90/2 Summicron (1980s E49 version with the lens hood that covers the f-stop ring when retracted. Same optics as the E55 version): This is the one I kept. It was a little better than the Nikkor wide-open in the center, MUCH better towards the edges, much smoother bokeh, and much lighter. I base the above statements on some slides I shot with both the 'Cron and the Nikkor, but they are much too big to post. I don't have any other wide-open shots scanned, but here's a couple of others:
f/4: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/owl.htm
f/8(?) http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/StLouis/2-18ThreeKoi.htm
------
--Peter
85/1.9 Canon: OK, but nothing spectacular. Didn't improve much stopped down. Maybe I had a bad sample, but I've heard similar reports from others.
f/1.9: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/maratango3.htm
-----
85/2 Nikkor: Wonderful lens. Typical Sonnar rendition, a little soft at f/2, more than good enough at f/2.8. Great in the center, typical Sonnar resolution falloff going toward the edges, and the edges don't improve so much stopped down. I had the very heavy chrome/brass version, which I didn't feel much like carrying around. I used it mostly for classical concert shots.
f/2: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/bravahelen.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/coletti_intense.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/02David.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/03RachelDavid.htm
f/2.8: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/quartet.htm
f/4: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/semiquavers.htm
f/8: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/11downtownfogbird.htm
But the 85/2 Nikkor had a harsh, double-line/bright ring bokeh, especially at wide apertures. That, plus the weight and the loss of definition towards the edges, was why I looked for something better.
f/2: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/roar.htm
-----
90/2 Summicron APO ASPH (borrowed, but I didn't buy): Absolutely spectacular wide open, but a bit clinical, and the focus is such a sharp peak that you have a little less usable depth of field. Very expensive(!) If I made my living shooting concerts, I'd buy one in a minute.
f/2: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-09SchulhofBowsWeb.jpg
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-03LonyaMischaWeb.jpg
-----
90/2 Summicron (1980s E49 version with the lens hood that covers the f-stop ring when retracted. Same optics as the E55 version): This is the one I kept. It was a little better than the Nikkor wide-open in the center, MUCH better towards the edges, much smoother bokeh, and much lighter. I base the above statements on some slides I shot with both the 'Cron and the Nikkor, but they are much too big to post. I don't have any other wide-open shots scanned, but here's a couple of others:
f/4: http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/owl.htm
f/8(?) http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/StLouis/2-18ThreeKoi.htm
------
--Peter
Similar threads
