Nikkor 8.5cm f/2 -- Black and Chrome

My critical sharpness test was comparing my daughter's eyes and eyeglasses to previous shots taken with the chrome lens. The black one looked fine in that respect.
 
ZivcoPhoto said:
While looking at only one color sample, the chrome one seems to be a tad warmer than the black lens.

Of course the cooler photos of the black lens can be tweaked to the levels one cares to have.

I like the rendition from the chrome lens.

Chrome ones are pretty heavy though.

If you are talking about the motor cycle shot above - it might be the film.
I am sure that my black pictures were taken with Reala, the chrome
ones might have been taken on Kodak film, I don't remember - sorry.

Interesting, Vince. My black lens unscrews just like the chrome ones I
handled. But then it's older than your black one, so something must
have changed ...

Roland.
 
NIKON KIU said:
I have been looking at the picture of the girl scout cookie boxes for the last two days,stealing fellow employees cookies at the same time😉 , and I gotta say, the second row of boxes from the right side, looks more in focus than the black lens.
Is it my lousy monitor at work? Or is the chrome lens a bit sharper?

Kiu

Yep, Kiu, that's the way it looks on my monitor as well. Of course, I'm probably biased since the chrome lens shown in Roland's CLA page is my lens (I bought it from him after he did all that great work).

-Randy
 
It might also be camera shake. Most of these shots were in the range of 1/30 to 1/60 second, except for the outdoor trees and road, which was at 1/1000.

I'm shooting a bit more this weekend. I'll try to do a more formal comparison for a few frame. The first roll was my "proof of concept" roll. It showed that the news lens was properly adjusted and comparable to the original, which was enough to close the purchase deal. I might run one more test roll with some flash and tripod, just to settle it for you folks. I'm using Walmart 2-meg scans, so you don't get too much discriminating detail when you blow up sections of a frame.

And recall, at the outset, I said the chrome lens has fewer marks on the glass.
I also erred in not using identical warming filters. Again, it was a proof-of-concept test. The chrome lens has a 1950s heliopan and the black lens has a fairly modern b+w. I'll shoot both unfiltered, with hoods, next time.

But that will be my last side-by-side. After I finish this final test, the next time you see the chrome will be in the classifieds.
 
Last edited:
vrgard said:
Yep, Kiu, that's the way it looks on my monitor as well. Of course, I'm probably biased since the chrome lens shown in Roland's CLA page is my lens (I bought it from him after he did all that great work).

-Randy

I'm glad you like it, Randy (still want to see pictures taken with it though 🙂 )
The other lens used to take the B/W picture of my wife and the Beamer
is in Florida now (at least last I heard) ...

Roland.
 
I 've got one of the chrome Nikkor 85's, with the aperture and focusing rings side-by-side, which is a bit of a pain. It weighs about as much as my 300 2.8, and the focus is a bit stiff, but it takes nice pictures which is the reason I bought it. And so far, no one has been able to tell by looking at a photo taken with it whether the lens is black or chrome. So, for $235.00 US, bargain grade from KEH, I think I made a good purchase.
 
ferider said:
Wes,

this is exactly what I have in LTM:

82296288-M.jpg


119214557-M.jpg


Our bartender has a page on the different versions:

http://www.cameraquest.com/852black.htm

Roland.
Drool. I'll quench my envy by looking at my Carl-Zeiss Jena 8.5cm f/2 😛
 
Bump,
I miss your posts Vince.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Kiu. I've been on the road the past few weeks and will continue traveling through late August. I'm currently in a nice hotel room in Stuttgart, Germany, and decided to pay the outrageous daily internet fee for the evening to catch up on emails and personal Websites.

I 've got one of the chrome Nikkor 85's, with the aperture and focusing rings side-by-side, which is a bit of a pain. It weighs about as much as my 300 2.8, and the focus is a bit stiff, but it takes nice pictures which is the reason I bought it. And so far, no one has been able to tell by looking at a photo taken with it whether the lens is black or chrome. So, for $235.00 US, bargain grade from KEH, I think I made a good purchase.

Rbsinto,
The weight of the chrome lens is the main reason I bought a black one. Now that I'm getting older, the chrome was just too heavy to lug around all the time. The black shaves off several ounces, and I can immediately feel the difference.
 
I bought Roland's chrome 85/2 LTM lens while he bought Kiu's 105mm/2.5 LTM lens. I then bought from someone else a 105mm/2.5 LTM lens.

Both lenses (85mm and 105mm) are excellent, with the 105mm lens reaching the level of "supreme".

Raid
 
The 105 is indeed supreme. I use it if I'm carrying just one telephoto. When I want a broader range of lens options, I'll carry the 85/2 and the 135/3.5 (which is mind-bogglingly sharp also).
 
Mine is in Nikkor-S mount. But the optics should be the same. They are a little difficult to focus with a rangefinder. Nikon kept the same lens formula up into the 1970s.
 
I take it that we'll be seeing some professional publications with pictures taken with this equipment soon?

Last of a breed. The Nikon RF Photojournalist.
 
raid said:
I bought Roland's chrome 85/2 LTM lens while he bought Kiu's 105mm/2.5 LTM lens. I then bought from someone else a 105mm/2.5 LTM lens.
....
Raid

lets keep this going and going and going...😀 😀 😀
Vince, what happened to the Chrome lens?

Kiu
 
Vince,
The weight of the chrome Nikkor 85 is not terribly problematic for me as it's the RF lens I use the least, (which is not terribly surprising because my SLR 85 was a lens I almost never used either).
Usually, as an adjunct to my S3, I also take my motorized eyelevel F with a Nikkor 180 2.8 for any shot that needs"reach".
The 85's fate, I fear is to spend a great deal of time riding in my bag, rather than on the front of the S3. Still, I do try to pull it out from time to time, and shoot with it, at which times I notice its tonnage, which is considerable for such a small lens.
 
I end up using my chrome nikkor 8.5cm f2 mostly in LTM on the Canon 7. It's well balanced on the bigger body.

I've got an earlier one in S-Mount that only goes to F16 (marked Made in Japan), and it is heavy. Also have one in 'C'ontax that goes to F32, and seems lighter than the older S-Mount version. But after a beer, it's hard to tell the difference.
 
I have too many good lenses in that range. I like the Canon 85/1.9 a lot for portraits and also the Elmar 90/4. Then again, the Nikkor 85/2 and 105/2.5 are great. Not to forget the Summicron 90/2 and the Elmarit 90/2.8 are not bad either. In the end, I rotate ...

The Elmar is unbeatable for lightness. I just throw it in my camera bag as a lens that most likely is not needed on a trip but maybe comes in handy.
 
Hi all,
Does $350 sounds too high for a 105 with hood? I've been planning on getting a portrait lens, and originally thought about the 85 f2, but then I've been offered the 105.
 
Back
Top Bottom