Darinwc
Well-known
Hi guys! What are your thoughts on the Nikkor 8.5cm f2?
People seem to like it for portraits. Has some sort of 'magic'.
But usually I'm a disbeliever in this sort of talk. Usually means its just an overall bad lens until its stopped down to f16, where it looks like every other lens out there.
Does anyone have some side-by side samples?
People seem to like it for portraits. Has some sort of 'magic'.
But usually I'm a disbeliever in this sort of talk. Usually means its just an overall bad lens until its stopped down to f16, where it looks like every other lens out there.
Does anyone have some side-by side samples?
furcafe
Veteran
I don't know about "magic", but the 8.5cm/2 Nikkor-P is an excellent lens, even at f/2 & even today. It's a variant of the 8.5cm/2 Zeiss Sonnar.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Magic = Sonnar design.
ALso for a short pudgy lens, it's heavy.
ALso for a short pudgy lens, it's heavy.
aoresteen
Well-known
I've had two of them. The first one was in Leica Thread Mount. I loved it but sold it around 2005 as I bought the Olympus OM 85mm f/2 to use with my SLR Olympus cameras.
In 2008 I bought a Nikon SP 2005 with the 35mm f/1.8. I decided to get the Nikkor 85mm f/2 to pair with it. I found one and still have it. It's just a excellent lens and pairs nicely with the 35mm. It was the last item that Pete Smith serviced for me before he died. I'll keep the 85mm 'forever'.
In 2008 I bought a Nikon SP 2005 with the 35mm f/1.8. I decided to get the Nikkor 85mm f/2 to pair with it. I found one and still have it. It's just a excellent lens and pairs nicely with the 35mm. It was the last item that Pete Smith serviced for me before he died. I'll keep the 85mm 'forever'.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Cracking lens, a bit heavy for travel purposes but as above a good combination with a 35mm. I shoot it on the Bessa R2S with the 85mm frame!!
Sorry I don't shoot comparisons of the same scene, and I have no other 85mm anyway.
X-TOL FP4+
TD-201 FP4+
Sorry I don't shoot comparisons of the same scene, and I have no other 85mm anyway.
X-TOL FP4+
TD-201 FP4+
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
I don't have any side by side examples but I have several images taken with this lens in the following gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/ornate_wrasse/nikkor_85cm_f2_
The first four images were shot on film and the last two images (Steens Mountain) were shot on my M9.
I think the lens is a very good one, the only negative being that it is very heavy and I wouldn't take it if I was going to be carrying it around all day. I've thought about selling it due to this reason but I've always decided in the end to keep it, it's that good.
Ellen
http://www.pbase.com/ornate_wrasse/nikkor_85cm_f2_
The first four images were shot on film and the last two images (Steens Mountain) were shot on my M9.
I think the lens is a very good one, the only negative being that it is very heavy and I wouldn't take it if I was going to be carrying it around all day. I've thought about selling it due to this reason but I've always decided in the end to keep it, it's that good.
Ellen
ferider
Veteran
I love that lens. Over-corrected and optimized for resolution wide open, which shows in the bokeh. Corners come up very fast, already at f2.8 it is usable for landscapes. I have two LTM copies, a black one (calibrated for my 240) and a chrome one for my IIIG. The black one is lighter than the chrome one. Note also that younger chrome copies are lighter than older ones, due to more aluminum, I guess.
BTW, the 10.5 is under-corrected, has prettier bokeh wide open, is bigger and heavier, but is probably the best RF portrait lens ever (for me). But not sharp enough for landscapes until f5.6 or more.
You may pick your poison
BTW, the 10.5 is under-corrected, has prettier bokeh wide open, is bigger and heavier, but is probably the best RF portrait lens ever (for me). But not sharp enough for landscapes until f5.6 or more.
You may pick your poison
farlymac
PF McFarland
Glad to read all the comments, as I just got one last week. Still don't have a camera to put it on though. I'm hoping to fix that situation by summer.
PF
PF
uhoh7
Veteran
220,000 made I think. Some huge number like that. You would think they would be cheap, but not really
Woah, you've got one too many zeros there! More like about 25,000 made in all mounts (S, C, LTM, maybe others?) and variations.
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/nikonrf85f2.htm
Are the early 85mm F mount lenses also Sonnar designs?
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
Nope, but the early SLR 105mm F2.5 lenses share the same sonnar formula as the rangefinder lens.
ferider
Veteran
Rotoloni estimates 22000 with less than 45% in S mount, Jon. The factory recorded 20077 lenses.
I wouldn't call it copy. It shares a similar diagram but is optimized very differently.
I was actually quoting Rotoloni (latest book) too, Roland
The 25,000 number is the approximate total of the quantities listed at the top of each section for Nikkor-P 8.5cm f2 variations from April/May 1949 through to the final variation from 1953, which is recorded at 20,077 lenses. I'll refrain from listing all the variations and quantities here, and instead recommend that interested parties buy Rotoloni's latest book if they want to see the details!
Edit: ahh I see the text you're quoting is at the end of the section on the lenses from 1953. I wonder if the 20,077 number is for all lenses from the start of production or only lenses from 1953... a bit unclear!
Krosya
Konicaze
Its a great lens - I have a black one in LTM and would really have hard time parting with it if I ever had to. I had 3 - 2 black and one chrome - all were great, black is smaller/lighter, so thats the one I kept. Between Nikon 85/2 and Hexanon 85/2.8 I really dont feel a need for another 85/90mm lens. I do have a Nikon 135 in ltm which is also a very good lens, BTW. Most of those old Nikon RF lenses are very very good IMO.
rbsinto
Well-known
I too have one in Nikon s mount. It was the very first rangefinder lens I bought after I got my first S3.
Mine is silver in colour and based on it's weight likely made from either Lead or perhaps depleted Uranium. I think it weighs more than the camera!
It takes nice pictures, but I use my 105 2.5 most of the time if for no other reason than it is much lighter.
Mine is silver in colour and based on it's weight likely made from either Lead or perhaps depleted Uranium. I think it weighs more than the camera!
It takes nice pictures, but I use my 105 2.5 most of the time if for no other reason than it is much lighter.
uhoh7
Veteran
Thanks for the correction, though the number still seems unclear. 22,000 makes more sense, I could never see how they made so many LOL
However, I think there were something like 50,000 Canon LTM 50/1.2s, or did I get that wrong too?
However, I think there were something like 50,000 Canon LTM 50/1.2s, or did I get that wrong too?
css9450
Veteran
Lighter than the 85? That 85 must be a porker. I need to get one just for the exercise I'll get!
Coincidently, or maybe not, I have the 10.5 and the 13.5 (but not the 8.5) but I mostly use the 135 for the same reason - its lighter. And it has a tripod mount.
Darinwc
Well-known
Thanks for all the advice guys! I've been on a bit of a buying spree as of late. So I have a 3rd 85mm f2 on the way and also a 100mm f2.5. I'll post back later with results.