Nikkor 85/2 vs. Canon 85/2 vs. Elmar 90/4

[chris00nj]

I was looking to upgrade my portrait lens, put still on a budget. Was the Nikkor 85mm f/2 better than the Canon 85mm f/2? Was it worth an extra money? There's been some discussion on previous threads, but never a comparison showing photos. I've also thrown in an screwmount Elmar 90mm from 1950.

Design: Nikkor - Sonnar type, 5 elements in 3 groups. The Canon is a double Gaussian design, 6 elements in 4 groups. The Elmar has 3 elements.
Size: The Canon is the longest and the heaviest of the three. The Nikkor is almost as heavy, and the Elmar is much smaller and lighter.
Price: The Nikkor is the most expensive, costing me $225-$300. The Canon will cost $85-$140 and the Elmar costs between $60-$100.
Test: Outdoor photos were taken with Ektar 100, scanned on an Epson V500 at 4800 dpi without any digital modification (hence the minor amount of dust). Only the center third of the photo is shown. The two indoor photos are the full frame, shot with 400 Ultra Color @ f/2, and scanned at 1200 dpi.

Performance Results:

• The Nikkor is the overall winner and is deserving of its modest price premium. The Canon is a quality lens and would be a very useable tool for someone on a budget. The Elmar is soft wide and stopped down; it's applications are limited.
• At f/8, the results of the Nikkor and Canon are quite equal. The Nikkor produces a slighter bolder color.
• The Nikkor is clearly sharper at f/4 and delivers a better color rendition. It is hard to see the extra sharpness of the Nikkor on a 4x6 print. It's only when it is enlarged that it is noticeable.
• I have a hard time differentiating the Canon and the Nikkor at f/2. There is some vignetting with the Nikkor, but that may be because I have a lens hood for the Nikkor but don't have one for the Canon.

Here's the evidence:

Nikkor 85/2 @ f/8:

Canon 85/2 @ f/8:

Elmar 90/4 @ f/8:

Nikkor 85/2 @ f/4:

Canon 85/2 @ f/4:

Elmar 90mm @ f/4 (this photo is not cropped):

Nikkor 85/2 @ f/2:

Canon 85/2 @ f/2:

I want to thank my semi-patient cats for their contribution to this experiment.

Now I just wonder how the Nikkor compares to the earlier versions of the Summicron 90/2.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Supposedly the later Canon f/1.8 was a big improvement over the f/2. The first version 90/2 Summicron was a huge heavy lens but I've never shot with one, just handled it. I've beern told that the Nikkor beats it in both sharpness and contrast, plus it's a lot smaller. I'm happy with my Nikkor .

 

[raid]

I once did a lens comparison for tele RF lenses. You may find useful results there.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've done some quick comparisons after picking up a Canon 85/2 with a Leotax and Simlar 5cm F1.5. The package had been instorage for at least 30 years, end the lenses were frozen solid with heavy haze. The Canon cleaned up quickly and easily, near mint with perfect glass.

The Nikkor is sharper with more contrast. I'll have to do a three way with the Summicron 9cm/2.

 

[sanmich]

I recently bought a canon 1.9 to get more speed over my fantastic elmarit-M.
I did a quick and dirty resolution test between the two and another excellent lens: the canon 100 f3.5.
I couldn't tell the three apart. any bad picture from one of these lenses will be my deed and mine alone. The elmarit will go soon...😉

 

[raid]

I sold my Canon 85mm/1.9 because I already have the Canon 85/1.5, plus other tele lenses. I always loved that lens. It served me very well over the years.

 

[ferider]

Thanks, Chris !

I agree with your comparison (no personal experience with the Elmar though), but would like to add that I prefer the Nikkor OOF over the Canons, at f2 with highlights or leaves in the background.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[chris00nj]

I definitely like the Nikkor 85. Nikon give a nice writeup here. I think it would compare well against even more expensive lenses like Summicron 90/2, Canon 100/2, or Canon 85/1.8.