Portraitlens: 75mm f/1.4 or 90mm f/2 ASPH.?

[StuartR]

Yes, I am sure it is sharp enough to show wrinkles on a 26 year old super model....

When is the Thambar ASPH coming out? That's what I want to know...

 

[Sonnar2]

Hi furcafe,
with all due respect to Zeiss glass, speaking of the Nikkor-P 2/85 as a Sonnar copy is a (common) mistake. The Zeiss design (1936) has a rear cemented triplet (7 elements) whereas Nikon decided in 1948 to make it with a single element, but a very thick third element - makes them quite heavy in the front (5 elements in 3 groups). The Nikkor 1.5/85 however was a 1-3-3 design like the 2/85 Zeiss Sonnar -- but unfortunatly Zeiss hadn't such a fast telephoto at that era...
From characteristics, the Nikkor RF 2/85 is similar to the 2.5/105 (which precursor it was) but not to the Canon 1.8/85 of the 1960's. There is a generation between. The Canon is quite perfect in detail sharpness like my Zeiss SLR 1.4/85, but not as excellent in micro-contrast. But compared to the older Nikkors it lacks the warmth and overall softness (not unsharpness) of the older fast portrait telephotos. That to say, the Canon 1.8/85 is better to use for technical applications, the Nikkor for something where atmosphere and glance is of more importance.
I think this is common with newer lenses. From the women pictures at E.Puts website - I do enjoy his writings and technical expertise very much - it looks to me like an example how new (and expensive) lenses can make human beings more ugly than they actually are...

cheers, Frank

 

[furcafe]

Frank:

Thanks for the correction re: the 85/2 Nikkor-P v. the Sonnar--I had based my opinion on element diagrams of the Nikkor & Sonnar which looked identical (as w/the 50/1.4 Nikkor-S & 50/1.5 Sonnar). The 85/2 Nikkor-P & 50/1.4 Nikkor-S may not be Sonnar "copies," strictly speaking in the same way as the Soviet Jupiters, but their resemblance to the Sonnars is pretty darn close & hardly accidental.

Regardless of difference(s) in design, in my experience using both the 85/2 Nikkor-P & 50/1.4 Nikkor-S, they render scenes the same as the corresponding Sonnars, to the extent that they even flare the same way when a strong point light source is just outside the frame when shooting @ night (what I call the "Sonnar ring").

Re: the Canon 85/1.8, I agree that it does provide a more "modern" look than the 85/2 or 105/2.5 Nikkors, but would still classify it as more "classic" than the 90/2 Summicron ASPH (from shots that I've seen taken w/that lens). Again, despite the difference(s) in designs, I see a family resemblance w/the 100/2 Canon. As an aside, I wonder how much lens characteristics are due to glass types & coatings as distinct from the configuration of the elements, etc., as I see a some differences between my post-WWII 85/2 Sonnars for Contax RF v. the same lens in Contarex mount.

I have no personal experience w/the 85/1.4 Sonnar, although I would dearly love to own the original Contarex version.

Chris

Hi furcafe,
with all due respect to Zeiss glass, speaking of the Nikkor-P 2/85 as a Sonnar copy is a (common) mistake. The Zeiss design (1936) has a rear cemented triplet (7 elements) whereas Nikon decided in 1948 to make it with a single element, but a very thick third element - makes them quite heavy in the front (5 elements in 3 groups). The Nikkor 1.5/85 however was a 1-3-3 design like the 2/85 Zeiss Sonnar -- but unfortunatly Zeiss hadn't such a fast telephoto at that era...
From characteristics, the Nikkor RF 2/85 is similar to the 2.5/105 (which precursor it was) but not to the Canon 1.8/85 of the 1960's. There is a generation between. The Canon is quite perfect in detail sharpness like my Zeiss SLR 1.4/85, but not as excellent in micro-contrast. But compared to the older Nikkors it lacks the warmth and overall softness (not unsharpness) of the older fast portrait telephotos. That to say, the Canon 1.8/85 is better to use for technical applications, the Nikkor for something where atmosphere and glance is of more importance.
I think this is common with newer lenses. From the women pictures at E.Puts website - I do enjoy his writings and technical expertise very much - it looks to me like an example how new (and expensive) lenses can make human beings more ugly than they actually are...

cheers, Frank