hans voralberg
Veteran
Oh one more thing, focus throw on the 85 is long. So expect to pre-focus or turn it really really quick if you want to catch action
Which 90 to buy? Nikkor 85 f2 vs. Leica Tele-Elmarit
- Thread starter ornate_wrasse
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 5K
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
I have Three Nikkor 8.5cm f2's, one for the Contax, one for the Leica's, and one for the Nikon RF's. Had to have one for each of them. The 8.5cm f2 is the lens that really put Nikon on the Map. Focus throw is long, but well damped. It focuses in close, ~3ft, so for a lot of action you do not use the full throw.
Closest Focus:
Of course, my answer is "Both, and the 9cm F4 Elmar".
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
It's rubber. At least the one that comes with it is.
Ellen this is what I do. You eventually accumulate a bit of a slush fund so you can try out just about anything but it means you don't have to depend on others' opinions.
For what it's worth, I've bought and sold two Konica Hexanon 90/2.8 lenses, a Summicron 90/2 ASPH, a black LTM Nikkor 85/2, and bought and kept the T-E 90/2.8 and the Summicron 90/2 pre-ASPH E55. I use the T-E for travel (you do need the hood as stated above) but having said that I'm going on a trip next month and I'm taking the Summicron 90/2 E55, it is just a brilliant lens.
As both Hans and Brian point out, there's a long focus throw on the Nikkor. I didn't like it but it may not bother you. I paid a premium of about $200 for the black version.
umcelinho
Marcelo
The Canon 100mm 3.5 is really awesome. It takes the same space as a snickers bar and has the roundest aperture at all f stops I've ever seen (which is not that much, but still it impressed me). Also they go for way less than the T-E and the Nikon, for sure. I've seen auctions around $100-$150. I found one here where I live but it didn't have the 100mm finder like the ones in the auctions, but it was in mint shape and with a price equivalent to more than $250... 🙁 but I feel someday I might end up getting one. It's just so tiny and performs nicely.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
After some months with two 85/2 lenses I have come to the conclusion that f/2 with that focal length on a RFDR camera is a risky proposition. However, each can also serve as an f/2.8 lens with that one stop margin for special needs. One of the two is a Serenar, which is apparently a little heavier and longer than the chrome Nikkor. I have not found it to be unmanageable.
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
Your statement that "...f/2 with that focal length on a RFDR camera is a risky proposition" intrigues me. Could you explain what you meant?
Thanks.
Ellen
hans voralberg
Veteran
He meant that f2 the dof is too thin so focus needs to be critical. In my experience you just need to slow down a bit, if you have a 0.85 M6 that would help too, but I shot hundreds on my M6 0.72 and have yet to find it difficult, personal thing I guess.
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Ellen, to what Hans said I'll add that in a RFDR camera, focussing is indirect: the R/F does not see what the lens sees but must rely on precise alignment. That R/F alignment is often off is one problem. Another is that many cameras require the focussing eye to be perfectly centred. The final one -- which can be severe for those who are not young or who have defective vision -- is what is commonly called user error. At 40 inches at f/2, there is no margin for error.
Similar threads
