.......which SLR equivelent would be the closest in performance in the 85mm f/1.4 range: 1. Canon 85/1.2 2. Nikon AF 85/1.4D 3. Zeiss 85/1.4 4. Leica 85/1.4 (Erwin rates it beloe 75/1.4M) 5. Other...including Olympus 90/2 macro

I am contemplating a trade because I am not too confident in my ability to focus the lens correctly, especially in fast action situations. What do we all belive to be the best alternative?

I've owned the AF Nikon in the past and it was excellent (the AIS version wasn't as good). Please do not recommend any others than the choices I've listed to make things easier on me.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002

Answers

Easy: The Nikon 85 1.4D AF. The finest lens ever. Bright and easy to focus (both AF & MF). Excellent build. This lens produces images with the highest levels of sharpness, contrast and tonality.

With all the sharpness it still produces beautiful portraits due to the superb tonality. It is not harsh.

Out of focus is smooth, pleasing and allows for the focus subject to "pop" out of the photo.

The 1.4 is usable.

-- Louis (unclelouie334@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

Not sure about the Leica 85/1.4-R, but I can tell you about the 80! I have both the 80 and 75-M and they are wonderful lenses. A good friend has the 90 APO and has never really got on with it. However it is worth pointing out that the depth of field of a 75/80 at 1.4 is pretty much the same as a 90 at 2.0. My advise is to persevere with what you've got. Focusing an SLR close up at 1.4 with a portrait lens can be just as error prone with moving subjects as a rangefinder. Either way you probably need to loose a couple of stops to give youself enough DOF to keep a dynamic subject safely within focus.

Nikon? LOL Canon? LOVL

They still make lenses?

Matt

-- (matt@pulzer.org), March 31, 2002.

I think you are doing yourself injustice. If you can focus a Noctilux quickly and correctly, you should be able to do the same with a fast short tele as well.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), March 31, 2002.

Focusing an SLR close up at 1.4 with a portrait lens can be just as error prone with moving subjects as a rangefinder.

This statement is meaningless. Sure, it "can" be. But the reality is that the SLR will beat the rangefinder just about every time for telephoto focusing accuracy, ESPECIALLY close up. When using a large aperture telephoto on a rangefinder, you're 100% reliant on the rangefinder patch to tell you where you're focused at (I haven't met anyone who will even attempt to scale focus a 75/1.4 or 90/2 on the M at one to three meters). But the problem comes when the thing you want in focus is not dead center in the frame. Add on the possibility of subject or photographer movement (or both) and that thunking sound you hear is your head banging against a brick wall.

C'mon people, horses for courses.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), March 31, 2002.

Check out these webpages for some tests of these lenses:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), March 31, 2002.

I didn't know there was a zinc lens mount. I thought the lens materials were always either brass or aluminum.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 31, 2002.

Oops. wrong thread. Nevermind.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 31, 2002.

Kristian,

I would imagine the closest SLR lens to the 90 SAA would be the Leica 100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R. I agree with your comments on the difficulty of focusing fast short tele lenses on nearby moving subjects with a rangefinder (I have enough trouble with the 90 Elmarit-M); I find SLR much easier.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 31, 2002.

Anon Terry is simply wrong in his claim that SLR fats short teles are more accurate. In fact, if you read Gunter Osterloh's excellent book, the M RF system (0.72) is still more accurate at the 75 and 90 mm focal lengths, but the crossing point is 135 mm. But the users who have problems with M focussing are almost certaiunly not using their camera/lens combo properly. It is not fair to blame Leica when their products are not used as intended. Anyone who needs a lesson on the relative accuracy of the long-base RF vs SLR focussing and the factors contributing to their accuracy should read the relevant chapter in Osterloh's book. It is the best treatment on the subject.

As far as camera and subject movement, this will equally affect RF and SLR focussing. It is difficult to understand how anyone can greater accuracy or inaccuracy of focussing caused by movement to one system vs the other. This is just not logical.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 01, 2002.

It is logical to claim that focusing on a moving subject is easier if you can use any part of an SLR ground glass focusing screen than having to use a small central RF patch, especially if doing the latter means that you then have to move the camera to compose the shot. Having to focus using the RF patch is a limitation that requires more time, which is not usually available if the subject is in motion such that its distance from the camera is constantly changing.

I'm not saying it's particularly easy using a manual focus SLR, just that it's harder still using an RF. Of course, a good autofocus beats any kind of manual focus for a moving subject.

Some people have mastered the technique of moving with the subject, to keep the camera-to-subject distance constant in order to avoid having to re-focus the camera. Another trick is to focus on some particular point in the field of view and then wait until the subject moves to that spot. This requires fast response on the part of both the photographer and the camera.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

Kristian: You might to hold off. Leica has mentioned that a new 'fast portrait-length' R lens is in the works. Logic (not always a good predictor when Solms is involved) says that they're trying to put the 90 APO into an SLR mount.

Based on Photodo.com MTF charts - most of the lenses you list are not even up to the preAPO 90 Summicron wide open - although the Olympus macro does best, followed by the Canon. (Photodo is behind the times and hasn't tested the AF version of the Nikkor 85 1.4)

MTF charts ignore: micro-contrast, bokeh, image color and handling.

The Zeiss 85 f/1.4 is slightly better than the manual-focus Nikkor - not bad considering it's a design from the very end of the Zeiss Contarex era (c.1968). It's a very compact and easy-handling lens - 67mm filters compared to 72 (or larger) for the Nikkors/Canon.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 01, 2002.

Ray, waht you say is true about the ground glass focussing, but when the issue becomes critical focussing accuracy, the central split image of the SLR focussing screen adds significantly to the focussing accuracy (this is explained in Osterloh's discussion). If you use the ground glass rather than the split image RF of a manual focus SLR, you will get less focussing accuracy.

Don't bet on AF being more accurate than MF. It is certainly faster than MF for moving subjects, but you never get critical focussing accuracy with AF. It is just not possible so far to design an AF focussing mechanism that is optimal for all focal lengths, so AF systems are optimized for one particular focal length. In practice AF is acceptibly accurate because of the DOF concept, but if you were to make great enlargements, you would find that AF is still not as accurate as MF in critical situations. Pop photography did these comparisons a couple of years ago, and you may still be able to get a hold of the article from back issues.

Anyway, the M RF system was designed to be more accurate than SLR focussing within its lens range. Outside of that range, the SLR wins. That's one reason Leica never made an RF coupled 200 mm lens (actually they did make one, but it never got past the prototype stage). The other reason is the framing and parallax problems created by these very long focal lengths, which are better suited to SLRs.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 01, 2002.

The problem I have is this.....it is very difficult to focus the RF when I always have to focus and recompose. Time is important in people photography, and even taking an extra few seconds to focus the RF can cost me the person's attention, which it has. And for this, no matter what quality the lens is, is unfortunate and should be avoided.

And I am asking this question, because I believe that there is no way of avoiding it. With wide angle lenses, I don't have a problem, and if I could afford it i would keep the 90APO and buy something as well...but I can't.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Something that I hadn't thought of is the fact that when I shoot with my M6/90 APO, the subject doesn't cringe like they did when I shot with my F5/FM3a and AF 85mm f/1.4D lens. So this needs to be factored into the analysis too.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

kristian,

I am pretty confident your problem is more with action focusing with tele + M rather than focusing precision. The 0.72 and 0.85 M are, I find, very easy and reliable to focus with 75/90 lenses. But I agree they are not fast to focus: subject's main feature in RF patch, focus, reframe, shoot, with none of the prefocusing flexibility of a 35mm lens (even with the latter at f1.4).

I'm sure the 85mm Nikon AF will bring you that speedy response, even if it is at the cost of a format that you see as a "threatening" combo. BTW the manual focus 80mm 'lux on a R8 is just as "threatening" as a a Nikon F100+85mm.

Another one to consider, despite your strict instructions: the Minolta 85mm f1.4 + Dynax 7. A fabulous combination. Do not believe those who say that contemporary AF is not reliable enough for such a focal length and max aperture. It is plainly untrue. And, with the D7 (and Canons) you can take back full manual control with no fiddling around whenever you feel it to be useful....

The Dynax 7+85mm f1.4 D is the ultimate 35mm portrait making machine: the lens is on par with my 75mm 'lux, and the features of the body (besides AF) will not be seen on Leica SLRs before 2025. That range includes other specialist portrait lenses such as a 100mm with complete soft focus control and the 135mm STF with fine and superb bokeh management.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Jaques,

I hear you. The autofocusing accuracy of the newer AF gear is 99% spot on in my experience using the F100 and F5. I've always been a fan of the Dynax 9, and I guess the 7 is an excellent camera. And if I am going to go an auto camera, why ont get the "most automated and technologically advanced". I always wondered whether the Minolta 85/1.4 was good. Do you have any example pictures to share? I know the Nikon would be tough to beat from my experience.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

kristian et al, my 2 cents. Get a fast AF SLR. I thought I could use my M6 TTL as my ONLY camera, but it is not true. There are occasions when a fast modern SLR will serve you better. I'm getting one now, thinking for a F100 or a Contax. Cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

Kristian

There is not a strict R comparable lens to the 90mm APO- but I recommend the 80mm 'lux - superb and easy to focus. Erwin did not say, in my recollection, that the 80mm is less good than the 75mm - they just have slightly different characteristics, they share the same design philosophy, parameters and age. It is my favorite portrait lens for fast moving scenes. On fast moving objects I do not think the M is the best camera and I find a reflex is superior. AF sounds great for this kind of object, but all I know is that when taking our daughter, my 80mm and R6.2 more often "gets the shot" than my wife's EOS (admittedly with the 28-105mm zoom).

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Kristian, of the lenses you listed I would rate the Canon 85/1.2 #1, followed by the Nikon and Zeiss; however I would not recommend the Zeiss lens because the MM-mount Contax is extremely hard to resell.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Woman w/Mask, Bring Back the Snakes Day, Berkeley, California, 3/23/02

Get an EOS-1v HS and an 85mm f/1.2L.

I struggled valiantly for over a year, first with an M6 TTL and a 90mm Summicron, then with an R8 with a 90mm Summicron-R, to take portraits in the 3 to 5 foot range, usually using wide apertures (f/4 or wider). Many, if not most, of my pictures were out of focus--some extremely so, some only slightly soft.

I fiddled around with a Nikon F100 for a short while, then realized it was a stone ax compared to the EOS line. So, one day, I put my entire 35mm outfit--an R8 w/2 lenses and an F100 w/5 lenses--on the counter and traded for an EOS-1v w/the 85mm f/1.2L, the equally magnificent 135mm f/2L, and a 17-35mm f/2.8L to cover the wide focal lengths. I have never regretted this for an instant. The 1v brings home the goods.

The 85mm f/1.2L is twice the lens that the Summicron is. And the 135mm f/2L is, quite simply, the finest 135mm lens ever made--and, at .9m, also one of the closest-focusing. Should you want to get closer, Canon (unlike Nikon) makes two extension tubes which maintain full automation.

Finally, note the portrait above, shot wide open with the 85mm f/1.2L.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), April 01, 2002.

Woman w/Mask, Bring Back the Snakes Day, Berkeley, California, 3/23/02

Get an EOS-1v HS and an 85mm f/1.2L.

I struggled valiantly for over a year, first with an M6 TTL and a 90mm Summicron, then with an R8 with a 90mm Summicron-R, to take portraits in the 3 to 5 foot range, usually using wide apertures (f/4 or wider). Many, if not most, of my pictures were out of focus--some extremely so, some only slightly soft.

I fiddled around with a Nikon F100 for a short while, then realized it was a stone ax compared to the EOS line. So, one day, I put my entire 35mm outfit--an R8 w/2 lenses and an F100 w/5 lenses--on the counter and traded for an EOS-1v w/the 85mm f/1.2L, the equally magnificent 135mm f/2L, and a 17-35mm f/2.8L to cover the wide focal lengths. I have never regretted this for an instant. The 1v brings home the goods.

The 85mm f/1.2L is twice the lens that the Summicron is. And the 135mm f/2L is, quite simply, the finest 135mm lens ever made--and, at .9m, also one of the closest-focusing. Should you want to get closer, Canon (unlike Nikon) makes two extension tubes which maintain full automation.

Finally, note the portrait above, shot wide open with the 85mm f/1.2L.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), April 01, 2002.

Peter

Well the jury is out on your decision isn't it? Only a few weeks ago you were extolling the virtues of the R8 with Summicron combination and had rubbished the EOS. Now all change. I think you can expect us to take some of your recommendations with a pich of salt! But I would be intrigued to try the EOS with the 85 f1.2. But it does take a good time to realize what really works and what doesn't so I always am sceptical about users reports before the "honeymoon period" is over.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

It's really not a question of the EOS 1v v. the R8, or even of the 90mm Summicron v. the 85mm f/1.2L; it's a matter of manual focus v. autofocus. And frankly, AF wins every time.

Leitz makes superb optics, but if I can't get the picture in focus, what good are they? Everything--bokeh, sharpness, character, etc.--is meaningless if the picture is blurry due to imprecise focus! Both the 85mm f/1.2L and the 135mm f/2L excel in the above areas, plus the 1v body I put them on focuses them perfectly every time. Sure, the R8 is ergonomically superior in some ways but, again, in today's world AF simply wins out over MF for people photography. In the time is takes me to fiddle with the focusing ring, hoping to get the image in focus, an AF system has nailed the shot ten times over.

In the 1950's the M3 was the fastest and most accurate camera in the world. Today, the 1v is the fastest and most accurate camera in the world.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), April 01, 2002.

Peter: I see a lot of PJ's using the Peter Turnley combo: two Nikon F100s with the 85 1.4D on one and the 28mm 1.4D ASPH on the other. So I'm intrigued that you found this camera to be a "stone axe" -could you expand a little on that?..........

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Get a used OM body, 90mmf2 Zuico. It won't cost much and you can keep the 90mmSAA.

Regards Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), April 01, 2002.

I've seen some posts about the 85/1.2L EOS lens. So here's my opinion. It is indeed a great piece of glass in a cheap plastic mount. I own one. It is big and heavy; and this lens is as expensive as the 90/2 APO Summicron, so you better save up for an EOS body that can focus it sufficiently accurately at F/1.2 (which is no mean trick). Say the newest EOS 1v or the 45 point AF system EOS-3.

If it were me, I would stick with the 90/2 APO Summicron. If you prefer reflex focussing, you can wait for the 90/2 APO Summicron R (with the same optical formula), which Leica has already announced. But I would just learn to work faster with the 90/2 APO you have, a great lens. The issue here is RF speed rather than accuracy. I can assure you the Leica RF is considerably more accurate than any AF system.

BTW, you should understand that when using Canon's high end AF system (which is as accurate or more so than any other AF manufacturer), the central cross sensor, which is the most accurate sensor, only works at F/2.8 or larger aperatures. Most AF systems fail at apertures smaller than F/5.6 and become pretty sluggish in low light situations. Canon's c-MOS sensors have extended the range to F/6.3- 8, but are still pretty slow at low light levels. Sorry, you can't have all.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 01, 2002.

Nikon's technology is at least 5 - 10 years behind Canon's. To paraphrase a famous Macintosh slogan of some years back, Nikon 2002 = Canon 1987.

Just as athletes are given equipment, clothes, shoes, etc., by manufacturers to promote their products, so, I would imagine, are some photographers. Anyway, the fact that many 'photojournalists' use Nikon is no endorsement in my book. I have seen too many incompetent pros with thousands of dollars of equipment hanging around their necks, which they barely knew how to use, to care what anyone else uses.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), April 01, 2002.

BTW, to say that the 85mm f/1.2L is in a "cheap plastic mount" is absurd. Its mount is metal, of course, and its build quality is up to Canon's usual high "L" standards.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), April 01, 2002.

Peter. I think we had this discussion before. I own this lens (85/1.2L EOS) and it is a cheap plastic mount. The outer barrel is ALL plastic (100%). There can't be any question about that. Plastic is plastic. The lensmount itself (where you mount the lens onto the camera body) is metal of course. This is all that is metal.

I agree with what you say about Nikon's AF technology being behind the times. Canon's top of the line AF system is probably easily the best currently available.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 01, 2002.

Eliot

Has the 90mm APO-R really been announced? I thought there was some rumblings about a new fast portrait tele R some time ago, but nothing at PMA this year and the rumblings were in 2000 if I recall.

This would be a welcome addition I think.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Didn't you just buy this lens? And didn't you just get rid of another 90mm for it? And then didn't you tell us how great it was by posting some god awful pictures of your girlfriend and dog? Leica photography is about more than equipment, that is for those of us dedicated to shooting with a Leica RF. I don't get this whole buying, selling, trading thing. First shoot 1000 frames (instead of a couple) with the 90, and then get back to me.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

I've used the 90 apo close up at f2 - it's pin sharp but the depth of field is silly. None of the other lenses compares in terms of quality except maybe the r 801.4. I had the (coveted german version) of the zeiss lens - needs stopping down to 2.8-4 if you want sharpness (but it's very good for portraits). The Nikkor doesn't compare, the canon lens needs at least a 1n to get it to focus rapidly. If it's fast moving action you want to capture - either use an m with a 35, a canon with a 16-35 or maybe an 85 1.8 canon. In any case remember that depth of field is inversely proportional to the square of focal length, whereas it is only inversely proportional to the aperture. In other words, going from f2 to f1 halves depth of field, but going from a 50 to a 100 mm lens quarters it. You can see then, that at the same distance, a 50 at f1 gives nearly twice the depth of field of a 90 at f2. Basically, fast aperture lenses are designed/intended for use at maximum aperture at infinity (though there's always some joker like me who won't shot at anything other than .8m with a 75 at 1.4) Oh, the short answer to the first line of your quesion is "ther isn't one"

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 01, 2002.

btw, I forgot to say that the 90saa needs a lot of time to get used to - like a year. It seems to me you haven't given it anything like long enough - it's second hand by now - what have you got to loose by trying it a bit longer? Get Lutz's sling and shade and practise like crazy. FWIW, my experience with e.g. the nikon 85 (which I used to use with f100's) is that it's NOTHING LIKE as good as the leica lens (certainly not the "best lens ever") and that it hunts around when you focus moving subjects like dancers - meaning I left it on manual focus after missing dozens of shots on af. If you go back to nikon now you'll notice the difference.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 01, 2002.

Glenn. I don't get this buying, selling, trading thing either. But it's the reason there are so many mint, LN hardly used Leica cameras and lenses on the market so quickly after a new item is introduced. There are some people (not me) who just use an item a few times (or even just once) and decide on that basis to sell it or trade it. I don't get it either.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 01, 2002.

There is sometimes a confusion here between something that is fast moving, but predicatable (say, a speeding car) and something that moves unpredictably such as a toddler or an active animal. A Leica M should work fine with practice with the former, but it is very much harder with the latter - when you need to be able to get the focus, frame and take the picture within a few seconds. For the latter I find a reflex preferable. Peter's shots above do not seem to me to indicate moving targets, so the pictures do not seem to relate to the issue really. In this context it is even easier to focus an f1.4 reflex lens than an f2 lens, so Peter might have found focussing easier with the 80/l.4 over 90/2 on his R8. I do agree though with others that you really have the 90 SAA a chance. Any focussing and, as important, framing of unpredictably moving objects is difficult even with the world's best AF system.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Well I was enjoying reading the new comments until good old Glen opened his big mouth about my "god awful pictures of your girlfriend and dog".

Is it a fact that the 90AAA isn't so easy to focus? Why accuse me of buying and selling? And isn't that my choice that has nothing to do with others?

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

If you only shoot with a telephoto a small percentage of the time, like I do, save yourself a ton of money and get the Nikkor 85/1.8 AF- D. It's plenty sharp enough, and it AF's accurately...even on my now obsolete N90s. The shot above was taken at f1.8.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 01, 2002.

Thanks everyone. I appreicate your comments, especially seeing they are not similar to Glenn's.

I did enjoy getting advice like this :)

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

Robin. I can't remember where I read about the 90/2 APO-ASPH being planned for the R configuration. I'm sorry. It could have been on Erwin's photosite. Nevertheless, I think that this will be the case and is in the works.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.