p.1 #1 · Contax 85/1.4 vs. Nikkor 85/1.4 Ai-S vs. Leica 90/2
I recently started purchasing MF lenses to use on my 1D and have fallen in love with them. I just sold a Sigma 70-200 I rarely used to help fund the purchase of a MF portrait lens, and I am currently trying to decide between these three.
I have done a fair amount of research on all of them, but still can't pick one.
I have heard only good things about the Nikkor 85/1.4, but I have heard mixed reviews about the Contax 85/1.4. Some people have said it is one of the best lenses made in this focal range, while others who have owned it and sold it suggest against purchasing it.
I currently own a Leica 35-70/4 and I can't say enough about how great of a lens it is. I know that the Leica 90/2 would be an excellent choice also, but I would also like something a little bit faster.
If anybody has any experience with any or all three of these lenses, I would really appreciate any advice or suggestions you can give me. Thanks
p.1 #3 · Contax 85/1.4 vs. Nikkor 85/1.4 Ai-S vs. Leica 90/2
I have the Leica 90/2 (pre-aspherical, Canada manufacture) and the Canon 85L II (no experience with the Zeiss or Nikon 85). The 85L wins in sharpness (out-resolving my 5D's sensor to the point of creating moiré artifacts on high-contrast edges), but in some cases I prefer the drawing characteristics of the 90/2.
Sharpness is acceptable at all apertures (I don't feel the need to stop down just for sharpness reasons). Vignetting is minimal (never enough to be noticed in a shot), as is CA. Here is a 100% crop from the 90/2 (at f5.6, I think, and near mid frame):
The 90/2's rendering of out-of-focus areas is noticeably different from the 85L's. As points go out of focus with the 85L, they appear to be uniformly gaussian blurred, giving a very smooth bokeh and shallow apparent depth-of-field. With the 90/2, points first become a spreading "halo" of light around a sharper central peak, causing nearly-focused areas to have lower contrast but still retain lines and textures. This gives the 90/2 a greater apparent depth of field at the same aperture as the 85L, with a sort of soft-focus effect "glow" around the nearly-focused areas. Closer foreground objects well out of the 90/2's depth-of-field end up smoothly blurred together, while background objects sometimes produce double lines and harder edges, giving a "painted brushstrokes" effect unlike the smooth blur of the 85L. Here is a sample of background blur from the 90/2 (100% crop, f5.6):
I find 90/2 is a bit slow for dimmer indoor lighting (the 85L and Leica 50/2 are easier to handhold in dimmer lighting), but it only takes a touch of fill flash to get enough extra light.
p.1 #4 · Contax 85/1.4 vs. Nikkor 85/1.4 Ai-S vs. Leica 90/2
I have a Contax Carl Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 MM, and I love it. It provides great DOF control, super low-light performance, easy wide-open manual focusing, and superior sharpness. As far as sharpness goes, the Planar 80/1.4 is tied in second place with seven other lenses (one of them is EF 85/1.2L) in measured resolution tests at the old photodo site, with average weighted MTF of 4.6 (the Canon EF 200/1.8 was alone in first place at 4.8). As far as the subjective aspects go, including bokeh, contrast and colour, I like the Zeiss look. Michael provided a great description of why he likes the Summicron-R 90/2 bokeh (which I may grow to appreciate with the 50/2 that I recently acquired), and it sounds delicious. I guess the main point here is that personal preference plays a big role - maybe you should buy two of the three lenses you mention, compare them, keep the one you like best, buy the third alternative, compare them, etc...
I mention that my Planar 85/1.4 is the MM version because, while doing research on this class of lens, I found (and since lost) a credible reference that discussed the difference between Zeiss AE versions made in Germany and MM versions made in Japan (and those made in Japan from parts made in Germany) - the only worthwhile difference that the author described was that the Planar 85/1.4 MM is a bit better; all of the others are basically the same.
I haven't tried the Nikkor 85/1.4, but in all other comparisons that I've done involving Nikkor AI-S, SMC Pentax, Zeiss and a few other brands (Oly at 24mm), I've always preferred the Zeiss or Pentax. There it is again - personal preference.
p.1 #5 · Contax 85/1.4 vs. Nikkor 85/1.4 Ai-S vs. Leica 90/2
Kyle - I'm glad you enjoy the Leica 35-70mm. I have the 90mm f2 Summicron R that I love to shoot it with my 5D. I can also suggest trying the Leica R 80mm f1.4 which every bit as good as the Zeiss 85 f1.4 or Nikon 85 f1.4. I had teh Zeiss Contax 85mm f1.4 and it was good for me except it's a bit heavy to lug around.
p.1 #7 · Contax 85/1.4 vs. Nikkor 85/1.4 Ai-S vs. Leica 90/2
Maybe this is outside the scope of discussion, but the ZF 85mm f1.4 isn't too bad either. You get a very nice lens with a large aperture that is more versitile (Canon as well as Nikon with adapter) for just a bit more.
Another option is the Olympus OM 85mm f2.0 (probably the best bang for $$ 84mm lens) or the very nice OM 90mm f2.0 - of course these have slightly smaller apertures, but are well worth the sacrifice for the wonderful image quality they are capable of.
