Re: 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):
and another 100% crop, wide open at f2 against a bright sky:
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.
Jan 02, 2009 at 04:32 PM
Previous versions of mpmendenhall's message #6548634 « Contax 85/1.4 vs. Nikkor 85/1.4 Ai-S vs. Leica 90/2 »
