Anyone have any personal experience comparing the Leica 90mm f/2 (non-Apo) with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2? They are all roughly in the same price range.

I've directly compared the non-apo 90 summicron to the 85/1.8 ef, the canon is sharper, the summicron has much nicer rendering, bokeh and colours.

Dan

I did brief comparison shots, but all 3 lenses differ quite drastically over different distances. I have sample shots and can post crops at f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0 depending on what u want to see (bokeh/resolution etc)... Time consuming but I'll give you my general impressions.

At medium distances around f/2.0 the in order of best to worst:

bokeh:
85/1.8
APO-Summicron-R
Summicron-R

sharpness:
APO-Summicron-R (this lens is better at f/2.0 than the others at f/8.0)
85/1.8
Summicron-R

Resolution:
APO-Summicron-R (same situation as sharpness)
Summicron-R
85/1.8

The apparent sharpness is better on the 85/1.8 because the contrast is higher than the summicron-r when wide open.

Up close the bokeh of the 90 Summicron is better than the 85/1.8 but at medium distances the leica gets CA in the small oof highlights (like through leaves) when wide open which I find offensive.

The 85/1.8 is a great lens, if you like the canon look with high contrast but slightly lower resolution (splitting hairs really). If you're doing portraits the Summicron is definitely the pick of the bunch. If you want to have your cake and eat it too the APO-Summicron-R is really quite amazing.

If you like AF, just get the Canon, the differences are so minor that the canon is really worth it, probably the best value lens in the EF stable.

I thought the Leica was/is almost twice as much as the 2 Canons.

I paid ~1500 USD for my Leica 90 apo asph in bgn condition with scratches on the rear element. Currently you can get one BRAND NEW for 1764 Euro (2486 USD).

The Canon 85/1.8 is currently listed at 379 USD
the Canon 100/2 is 419 USD
and the 85/1.2L is 1769 USD

So the Leica is roughly 1.4 times the price of the L. If you don't want LoCA or need top notch performance AT f/2.0 without the need for larger apertures or bulky size then it's the best medium tele you can get IMO.

The 90 (non-apo) summicron goes for less than the 85/1.8 and is pretty much only available used.

Thanks for the info.

I have had the Canon 85 f/1.8 and currently have the Leica 90 summicron (non-APO). I like the Leica a little better when I don't need autofocus. I think thrice's comments are right on except I think the bokeh of the Leica is better in almost all situations. He is right that the Leica can get bokeh CA, but the Canon seemed worse to me in these situations. I really like the bokeh of the Leica at close distances and whenever there are not bright highlights in the background. I hope this helps.

If you can afford it! the Apo. If not then the Canon 85 1.8 but there is the green fringe to wide open OOF highlights to consider.

I too have the non-apo 90mm summicron, as it's such a fantastic portrait lens.

It's sort of like having 2 lenses in 1: wide open it's dreamy creamy bokeh goodness, and stopped down it's very sharp indeed.

That said, the Canon 85 f1.8 is an utterly fantastic, completely overlooked lens. Canon should put a red ring on it and charge twice the price and it would probably sell more.

The 85/1.8 is far from perfect but I love mine.
Wide open it shows purple fringing very easily. Shoot it at f2-2.2 and it all but disappears. Its one lens that I doubt I will ever sell, even If I get the L, simply for its size and lightning AF.
Its also the only lens that I havent thought of replacing with Alt glass.

... OK maybe if somebody gave me a leica 80/1.4....

What about the Zeiss C/Y 85 f/1.4, I got mine for $500 and it's wonderful IMO.

Empire wrote:
The 85/1.8 is far from perfect but I love mine.
Wide open it shows purple fringing very easily. Shoot it at f2-2.2 and it all but disappears. Its one lens that I doubt I will ever sell, even If I get the L, simply for its size and lightning AF.
Its also the only lens that I havent thought of replacing with Alt glass.

... OK maybe if somebody gave me a leica 80/1.4....

I sold my f/1.8 when I got the 85L. I should have kept both.

Don't forget the OM 85/2. This is so small its smaller than the Canon 50/1.4.

I have that and the Canon 85/1.8. The Olympus is sharper at f2 with more pleasing bokeh and better contrast. The differences are minimal and both are very good.

I'm happy with my Canon 85/1.8, though I long for the slightly richer colors of the Leica or the Canon L.

FWIW, the bokeh CA of the 1.8 doesn't bother me at all.

I also have the Zeiss CZ 85 / 1.4. (Japanese mm version) It has significantly better contrast than the Canon, stopped down, and it does B&W incredibly well. However, it doesn't quite replace the Canon, even though it's overall the better lens. The Canon can be better for portraits, having a softer feel & slightly better bokeh, IMO.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the CZ 85/1.4 to the new ZE 85/1.4.

I had the 90/f2 non apo and the canon 100/f2.

I kept the canon, good iq wide open and AF really makes a difference when taking portraits of kids who wont keep still

I used to have EF85/1.8 for three month, then sold it. I am still impressed by its fast focus and sharpness. The reason I sold it is the severe purple finging which mostly occurred on chrome metal surface.

Sorry to tell you now but that is corrected very easilly with DPP or Adobe Lightroom.

I use it a lot and the purple fringing and color aberrations are a non issue with newer RAW converters.

Regards,

Sérgio

for portraits cz85/1,4 or the 90 cron non apo?