John,
I have both lenses. The N 85/1.4 is designed as a portrait lens which has smoother bokeh than the 100/2 Planar and does not perform as well in the corners as the 100/2 Planar. Although the N 85 can generate plenty of 3-d, I think the 100/2 Planar can render even more due to its less smooth bokeh and sharper transition to OOF at the focus pt. I much prefer the N 85 for portraits and any time I want the combination of narrow DOF with nice sharpness and contrast but also with smooth bokeh. I like the 100/2 Planar for landscapes and times when I want more definition/details in the background bokeh.
The N 85/1.4 is a special lens and like Lotus probably one of the last lenses I would give up.
Paul Yi wrote:
John, I wish I could give you a professional opinion as you always do...
From amateur point of view, I prefer N85 .... it has a bit more of classical look to it, if you know what I mean.....sharp and yet smoother rendering,,,, I think this is especially good for portraits.
It also gives that 3D-rendering, though not so easy as Planar 100....
Somehow, I felt it's easier to get the 3D rendering with Planar 100..... I still don't understand why....
And, AF is definitely a huge plus for N 85....especially for eyes like mine which is getting really bad....
In short, a small edge on IQ for N85... but no brainer if you include the element of AF.
Kindly post some photos of N85 stopped down to f2 and f2.8. Are they as sharp as the CY100/2 or N100/2.8 since we should be looking at the N85 at its optimum aperture compare to the latter 2 wide open.
And some landscape using N85 at f8 to f11. That will show the versatility of this lens.
I too find 85mm to be too close to 100mm to want to own the 2 focal length (I don't do macro).
ManWearPants wrote:
Does anyone who owns the N17-35 still feel the need to get ZE 21?
I've had my 17-35N for a few weeks now and at first was considering a wide angle prime. Now after shooting with the 17-35N, I'm am completely happy with just using it for a general purpose/walk around. Shooting on the 7D.
I probably wouldn't use it on a 5D though as I'm not too fond of the ultra wide look. I have an 11-16 tokina that rarely leaves the house.
Paul Yi wrote:
Thanks...
I think this lens, in more capable hands, will shine like no other lens in this focal length...
Thanks. You are showing a lot of good stuff from this lens already. The problem I have with this lens is the price point. This is the 2nd most expensive 85mm (first being Contax Jahre 100years). The ZE 100/2, Ef85/1.2II and even the yet to launch Sigma 85/1.4 is very close if you want to compete on 3D, bokeh and AF individually. Of course you get all the goodness in one lens. Still, I am holding back....
Among the lenses you've mentioned, ZE 100/2 is a good competitor....i mean IQ wise...IMHO....
Very sharp and nice 3D rendering....and has Macro ability.
But, as a general mid-tele lens, it's still a bit slower and doesn't have the convenience of AF when you need one...
I do want to try the lens though....saw some nice images on this forum....
Paul Yi wrote:
Among the lenses you've mentioned, ZE 100/2 is a good competitor....i mean IQ wise...IMHO....
Very sharp and nice 3D rendering....and has Macro ability.
But, as a general mid-tele lens, it's still a bit slower and doesn't have the convenience of AF when you need one...
I do want to try the lens though....saw some nice images on this forum....
I wanted to try Leica M8 .... and I chose those two lenses for financing it.
Still debating whether I should keep the Leica system or not.....
I'm so happy with Kodak SLR/c, and it will become my primary camera.
I still have 1D MkIII, but I'm selling it.
There were some good clouds, but those pix weren't taken with the 50N... This time of year it's very humid with high altitude haze, and the clouds sort of wash into the sky and loose definition. There were some here, but again, they washed out (70-200 IS II @ 200mm) -
