Leica 90 2.0 R (non apo) vs Nikon 105 1.8 ais??

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Jim, Aug 12, 2003.

  1. Jim

    Jim Guest

    Hi, Has anyone taken a close look at the pros / cons between these two lenses.
    Use will be some portrait & as a long normal lense.
    Jim, Aug 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jim

    DBaker9128 Guest

    Hi Jim

    Take a look at Photodo:

    The 90mm 2.0 R is not measured but the 90mm 2.0 M version is. The 105 1.8
    Nikkor gets the nod by a whisker, 4.4 vs. 4.3. Now, bokeh is a different matter
    that I can't tell you about in specifics but I suspect the Leica R lens has
    better bokeh. Most Nikkors are harsh and have double lines in the background.

    Doug from Tumwater
    DBaker9128, Aug 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Leica 90 2.0 R (non apo) vs Nikon 105 1.8 ais??
    Although only a half stop slower than the Leica R 90/2, the 105/2.5 AIS lens is
    noted for its superb wonderfully soft bokeh and excellent sharpness which makes
    it at least one of "the" portrait lenses to consider. However, if you
    absolutely need the extra speed (and can afford the dough) I'm sure the Leica
    90/2 R or the Leica R 80/1.4 won't let you down either ;-). My main shooting
    experience has been with the 105/2.5 Nikon and the 90/2.8 Leica R, though so
    Ican't comment on the 90/2 R but perhaps somebody at www.photographyreview.com
    can (take their advice/experience with these lenses worth a heavily weighed
    grain of salt as lens bias/preference as well as experience enters into their
    assesments, also, one can be shooting for 50 years and still be at the level of
    "beginner" so don't necessarily go by the user's comments' "experience" as much
    as whether they seem to be coming from the right place/mindset and have real
    experience and carefully considered opinions to back up their claims). Due to
    sample variations Photodo is more of a snap shot of one lens under lab-like
    test conditions than real world performance so take that too worth a heavily
    weighed grain of silver halide ;-).



    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":


    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Lang, Aug 12, 2003
  4. Jim

    T P Guest

    The Photodo site is probably the most misleading source of lens
    information on the planet. Their overall ratings tell you less than
    nothing about a lens's suitability for a particular task ... *less
    than* nothing because they serve only to mislead.

    When it comes to bokeh, the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AI(S) is an outstanding
    performer. The 105mm f/1.8 AI(S) version mentioned here is even
    sharper - with bokeh that is still smooth, just not quite as smooth as
    the f/2.5. The f/1.8 is also a big lens and subjects can find it a
    little intimidating. The same is not true of the f/2.5.

    The performance of these 105mm Nikkors transcends that of most
    Nikkors, whose bokeh can indeed be very harsh.

    Unless there is a special reason for wishing to choose the Leica R
    90mm f/2 pre-APO, or a demonstrable need for an aperture wider than
    f/2.5 I would strongly recommend the 105mm f/2.5 AI(S) Nikkor.

    As a wild card, can I suggest a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro? This
    is my lens of choice for portraiture on 35mm. I have the Leica M (not
    R) 90mm f/2 and always prefer the Tamron for portraiture ... there are
    also excellent 1970s/80s 90mm macro lenses from Vivitar, Tokina and
    Sigma that have much the same qualities, and the 105mm Kiron Macro
    probably beats all of them, Leica included.

    Heresy to criticise Leica, I know.

    T P, Aug 12, 2003
  5. I have owned and used the 90mm Summicron-R (f/2) since about 1974, I
    owned the Elmarit-R (f2.8) version before that. Both are superb lenses
    and I would choose them again over any Nikon glass.
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 12, 2003
  6. Jim

    Gordon Moat Guest

    With the Nikon, I have used the 105 mm f1.8 only briefly. I own the 105 mm f2.5
    AIS. To compare images of the two, the f1.8 is nearly the same when stopped down,
    though from wide open to f4, the f2.5 version provides much smoother defocus

    I generally consider Leica R about the same as I consider a Porsche without a 6
    cylinder engine in the back, so my experience with them has been limited, and
    fails to impress me. I have an M3, and I have borrowed a 90 mm f2, and a couple
    90 mm f2.8 versions. Of those, I find the f2.8 to have much better defocus areas
    than the f2 version. If you are looking into the R lenses, the latest 90 mm f2
    and the M rangefinder f2 are very similar in design, according to Leica. They
    also mention some vignetting when wide open, so it may be something to look into
    with the older gear.

    If you really need the extra speed that a wider aperture gives, the 85 mm f1.4
    Nikkor may be a better choice in telephoto fast lenses. The defocus highlights
    are fairly smooth, though not as good as the 105 mm f2.5. Actually, the 105 mm
    f2.5, 180 mm f2.8, and 58 mm f1.2 are the best of the older manual focus Nikon
    lenses, especially when used at largest aperture. I have two of those, though the
    58 mm is too expensive to justify purchasing. With 35 mm gear, I have yet to use
    any lens with better defocus results than the 105 mm f2.5.


    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    Gordon Moat, Aug 12, 2003
  7. Jim

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Leica 90 2.0 R (non apo) vs Nikon 105 1.8 ais??
    Good post, Tony :)

    I'd definitely give my thumbs up to the Tamron 90/2.5 macro MF lens as it has
    both excellent sharpness and bokeh which makes it one of the best, if not the
    best third party lenses out there. I've even seen great quality macro shots of
    flowers done with an older Sigma 90. It seems that there are many 90/100/105ish
    mm lenses out there that could do an excellent job - though I haven't tested
    the Kiron macro Tony is so impressed with my guess is that if its anywhere near
    the optical/mechanical quality of other Kiron lenses it should be a really fine
    lens too :).



    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":


    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Lang, Aug 13, 2003
  8. Jim

    T P Guest

    Thanks Lewis. ;-)
    T P, Aug 13, 2003
  9. Jim

    JR Guest

    Tony? Is that you? Wow...nice post. I agree with you on the Nikkor
    105/2.5. It is just an awesome lens....I like it better than the 85/1.4
    AIS, but it is also a great lens.

    JR, Aug 13, 2003
  10. Jim

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Leica 90 2.0 R (non apo) vs Nikon 105 1.8 ais??
    You're most welcome :)

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":


    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Lang, Aug 13, 2003
  11. Jim

    Jim Guest

    Thank you everyone very much for the great info!

    Jim, Aug 20, 2003
  12. See some shots with the 90 Summicron-R here:

    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 20, 2003
  13. Jim

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Aug 20, 2003
  14. Michael Scarpitti, Aug 21, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.