Leica's best glass vs. Nikon 85mm 1.4

[Nh3]

Look now, I have seen some of the sample images taken with Nikon 85mm 1.4 and I'm simply astounded at the "aesthetic quality" of images produced by this lens.

... And if Nikon stopped producing this lens the prices will sky rocket like the Nikon 28 1.4, which means one can't go wrong buying one of these for a $1000.

I think this lens produces images that are "painterly" like Nocti.

What do you think?

[NB23]

Wrong.
If nikon stops producing the lens it will probably stay in the same price range or close. Why? Because they produce a huge quantity monthly, unlike the extremely limited 28 1.4.
If they discontinue the 85 1.4 it is because they have an upgrade, unlike the very specialized and hard to produce 28 1.4.

I don't agree the lens is as painterly as the "nocti" (Noctiwhat? Noct-Nikkor or Noctilux? Those 2 lenses are extremely different). What does Nocti mean anyway? In my mothertongue Nocti means fingernails.

[ferider]

Compare to the 75/1.4. Best lens Leica ever built.

Roland.

[Nh3]

But you have to agree that nikon 85mm 1.4 has that Leica 'creaminess'?

[ferider]

There are few bad superfast portrait teles ....

Still have to try out my Helios 40-2. Now there is a creamy lens !

[NB23]

Originally Posted by Nh3

But you have to agree that nikon 85mm 1.4 has that Leica 'creaminess'?

I don't know what is a "Leica Creaminess" or even "Threedeeness". The only times I've read such terms was in the Dpreview Canon forum.

Can you point me to "Leica Creaminess" images?

[FrankS]

The Jupiter 9 is nice. Costs peanuts. What's behind the camera counts more.

[Nh3]

Originally Posted by NB23

I don't know what is a "Leica Creaminess" or even "Threedeeness". The only times I've read such terms was in the Dpreview Canon forum.

Can you point me to "Leica Creaminess" images?

You're right, silly words don't mean anything.

Look at the pictures in this thread and the way they "look" is superb - they might not be great photographs but the way they look is amazing.

opps link: http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/sho...d.php?t=159121

[x-ray]

From having shot the 85 1.4 for years and owning the 75 1.4 summilux for years I would say the Nikon has the edge in image quality. It's not a big difference but the Nikkor is exceptional. I never owned the Nikkor but shot them in my work and do own the Canon 85 1.2 along with the 75 1.4 and owned and shot extensively with the 85 1.4 Planar. All are excellent but my shooting experience shows the Canon to slightly top them all. All are excellent lenses. Without question I would rank the Nikkor and Canon above even the 90 apo asph in close focus performance. At a distance the gap narrows.

[kevin m]

Compare to the 75/1.4. Best lens Leica ever built.

In theory.

In practice, it's heavy, has tiny framelines, and is slow to focus. That and the 90 Summicron were the two Leica lenses I couldn't get rid of fast enough, despite their excellent image quality.