Voigtlander 90/3.5 or Nikkor 85/1.8G?

Started Nov 8, 2012 | Discussions thread
Emil Varadi
Senior MemberPosts: 1,046Gear list
Like?
The shades of dawn
In reply to Shotcents, Nov 20, 2012

Shotcents wrote:

The magical 3.5 prime. Uh huh.

This makes me remember an old story about somebody trying hard to explain the magnificent shades of dawn to a blind man. The poor man just responds: "I can't see it! I can't see it!"

Let's see some photos from BOTH and we'll all see how close they are, except that the Nikon is sharper, has MUCH more DOF control and better bokeh. I recently went through this with a few Zeiss primes and concluded that Nikon glass was generally better and the most I could say for the Zeiss was that they were well built. Honestly, if the Nikon had a fancy name and a pretty barrel I believe the opinions would sway the other way.

Ok. You have the right to your opinion just as anybody else. My opinion is different as it has become obvious by now. Just one example: I have shot with the Zeiss ZF 100/2 and my opinion is that can be more magical (I think I will now stick to this term even if it seems like pi**ing against the wind in a technical forum), than anything Nikon has around 100mm. You may disagree, but I can definitely see the shades of dawn here.

Getting back to practical matters: The 3.5 is a deal breaker even if lack of AF is not.

Dealbreaker for you. As for me, I had already made my choice.  (by the way, also against this lens, but not because of 3.5.)

There is no substitute for fast glass

I think you are stepping on very thin ice there...

regardless of how much "magic" dust was mixed into the lens coatings. As for the silly comments about sterile qualities, PLEASE post images from ANY of these lenses of the same subject so we can see this effect.

You are commenting AnotherMike's post here. No need for me to defend him, as he can take care very well of himself, but yet again, I perfectly understand what he is talking about, when he says "sterile qualities." You don't. Obviously, as this is a mega forum, there will be a great number of people who would agree with such a term, and yet again, there will be also a great number, including yourself, who don't.  Tough, we'll have to live with this fact.

I've had ALL of them mounted on my D700 and D800 and the differences in color and bokeh, at the same apertures, are VERY close. Differences in color are sooooo slight that you could tweak them to look like the other in the settings.

Good for you that have have two such great cameras. You also talk about differences, though very small. I tend to believe that these small differences might mean a wolrd difference in actual shooting conditions.  As for tweaking them to look like the other, maybe you can, though I have my doubts, but I definitely cannot. There is no way to duplicate for example the looks of the Nikon 200/2 with other Nikon lenses of similar lenght simply by PP.

Cheers

Emil

 Emil Varadi's gear list:Emil Varadi's gear list
Fujifilm X-S1 Ricoh GR Nikon D300 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow