Hi--

In your Subjective Evaluation you rate the 85 mm f2 more favorably than
most
others who deal in this sort of thing, and I can't help but wonder why
the
discrepancy. B. Rorslett (sp?) dismisses it as "much softer" than its
predecessor and "Moose" (Peterson?) sez its an okay portrait lens but
not up
to other short teles because of lower contrast. This might be familiar
to
you.

I have one of these lenses and like it because of its small size and
light
weight. It seems fine at all apertures, except (as you have also noted)
at
wide apertures at close distances. I once compared it at that range
with the
highly regarded Contax 90mm f2.8 and discovered the Contax was better at
f2.8
and 4, but not by an order of magnitude. At smaller f stops I couldn't
tell
them apart. But that could be my particular circumstances.

What has been your experience with this optic, if any, and do you think
there
is basis for the substellar perceptions?

ShadCat11@aol.com


I've had many of these, and except near closest focus near wide open,
(both together - at mid distances and greater, it is good wide open,
and close-up it is good stopped down some) I have found them all
excellent.
I suspect it is a victim of "hang a newspaper and check resolution"
testing, which would catch it at its worst. Also, all the other Nikkor
85s (except for contrast with the f1.4 MF at wide stops) are so great,
it
pales slightly by comparison - but it is still an excellent lens under
most shooting conditions. Oddly, other lenses that share the 85's
characteristics (the 105 f2.5, 135 f2.8, 135 f2) are not similarly
down-rated. I think my ratings are more realistic...;-)