I do a fair amount of rock art and deep canyon work with my Nikon SW 90mm f/8 and it frankly can be hard to focus on low key or low contrast subjects without a Fresnel. Factor in a Fresnel and it may not be quite the bargain, but it is astoundingly sharp and relatively light.
I have one too. Light, very sharp and very good coatning.
When i bourgth the lens on E-bay the 90/8 Nikkors was as expensive
as the 90/4.5 lenses.
In low-light conditions it is quite dim, when you focus the lens.
Last edited by Per Madsen; 7-Dec-2011 at 00:06. Reason: More information
It is indeed a very good 90mm lens. The point not to be forgotten, when comparing lenses of the same focal length but a different aperture, is that generally the lenses with a smaller aperture have an advantage in their optical performance. This is due to the fact that it is easier to tweak the design of lenses with smaller apertures. The price for a bigger aperture is quite high, not only in a bigger weight. Therefore photographers do well if they are wiling to sacrifice a stop or two of the maximum aperture on their lenses in exchange for many other advantages - weight, dimension, IC and not the least, the optical performance.
Eyes are different for everyone, but personally, I never choose a lens with a greater aperture only because it is easier for eyes on the gg. It seems to me to be a futile reason for leaving the better optical performance of a smaller aperture lens. It is better to choose higher speed lenses for more important reasons, such as shorter shooting speed or similar.
I have the Nikon 90/8 -it is a workhorse and I never looked for its bigger aperture equivalent, even in dark interiors. But again, eyes are different for everyone.
"The point not to be forgotten, when comparing lenses of the same focal length but a different aperture, is that generally the lenses with a smaller aperture have an advantage in their optical performance. This is due to the fact that it is easier to tweak the design of lenses with smaller apertures."
Nonsense! The faster and slower W/A lenses in the same focal length from the same manufacturer are not identical designs with one simply having a larger front element to speed it up. They are quite different in performance with the faster version always outperforming the slower version. Go to the manufacturer's web sites and download the curves. You will see that the faster lens has better MTF curves, better coverage, better distortion curves, better longitudinal color aberration curves and better light fall-off curves then the slower version.
Plus, of course, better illumination on the GG thanks to its faster speed.
It could be that we are both right, but passing each other, probably. Yet, refusing (quite rightly so, I have to say) a sweeping comment with another sweeping comment you fell, I’m afraid, to the same hole as me.
So, for a starter - I stand behind my affirmation that high speed lenses are much more difficult to tweak for high performance than their slower equivalents. Therefore - now I add what I know - in order to put them on the high level you often tweak them with a different lens design, much more demanding in their manufacture. Which is not always better, as you affirm. To say an example -in order to beat spherical aberration and coma, the eternal enemy of high speed lenses, they pay the price of tweaking with contrast performance and definition, to name just some of the necessary compromises. (Flare is a different story yet parallel one.)
On the other hand, it is also true that these different designs come with higher manufacturing precision and can therefore (always?) have better performance in some of the optical aspects. There you’re right. But in sharpness? I dare to guess not, as that depends on the compromised contrast.
The sweeping comment of mine came, (years ago, still before Schneider came with the bettered Symmar L) from a lens designer who told me that comparing two lenses (did he mean of comparable design? Obviously, I suppose so) differing in speed, the lower speed lens is easier corrected.
But were the new designs for higher speed equivalents always better in all optical aspects, as you seem to say, why would they bother to make even the slower lenses? For the simple advantage of their smaller weight and price? Seems there must be more to it.
So, rightly, should I have said more precisely - lenses of a comparable design are optically better off in their slower versions?
Thanks for all the responses.
As to comparing the f8's with their faster, bigger brothers, it's often the case that the f8 versions are six element lenses, whereas the faster version is an 8 element lens. So, the faster version is a better performer.
But that's one of the things that intriguing about the Nikkor 90mm f8, it's an 8 element lens.
It’s not that a lens with more elements is automatically a better performer than a lens with fewer elements. Not in all aspects. Take for example the spherical aberration mentioned above. A lens design is more complicated than that.
Have used the 90F8 Nikkor for > 10 years. Concur with others on its great contrast and sharpness and lack of noticable falloff.
Since I shoot the at the edges of daylight most often, even with a fresnal, it can be too difficult to obtain exact focus in certain situations, particuarly when using extreme movements (drop bed with back focus for instance). An f5.6 of f4.5 is advisable if you are shooting regularly in very low light. Otherwise, go for it. A clear competitor is an EBC coated Fuji 90mm F8. Carr Clifton used one for years with wonderful results. Similar in color characteristics to the Nikon.
The nikkor 90/8 is superb, the best 90 by anyone at any speed. It clearly surpasses the nikkor 90/4.5, which disproves Bob's diatribe about faster lenses always being better ( if anyone believed that to begin with). It also surpasses all other 90s, and equals or betters the schneider 80 xl, IMNSHO.
I have a chance to pick up the 90/4.5 for a decent price. I'm not new to LF and own several German lenses but no Nikkors, and have yet to use one.Originally Posted by EdSawyer
I'd appreciate if you could tell me (empirically) why the 90/8 "clearly surpasses the Nikkor 90/4.5." And how it also "surpasses all other 90s." Again, I'd like the empirical evidence. If the 4.5 is inferior, then I'll start looking for the 8 instead.
(btw, the physical size of the lens is of no importance to me as I'm not a backpacker/landscape photographer.)
Thanks very much.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks