I've used several samples and iterations of the 85/1.8, and have used every iteration of the 105/2.0 from Super Tak thru K. That's over a period of 30+ years. Lots of exposures. Let's see, thats three 85mm/1.8 lenses and four 105mm lenses.
While I've never found a need to compare their sharpness aperture by aperture (true folly, imo) I can say that these lenses, in whatever iteration you find them in, are quite sharp. The SMC Tak ~was~ a legend in its time (boy, do I remember the buzz the lens caused when it came out), and the K85/1.8 will stand against any lens for sharpness. It's damned good. I'd say you screwed up the focusing ... let's face it, from what I understand the VF in the newer cameras are not designed for manual focusing. > > From what I can see, the SMC Takumar 85/1.8 pictures are quite > > noticeably > > less sharp than the SMC Takumar 105/2.8 (which produced really sharp > > pictures). I've tested that 85--with tmax 100-- against other Nikon > > and > > Pentax 85 designs and found it to be quite competitive in terms of > > sharpness. I seem to recall this lens being something of a legend > > in its time. At almost f8 it should be about as sharp as it gets. > > The areas I was examining were the eyes, and this is after 1.5x crop > > factor, so we should be talking about "center" sharpness of the lenses. > > > > I THINK that the 85 is the same optical design as the "K" 85/1.8, and > > the 105 is the same optical design as the "K" 105/2.8, if that brings > > more people's experience into play. The 85/1.8 is NOT the same optics > > as the earlier 85/1.9. The 105 optics actually date back to at least > > the Super Takumar version if not farther. > > > > I can't rule out focus error (since the *istD didn't seem to want to > > give > > me a green "in-focus" indicator with the screw-mounts) and I was > > shooting > > stopped down and not refocusing with every shot. At that aperture, > > and > > a head-and-shoulders framing distance on the *istD, I should have depth > > of field to cover small errors in focus anyway. > > > > I haven't actually tested the 85 AGAINST the 105 before. The 85 is a > > 50mm > > design (gauss or sonnar) and the 105 is a telephoto, plus the 85 has a > > rather large aperture for its day and focal length--perhaps the 85 > > is going to be naturally less sharp. > > > > Does anybody else find that the 105 outperforms the 85 at middling > > apertures > > on film, or is it that the 85 design somehow does not produce the same > > high-quality results with the *istD sensor as it does on film? I've > > heard > > that some other lenses have this problem, and the Takumars certainly > > weren't designed with digital in mind! > > > > DJE > >
