Canon LTM canon 100/2 vs. 85/2

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
1:12 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
any idea which is the 'better' lens?

what the differences between them might be?

i have the 85/2 and think it's a great lens.
if the 100/2 is as good then i want one.

i can use the framelines on the p for a 100mm lens.

i'm gonna sell the bessa kit to bankroll the 100/2.

or if anyone wants to trade for one...

as usual, any and all info is welcomed and appreciated.
joe
 
The 100mm F2 is the later lens, and has a great reputation. It and the 85mm f1.8 Canon are supposed to be "THE" short tele's for the line. I'd like to see how it compares with the Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5.

Look to pay a fair bit for it. The Bessa R Kit should about bankroll it.
 
What are you going to do with your 100/3.5? The shots you have posted taken with that lens have been very nice. Like Brian says, the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are supposed to be two of the best of their focal lengths.
 
backalley photo said:
any idea which is the 'better' lens?

what the differences between them might be?

i have the 85/2 and think it's a great lens.
if the 100/2 is as good then i want one.
Click to expand...

What kinds of test shots would you use to make the comparison?

If not too complicated, maybe I could shoot some sample photos with my 100/2 and send them to you so you can see how it performs.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I'd like to see how it compares with the Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5.
Click to expand...

I've owned both, but not at the same time (I have a Canon now, but not a Nikkor.)

My "subjective recollection" is that they're about equally sharp, and the Nikkor has a touch more microcontrast... which is balanced by the fact that the Canon is a half-stop faster.

In other words, either one is pretty terrific.
 
jlw said:
What kinds of test shots would you use to make the comparison?


jlw,
If not too complicated, maybe I could shoot some sample photos with my 100/2 and send them to you so you can see how it performs.
Click to expand...

i'm not a test kind of guy really.
i guess i'm looking for general comments about the lens mostly.

from what i have read it's supposed to be a wonderful lens.

for me, i'm thinking i'd rather carry 2 p's than a p and a 7 so the best 100 would be my preference.

35/50/100 would be my kit and i'd hold on to the rest for out of the ordinary needs.

interested in a trade?

joe
 
I have the 100/2 & 85/1.8 Canons, but have never owned or used any version of the 85/2 Canon, so I can't help you make that comparison. IME, both the 100/2 & 85/1.8 Canons deserve their good reputations & they're fully comparable in optical quality to the 85/2 & 105/2.5 Nikkor-Ps & the Zeiss 85/2 Sonnars I'm familiar with. Like other single-coated lenses of the 1950s-60s, their main shortcoming compared to more modern teles I use (e.g., Zeiss 90/2.8 Sonnar for G2 & 75/1.4 for Leica) is in flare-resistance; they're also a touch less contrasty & sharp wide-open, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for a short tele IMHO.

FWIW, here's an old shot that I took w/the 100/2 mounted on an M2 (Kodak Supra 100, 1/125th sec. @ f/2):

http://not.contaxg.com/files/0017/23mhptrumpeter_.jpg
 
There are 3 versions of the 100mm f2.0 and 2 versions of the 85mm f1.8 though it looks like the difference's are only in the ID format on the retaining ring the formula's are the same.

The 2nd version of the 85mm f1.8 was made until the March 1975 actually over lapping the FD mount lens which has a different formula. it is the most recent S mount Canon lens I know of out lasting the 100mm f2.0 by 2 years.

I want both and hopfully depending on what I can find I will own both by summers end.
 
a determined man!

i'm easy as to which version, i just want a lens that is as sharp as the 85/2 and that i can use on the p without a finder.

for now i plan on using the 85 on the p w/o a finder.
the 7 will be back up and hold the 135/3.5 for those 'long' needs.

joe
 
rover said:
What are you going to do with your 100/3.5? The shots you have posted taken with that lens have been very nice. Like Brian says, the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are supposed to be two of the best of their focal lengths.
Click to expand...

i'll probably hold on to it but i really have not given it any thought.

i do, however, feel like a man on a mission.
my only regret is that the idea came to me so late.

joe
 
For performance reasons, I cannot imagine the 2/100 is better than the 3.5/100, what can be seen in results. It's also a lot bigger. Focussing starts to become difficult here which such a fast lens. Single helicoil mounting, slow focussing way. I have the late 1.8/85, it's more a "collector"'s than a user lens. Whereas the 1.8/85 is quite short, the 2/100 is a lot longer. I thinks it's in the competition for the worst handling of all Canon RF lenses (Thiy to say, the older 2/85 and 1.9/85 are also in, but there are a lot cheaper)

cheers, Frank
 
That'll get the price down!

I have the Nikkor 85mm F2 and do not have a problem focussing it on the Canon 7. I also used the 10.5cm F2.5 and 13.5cm F3.5 wide-open with the Canon 7 that Joe has now. I adjusted that one myself, and had it good enough for the 50mm F0.95.

Canon 135mm F3.5 on (now) Joe's Canon 7.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3052/size/big/sort/1/cat/539

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3053/size/big/sort/1/cat/539

Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 on (now) Joe's Canon 7.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3051/size/big/sort/1/cat/539

And Joe wants to put these lenses on the "P". I did not calibrate those!
 
Last edited:
for that matter as i love the results from the 85/2, don't have a problem focussing it and already own it, i could just stay with this set up. it's not that hard to use it on the p and use the 100mm framelines.
hell, i use the 35 and can't even see the framelines for it.

today, i'm heading out with my domke filled with 2 p's with 35 & 50 attached and the 85 in the bag.
i'm testing to see if this will be 'the kit'.

joe
 
Sonnar2 said:
For performance reasons, I cannot imagine the 2/100 is better than the 3.5/100, what can be seen in results.
Click to expand...

I've never used a 100/3.5, so I don't know whether the results are "better." But the 100/2 is a stop and a half faster, which sometimes is very important.

Focussing starts to become difficult here which such a fast lens.
Click to expand...

Never a problem on the 7 (thanks to the long RF base) or the P or VI-T (thanks to the high finder magnification.) I think any Canon will handle it. Might be a problem if you wanted to mount it on a Bessa R2.

Single helicoil mounting, slow focussing way.
Click to expand...

Single-helical lenses (in which the whole front of the barrel turns as you focus) focus just as fast as double-helical; there's no difference in the way you focus them. I'll concede that they're a nuisance if you use a polarizing filter.

I have the late 1.8/85, it's more a "collector"'s than a user lens. Whereas the 1.8/85 is quite short, the 2/100 is a lot longer. I thinks it's in the competition for the worst handling of all Canon RF lenses.
Click to expand...

De gustibus non disputadem est. I find it very easy to handle, possibly because I have fairly large hands. And I think the results are worth the size, IF you need a high-speed medium tele. If you don't need the speed or the 100mm focal length, then certainly there are other options that are more compact and perform well. How about a nice 75mm f/2.5 Voigtlander?
 
How about a nice 75mm f/2.5 Voigtlander?

funny you should mention that...i just sold mine!

i want canon lenses on my canon bodies, plain & simple (kinda like me).

if i don't find a 100/2 at a price i can manage then i will use the 85/2. which by the way i have no trouble focussing or handling in general.

joe
 
Joe, Do you mind letting me know what you thought of the VC 75mm I have been thinking of addig one to my little LTM collection

Eventually I would like to have a set of Canon RF lenses to include:

25mm f3.5 latest version

28mm f2.8 " "

35mm f1.8 " " Already in hand

50mm f1.8 I currently have two of the 9 blade versions

50mm f1.4

85mm f1.8

100mm f2.0

135mm f3.5 Chr. (already have one) and a later black one

I would like to have from Leitz

3.5cm f3.5 Summaron w/E39 filter threads

5cm f2.8 Elmar (in hand)

9cm f4.0 Elmar (I curently have one but want the later E39 version )

135m f4.5 Hektor (in hand)

And in the modern design VC line

25mm snapshot

75mm f2.5

These combined with my ablitiy to use my wide and super wide FD lenses on my Canon and Leica bodies as well as a future (if the price drops to about 1/2 what it is now) LTM or M mount digital RF.

But them I'm a dreamer LOL
 
hey mark,
i think it's a great lens.

it's easily as sharp as my canon 85/2 and weighs much less. it's small also, barely bigger than the cv 50/1.5.

it actually fit nicely on the p & was well balanced.

if i had a half a brain i would have kept it but i never claimed to be all that bright.

i want a user kit, all canon bodies & all canon lenses.
i'm softening a bit in that, i will now use the later black lenses also. at first i wanted only the older chrome ones.
i've developed a soft spot for the older less contrast more resolution look, i guess.

i am looking forward to seeing some results from the 35/2.

so mark, are you a shooter also or mostly a collector?
you seem eager to own many lenses and to know much about canon, seems you put alot of time, energy and resources into it.

joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom