back alley
IMAGES
just won an oly 100/2.8 off ebay.
$142.
a bit more than i wanted to pay but these are normally going for more than i want to pay .
but not as pricey as the 85/2.
joe
$142.
a bit more than i wanted to pay but these are normally going for more than i want to pay .
but not as pricey as the 85/2.
joe
R
ruben
Guest
The Zuiko 100/2.8 is an excellent glass. I own one. The problem comes afterwards, in resisting to own the 85/2 despite its price. The 85/2 is extremely tempting because of its range, enabling you to shoot headshots at close distances, in which the 50 is too wide and the 100 too close.
But after I bought the 85/2 I found myself not using anymore the 100 as my basic kit is 24-35-50-85-135-200: too crowded already.
Cheers,
Ruben
But after I bought the 85/2 I found myself not using anymore the 100 as my basic kit is 24-35-50-85-135-200: too crowded already.
Cheers,
Ruben
kbg32
neo-romanticist
It's a nice little lens. Enjoy it Joe!
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
It seems that's a standard pattern among SLR owners: The 100 or 105/2.8 is the first portrait tele you get, since it's significantly less expensive than the 85 or 90/2 or faster of that brand. But everyone still wants to get the fast 85/90 all the same. And like Ruben says, the 100/105 tends to get used less since it's in between 85/90 and 135.
Sparrow
Veteran
Far more sensible than the 85 or 100 f2 
is there a tongue in cheek icon?
It’s a better filter size, anyway
is there a tongue in cheek icon?
It’s a better filter size, anyway
Last edited:
Xmas
Veteran
They are light and compact and if you can only afford one lens.
I have two.
Noel
I have two.
Noel
back alley
IMAGES
well, that's me...sensible!
not.
more like this opportunity was there and i took it. i still will eventually get an 85...and i have the 90 hex for the zi if need be.
and i have that 70-150 zoom if i really really need the 85 length.
the 105 has long been a fav for portraits anyway so 100 is pretty darn close.
it's small and light which i like. i can pair it with the 28 or 35 for a small and light kit and keep the 300 in the car if i want/need it.
not.
more like this opportunity was there and i took it. i still will eventually get an 85...and i have the 90 hex for the zi if need be.
and i have that 70-150 zoom if i really really need the 85 length.
the 105 has long been a fav for portraits anyway so 100 is pretty darn close.
it's small and light which i like. i can pair it with the 28 or 35 for a small and light kit and keep the 300 in the car if i want/need it.
R
ruben
Guest
In my case it is not about what I have, it is more about what I don't.
back alley
IMAGES
well ruben, just to update you, since your exit from rff i have so far collected...
oly 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 100/2.8, 135/3.5, 180/2.8, 200/5, 300/4.5 - and oly 28-48/4, 35-70/4, 75-150/4
vivitar 19-35, 50/2.8 macro
oly 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 100/2.8, 135/3.5, 180/2.8, 200/5, 300/4.5 - and oly 28-48/4, 35-70/4, 75-150/4
vivitar 19-35, 50/2.8 macro
amateriat
We're all light!
I sometimes feel wistful for my old 100 f/2...and the OM-3 it was frequently attached to.Sparrow said:Far more sensible than the 85 or 100 f2
is there a tongue in cheek icon?
It’s a better filter size, anyway
The f/2.8 is a little gem, though.
- Barrett
R
ruben
Guest
back alley said:
I guarantee you Maitani has many more surprises out there.
which I refrain to mention for the wellfare of your family.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Yeah Baby!
Yeah Baby!
Joe: Here's a tip regarding the 100/2.8, and the 100mm focal length in general ...
It's for more than portraits. I remember "way back when", when I was just learning the photo ropes. I was headed out to the Rockies. My photo tutor advised me to use the 100, rather than a wide lens, for mountain shots.
He explained that while our tendency is to use a wide to "get it all in", the perspective of a wide angle results in tiny little mountains in the background, and the impact is gone.
Of course, you know all this, but since everyone immediately thinks of "portrait" when we talk about lenses in the 90-135mm range, I thought it would be worth a reminder. I primarily use the 100 for isolation. If it's a face, so be it; but I look for shapes and details that benefit from the 100mm perspective.
Oh, and the 100 with a set of auto extension rings ... that's a useful oBoy search. :angel:
Yeah Baby!
Joe: Here's a tip regarding the 100/2.8, and the 100mm focal length in general ...
It's for more than portraits. I remember "way back when", when I was just learning the photo ropes. I was headed out to the Rockies. My photo tutor advised me to use the 100, rather than a wide lens, for mountain shots.
He explained that while our tendency is to use a wide to "get it all in", the perspective of a wide angle results in tiny little mountains in the background, and the impact is gone.
Of course, you know all this, but since everyone immediately thinks of "portrait" when we talk about lenses in the 90-135mm range, I thought it would be worth a reminder. I primarily use the 100 for isolation. If it's a face, so be it; but I look for shapes and details that benefit from the 100mm perspective.
Oh, and the 100 with a set of auto extension rings ... that's a useful oBoy search. :angel:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the Zuiko 100/2.8 is a gem of a lens.
you will soon forget what you paid for it Joe, once you start savouring the images you will make with this wonderful compact lens.
you will soon forget what you paid for it Joe, once you start savouring the images you will make with this wonderful compact lens.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I've always lusted for the 18mm Zuiko.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
kbg32 said:
Well if it is dreams we are speaking about, then I wouldn't mind having any of the
180mm f2.0, 250mm f2.0 or 350mm f2.8...
Giella lea Fapmu
amateriat
We're all light!
No, no...goes too hard against the core of the OM concept, IMO. The 180 f/2.8, which I owned around the same time as the 100 f/2, is fantastic in every possible way, including size...about as big as anything I'd care to put in front of an OM body. Not cheap (then or now), but far, far less than that monster f/2, and far more likely to actually get used.giellaleafapmu said:
- Barrett
R
ruben
Guest
Ho people, we shouldn't jump too fast to the higher echelons of the OM system, otherwise we may block the road. Why not throwing some cheaper bones as the sharpie, super cute, ultra pocketable, dirty cheap Zuiko 500 ? No clients for it ? No wishes ? Can any decent slr user, not to speak about The Perfect OM User, afford not having a 500 ?
Ok, then why not one of the Zuiko 50 macros ? Can one rest in peace without them ? How could you avoid sending a finger to the heavens of macrophotography without them ?
Ok, then why not one of the Zuiko 50 macros ? Can one rest in peace without them ? How could you avoid sending a finger to the heavens of macrophotography without them ?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Either 50 macro is wonderful, the 50/2 a little more versatile as it is useful for lower light, candid shooting as well.
And while we're at it, the 90/2 macro. Joe, you may want to look for that instead of the 85/2.
And while we're at it, the 90/2 macro. Joe, you may want to look for that instead of the 85/2.
oscroft
Veteran
I love the 100/2.8 - it's one of my favourite SLR focal lengths (I think it plus the 35/2.8 makes a great 2-lens combination). Mind you, I still want an 85/2 too.