o.t. om 100/2.8

amateriat said:
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.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

Mmmmh, may be but just give me any of the lenses I mentioned and I am sure I will have quite a use for it. A 180 f2.8 would also be good and, in fact, also the 200 f4.0 I own is all-right but all these guys go most of the times with a tripod anyway, so no problems for the size... I have been to trips with two Nikon bodies and 7 lenses, a Mamiya 6x6 with three lenses and a Cambo monorail with two lenses and ten holders + Polaroid I don't get scared by a lens as the 180 f2.0 because of its size... Now, the price is what really scares me:D

Giella lea Fapmu
 
The 100 2.8 is one of my favourite zuikos. I bought it after reading an article praising the 100 F2 in Photo Techniques, and then not being able to afford it. The F2 focuses quite a bit closer, i believe, but as has been mentioned is quite a bit larger and much more expensive.

I found the 2.8 to be incredibly sharp, and it is so-o-o compact. I remember I was shooting an outdoor dance performance, and a photographer friend, who was shooting with his Canons, thought I was shooting with a 50mm.

I prefer the 100 2.8 to my 85 F2; I have never had much luck with the latter wide open, but then again some people like its softness for portraiture, and to be fair, much of the time I've been disappointed, I had been shooting in very dim circumstances with very slow shutter speeds (vive the R-D1!). I think, though, that the 100 2.8 wide open is sharper than the 85 at 2.8.

It is my intention to use my OM equipment when the weather turns bad, and I don't want to use the R-D1, but right now I'm hoping this current spring weather will last until...spring.
 
sevres_babylone said:
The 100 2.8 is one of my favourite zuikos. I bought it after reading an article praising the 100 F2 in Photo Techniques, and then not being able to afford it. The F2 focuses quite a bit closer, i believe, but as has been mentioned is quite a bit larger and much more expensive.

I found the 2.8 to be incredibly sharp, and it is so-o-o compact. I remember I was shooting an outdoor dance performance, and a photographer friend, who was shooting with his Canons, thought I was shooting with a 50mm.

I prefer the 100 2.8 to my 85 F2; I have never had much luck with the latter wide open, but then again some people like its softness for portraiture, and to be fair, much of the time I've been disappointed, I had been shooting in very dim circumstances with very slow shutter speeds (vive the R-D1!). I think, though, that the 100 2.8 wide open is sharper than the 85 at 2.8.

It is my intention to use my OM equipment when the weather turns bad, and I don't want to use the R-D1, but right now I'm hoping this current spring weather will last until...spring.
Click to expand...

I agree with Jack on this one, I remember how dissapointed I was years ago at how soft the 85/2 Zuiko was at F 2 and F 2.8
no such problem with the 100/2.8, this is one sharp lens.
 
Not only is it sharp, but it is pleasing ... at least to my eyes. The contrast, transitions to OOF areas, etc., are all deceptively nice. I don't find it too sharp for portraits, but I can see that sometimes you might need to diffuse a bit.
 
Isn't it interesting how there is often an Olympus SLR and Zuiko lenses in a rangefinder person's past or present? It makes sense when you think about it. Both are small, light, beautifully engineered, have excellent optics, and a bit of a cult following. :)

The 100/2.8 is a wonderful lens. Enjoy it. I still use mine on my E-1, along with a 50/3.5 macro and a 50/1.4 for available light. Somehow, I haven't shot my OM-2 much since I went RF, though.

--Peter
 
I just found some Kodachromes (and a couple of Agfachromes) from '75, '78, '80, '82, etc. First off, they are in great condition vis-a-vis colour; they do need some minor cleaning (dust, a little bit of gunk), but things will be good.

Second, there are some shots made with the 100/2.8. One in particular is one of my favourite casual portraits. Once I get it properly scanned and processed, you will see what this lens is all about. ;)
 
And Peter: Yes, it's very interesting. I have to admit my OM has not been getting as much playtime as some other cameras. I'll take it along today.
 
Haven't gotten my slide(s) scanned yet (been busy AND they need some cleaning/attention for dust, etc.,) but I did think of a 100/2.8 shot. It's been posted before, but maybe worth seeing it again in this context.

235427529_da3e8c77d7.jpg
 
That's a good piece of glass... comparable with the Nikkor 105/2.5.
There's richness of detail here, great color rendition & use of DOF.
Ciao, mike
 
There's a story behind Garlic Man -- would love to know it.

Regarding Peter's comment, actually I came to own OMs well after I got involved with rangefinders. I had read some comments that they weren't really up to snuff as compared with the N, C and L brands, and I wasn't crazy about the OM-1 my college roommate had. (Film speed dial where the shutter speed dial should be? What's up with that?) But I always loved the looks of the cameras. Having now gotten the chance to acquire a few along with some lenses, I must say I am most impressed with the picture quality too, and the smoothness of the OMs' operation.
 
KoNickon said:
There's a story behind Garlic Man -- would love to know it.

<snip> (Film speed dial where the shutter speed dial should be? What's up with that?)
Click to expand...
C, N, L are all BACKWARDS...

The story of Garlic Man, Ted Maczka ... yes, there is quite a story. It's sorta long, so I'll work on it for another time. Not like I'm the official biographer, but I do know him personally. He knows more about garlic than probably just about anyone else in the world... and he knows a thing or two about the Avro Arrow.
 
Mike: Thanks. Yes, it is. BTW, Superia 1600 shot at 800, f4/125s, handheld. Not as sharp as I'd like, but I'm not great on PS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom