Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Now that I've found my 35/2 I'm looking for a short OM tele in the 80mm to 100mm range. Years ago I had a 100/2.8, but I don't remember much about it. I *think* I'd prefer to stick with an f/2.0 lens.
I was planning on a 85/2, but since then I've noticed the 90/2 Macro and the 100/2. I suspect the 100/2 is $$$; how is the Macro as an everyday lens? It might be a little heavy unless I'm shooting a lot of macro work, something I've never been likely to do.
My guess is that this will come down to either an 85/2 or a 100/2. Tell me about each, please!
I was planning on a 85/2, but since then I've noticed the 90/2 Macro and the 100/2. I suspect the 100/2 is $$$; how is the Macro as an everyday lens? It might be a little heavy unless I'm shooting a lot of macro work, something I've never been likely to do.
My guess is that this will come down to either an 85/2 or a 100/2. Tell me about each, please!
back alley
IMAGES
i had the 85 (many moons ago) and loved it.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Both the 90/2 and 100/2 are insanely good. Among the nicest short teles for 35mm work. The 100 mm focuses close enough that it's almost a macro anyway, it certainly focuses close enough for tighter than face portraits, rare among short teles for 35 mm (try it with any of the 85 1.4s and you'll see what I mean). Even wide open they hold up well as full frame 11x14s or with a bit of a border on 13x19 with minimal sharpening. Again rare. Good technique is given, of course.
The 85/2 is good, but much more pedestrian and doesn;t focus very close.
The only downsides are that they are both hard to find and will make you see that the 35/2 is idiosyncratic at best.
Marty
The 85/2 is good, but much more pedestrian and doesn;t focus very close.
The only downsides are that they are both hard to find and will make you see that the 35/2 is idiosyncratic at best.
Marty
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Marty, can you expand on this?
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
For that matter, how do these short teles draw compared to the 35/2? I like to have lenses that have a similar "look". From that standpoint, I have a feeling the 85/2 is a good mate for the 35/2.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Ken,
What he meant about the 35/2 being idiosyncratic is that it really isn't the world's best 35mm lens. Its ok, has decent bokeh, but is not the world's sharpest. Its not horrid, just not that great either. Olympus made a 35/2.8 that is sharper, but slower.
The 85 is good, but expensive, and the 188/2.8 is sharper and has better bokeh. Abd it is CHEAP. The 90/2 macro and the 100/2 are both very sharp with great bokeh, and they average $1000 each, or more! They are very expensive and also very large by OM system standards. The 85/2 and the 100/2.8 are more in line with what you'd expect an OM lens to be, size-wise. Both take 49mm filters and use the same lens hood. I have the 85 and the 100. The 100 is a better overall lens, the 85 is not that sharp wide open and doesnt become so until f4. The 100/2.8 is sharp wide open.
Note that the 85 had its formula changed at one point; mine is a newer one. The old silvernose ones are different than the black nose ones. I have not compared them, as the old version sells for the same $300+ price as the one I have and I couldn't afford to buy one to try.
What he meant about the 35/2 being idiosyncratic is that it really isn't the world's best 35mm lens. Its ok, has decent bokeh, but is not the world's sharpest. Its not horrid, just not that great either. Olympus made a 35/2.8 that is sharper, but slower.
The 85 is good, but expensive, and the 188/2.8 is sharper and has better bokeh. Abd it is CHEAP. The 90/2 macro and the 100/2 are both very sharp with great bokeh, and they average $1000 each, or more! They are very expensive and also very large by OM system standards. The 85/2 and the 100/2.8 are more in line with what you'd expect an OM lens to be, size-wise. Both take 49mm filters and use the same lens hood. I have the 85 and the 100. The 100 is a better overall lens, the 85 is not that sharp wide open and doesnt become so until f4. The 100/2.8 is sharp wide open.
Note that the 85 had its formula changed at one point; mine is a newer one. The old silvernose ones are different than the black nose ones. I have not compared them, as the old version sells for the same $300+ price as the one I have and I couldn't afford to buy one to try.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Thanks, Chris - I'll see how I like the 35.
Given the sharpness and contrast characteristics of the 35/2, would you consider the 85 or the 100/2.8 to be a better match? I'm thinking how my 40 Cron and 90 Elmar-C both draw in a similar way with is very different from my 35 Crons ASPH. Or how Nikkor 105/2.5s and 180/2.8s have a similar look.
I'm shooting for a three lens OM kit - the 24, the 35 and a short tele - all with the same general look.
Given the sharpness and contrast characteristics of the 35/2, would you consider the 85 or the 100/2.8 to be a better match? I'm thinking how my 40 Cron and 90 Elmar-C both draw in a similar way with is very different from my 35 Crons ASPH. Or how Nikkor 105/2.5s and 180/2.8s have a similar look.
I'm shooting for a three lens OM kit - the 24, the 35 and a short tele - all with the same general look.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
IMO, the 35/2.8 and 100/2.8 are very similar in look and how they draw. I cannot comment on the 35/2 or 100/2 other than what I have seen and read on the web.
I have seen 35/2 shots that I've liked; Graham Battison does good stuff with it. But it has never screamed "Sharp!" at me ... not that I consider sharpness the sine qua non. OTOH, a lot of 100/2 shots are "wow!" ... But the price of the 100/2 doesn't sway me from the 100/2.8, which is a helluva value.
I have seen 35/2 shots that I've liked; Graham Battison does good stuff with it. But it has never screamed "Sharp!" at me ... not that I consider sharpness the sine qua non. OTOH, a lot of 100/2 shots are "wow!" ... But the price of the 100/2 doesn't sway me from the 100/2.8, which is a helluva value.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Maybe I need to find an 85/2, and then a 35/2.8 and 100/2.8 and have a "cook-off". The slower glass seems inexpensive enough that I could afford to do it if I shop carefully.
hans voralberg
Veteran
I'd say a 85/2 would be perfect, it's very compact and has great great bokeh!
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Ken - I have the 35/2 and the 85/2. I use the 85mm lens maybe 3x as much as the 35. The 85 is an Ernostar design, similar to the 90mm/2.8 KM Hexanon and the 90mm/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar for the Contax G. I also have the Zuiko 100/2.8 and have not used it since I got the 85/2.
I would have sold you my 35/2 if I had known you were in the market, but not at the price you got yours from Shutterblade
. You got a good deal. IMO the 35/2 is a fine lens, but I bought the 40/2 recently and the 35 feels a bit redundant - and much larger.
I would have sold you my 35/2 if I had known you were in the market, but not at the price you got yours from Shutterblade
. You got a good deal. IMO the 35/2 is a fine lens, but I bought the 40/2 recently and the 35 feels a bit redundant - and much larger.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I will admit that I find the 100/2.8 a bit long, and the 85 is attractive as a result. Plus, the 100/2.8 does not focus as close as other Zuiko primes, which sometimes is a bit limiting. I hadn't known the close focus of the 100/2 is significantly better than the 2.8.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Thanks for the comments, John. I've been reading around the 'net about the 85/2 and 100/2.8, and my current thinking is the 85/2 - at f/2.8 it seems to be similar to the 100/2.8 wide open, plus it has that f/2.0 "portrait mode".
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Shot with the 85/2; pretty sure this was at f2.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
I've had both - sold the 100/2.8. It is a perfectly good lens and the copy I had was minty compared to my beater 85 but there is something about the 85/2 that I like with either film or digital. It is the only lens I have two copies of.
Cheers,
-Gautham
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I love 85mm/2.0. Very compact (49mm filter), super nice bokeh, works great for both outdoor and available light.
Last edited:
hans voralberg
Veteran
One more sample of the 85 @ f2
JBC
Dr Spoke
One other thing to consider - the 85 f/2 uses 49mm filters, whereas the 100 f/2 uses 55mm filters which would match the 35. That being said, I always liked the 85 better myself. My favorite combination of primes for the OMs was the 28 f/2, the 40 f/2 and the 85 f/2 - all are very small and light, and all take 49m mm filters. If I recall correctly the 28 was the widest f/2 prime that took a 49 filter and the 85 was the longest f/2 prime that took a 49.
Jim Couch
Jim Couch
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Great info and photos, folks! I think it's going to be a late 85/2.
ferider
Veteran
I had varous Zuikos, but the one that stuck with me is the Vivitar 90/2.5 Series I. Really good and very well built.
The other one I can recommend is the 135/2.8.
I always found the 85/2 a little too soft.
If you can find the 100/2 go for it. Very rare and expensive, usually.
The other one I can recommend is the 135/2.8.
I always found the 85/2 a little too soft.
If you can find the 100/2 go for it. Very rare and expensive, usually.