Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Do you remember what version you had? I've found quite a few anecdotal comments on the interwebz that imply the later version performs noticeably better than the earlier, especially wide open.
What short Olympus OM tele?
- Thread starter Ken Ford
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 3K
Do you remember what version you had? I've found quite a few anecdotal comments on the interwebz that imply the later version performs noticeably better than the earlier, especially wide open.
ferider
Veteran
Among the three I had was one chrome nosed one, the other two were more recent. They all behaved similarly, and I attribute the softness to the boundaries of the underlying design (Ernostar).
It is a tiny lens with great bokeh though.
BTW, congrats on your 35, I really like that one. The 28/2 is another "must have" in my mind.
It is a tiny lens with great bokeh though.
BTW, congrats on your 35, I really like that one. The 28/2 is another "must have" in my mind.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Hey, what's all this knocking on my favorite lens, the 35/2 😕
It's sharp, when it's not, that's because of my unsteady stance, close focusing, or me insisting on f/2 just because I like the bokeh 🙂
Here are some wide-open (or close to) shots:
As for the 85/2, I use it a couple of months ago in an event, on my E-300 it becomes a 170/2 telephoto and it's just producing portrait shots that are sometimes too sharp.
Back to topic, I usually have a 35mm and 135mm pair for a system. Sadly I haven't been able to land a 135mm zuiko within my price range.
It's sharp, when it's not, that's because of my unsteady stance, close focusing, or me insisting on f/2 just because I like the bokeh 🙂
Here are some wide-open (or close to) shots:
As for the 85/2, I use it a couple of months ago in an event, on my E-300 it becomes a 170/2 telephoto and it's just producing portrait shots that are sometimes too sharp.
Back to topic, I usually have a 35mm and 135mm pair for a system. Sadly I haven't been able to land a 135mm zuiko within my price range.
pagpow
Well-known
This set of different opinions regarding the softness of the 85/2 and the possible differences among different versions is very interesting. Can we sharpen this up (no pun intended)?
Any additional information re version differences?
Any more shots that might allow us to calibrate whether we're hearing different standards and/or whether we agree w. the softness comments?
Finally, any more comments re shooting wide open (where there seems to be some agreement about softness) and stopped down?
Any additional information re version differences?
Any more shots that might allow us to calibrate whether we're hearing different standards and/or whether we agree w. the softness comments?
Finally, any more comments re shooting wide open (where there seems to be some agreement about softness) and stopped down?
ferider
Veteran
Gary's tests are pretty representative, IMO:
http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=10&id=45&Itemid=97
He tested both SC and MC version of the 85/2.
Compared to my RF glass, non of the Zuikos that I tried is really "sharp" wide open. For example, my Ultron 28/1.9 has noticably higher resolution and less distortion at f2 than my 28/2 Zuiko. And the 28/2 is one of the sharper Zuikos, with floating element. My OM Zuikos all tend to be on the soft side wide open, with medium contrast and beautiful bokeh, and get very sharp when closed down, usually optimal around f5.6 or so. Then however, they really bite. The 85/2 is no exception, IMO.
Roland.
http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=10&id=45&Itemid=97
He tested both SC and MC version of the 85/2.
Compared to my RF glass, non of the Zuikos that I tried is really "sharp" wide open. For example, my Ultron 28/1.9 has noticably higher resolution and less distortion at f2 than my 28/2 Zuiko. And the 28/2 is one of the sharper Zuikos, with floating element. My OM Zuikos all tend to be on the soft side wide open, with medium contrast and beautiful bokeh, and get very sharp when closed down, usually optimal around f5.6 or so. Then however, they really bite. The 85/2 is no exception, IMO.
Roland.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That's characteristic of SLR lenses in general...wideangles are usually not as sharp as their rangefinder equivilents due to the need for retrofocus design. Some of the longer OM lenses are sharp wide open, such as the last version of the 50/1.4 and the last version of the 50/1.8, both are extremely sharp.
oscroft
Veteran
I've got a 100/2.8 and an 85/2 (the later version), and I love them both.
While the 100 does have the edge in sharpness (especially wide open), the difference (between my two samples at least) is small - my 85 is certainly good enough to use wide open.
And I really love the 85 focal length - it's one of my favourite lenses.
While the 100 does have the edge in sharpness (especially wide open), the difference (between my two samples at least) is small - my 85 is certainly good enough to use wide open.
And I really love the 85 focal length - it's one of my favourite lenses.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Regarding the 85/2.0 version and softness.
According to this (http://omexperience.wordpress.com/lenses/zuiko-85mm-f2/) mine is version 2. The serial number is 1256xx.
I never thought the lens was too soft.
Here are some more sample shots.
According to this (http://omexperience.wordpress.com/lenses/zuiko-85mm-f2/) mine is version 2. The serial number is 1256xx.
I never thought the lens was too soft.
Here are some more sample shots.
IK13
Established
I have had both the silver nose 100/f2.8 and a couple of more recent MC ones.
Kept one of the newer ones. I can't say the silver nose was any less sharp though.
Funny this topic should show up now - I just used my 100/f2.8 (on a 20D) yesterday (after probably a year of no use at all).
Kept one of the newer ones. I can't say the silver nose was any less sharp though.
Funny this topic should show up now - I just used my 100/f2.8 (on a 20D) yesterday (after probably a year of no use at all).
Dean Cho
Member
The 90mm f2.0 and 100mm f2.0 are really outstanding lenses. Bright, easy to focus and with stunning sharpness. Ditto for Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5. Both of the Zuikos are now tough to find and are more expensive than when still being produced. Can't go wrong with any of these three lenses. Despite their being somewhat close in specs, I really can't bring myself to part with any of these three. All are sharper than the 35mm f2.0 -- which is a pretty good lens, just not great until f4.0, when it comes into its own.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I'm beginning to wonder if there's a lot of sample variation in some of these lenses...
Gaspar
Established
It depends what you desire from such a lens.
I have a MF Tamron 90mm F2.5; a Zuiko 85mm f2; steinheil 85mm f2.8; Zuiko 135mm f2.8
They are all good lenses in one way or other, what the Zuiko offers me is perfect for portrait. It is small, unobtrusive; it has just the right balance of sharpness for portrait. it is close enough to be intimate but not too close.
The Tamron for example looks sharper but when I am photographing people too much sharpness can be bad. It is also much bigger than the zuiko and therefore less likely to make it to the camera bag.
Apparently when Maitani was developing his first Zuikos he showed a colleague and unmarked 85mm and asked him what focal length he thought it was. The guy thought it was a 50mm length.
All in all the 85mm remains my favourite portrait lens. Strongly recommend it.
I have a MF Tamron 90mm F2.5; a Zuiko 85mm f2; steinheil 85mm f2.8; Zuiko 135mm f2.8
They are all good lenses in one way or other, what the Zuiko offers me is perfect for portrait. It is small, unobtrusive; it has just the right balance of sharpness for portrait. it is close enough to be intimate but not too close.
The Tamron for example looks sharper but when I am photographing people too much sharpness can be bad. It is also much bigger than the zuiko and therefore less likely to make it to the camera bag.
Apparently when Maitani was developing his first Zuikos he showed a colleague and unmarked 85mm and asked him what focal length he thought it was. The guy thought it was a 50mm length.
All in all the 85mm remains my favourite portrait lens. Strongly recommend it.
TWoK
Well-known
Hands down the 100/2.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The Zuiko 35/2 has some bad habits. It loses it completely stopped down past f8 - diffraction effects seem to be a serious limit with this lens.
Olympus' coatings were not great. Many 35/2s are single coated and flare a lot; even the multicoated ones have single coated interior elements that provide some very characteristic internal reflections.
The bokeh isn't great and the distance aperture sharpness is inconsistent. Some apertures and distances just don't work well together. I've read that the Contax 35/2.8 did the same thing due to differences in MTF between the saggital and tangential MTFs, but I've never seen any MTFs for the Zuikos to figure out if this phenomenon is caused by the same thing. It's just another manifestation of the odd refraction limitatons of this lens. I found it a nice lens to use, but in the end had too many problems with getting a consistent look from the images.
Marty
Last edited:
