Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

100-125mm Smaller Options
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:31 am    Post subject: 100-125mm Smaller Options Reply with quote
Hi all,

I just spent the week away at a festival shooting almost entirely with a Sony A7 II with the Olympus Zuiko OM 100mm f/2.8. Really happy with a lot of the shots I got, and the combo worked pretty damn well for what I wanted. The combination of 100mm and 150mm in crop mode worked well for making me get in there if I wanted the shot, but with some flexibility too. I find that if I shoot with a longer lens at concerts, I don't get involved.





More up on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thepowersthatbe/albums/72157666441560411

Some things though have me looking for that next step up.

Wide open it's not ideal. Stopped down to f/4 sharpness is great, but sometimes you want a little more open and sharp. That could just be my copy too, I guess. It's flare/reflections are a little funky, which can cause some issues with bright lights. I don't mind it too much, but sometimes it is a little overpowered.

Focus is a little twitchy. It works well with focus magnification, but I did find I was sometimes missing critical focus. I found focus peaking didn't really work effectively to get critical focus. That is definitely user error, but I also feel the lens didn't help.

So the question is - there are definitely options out there that achieve what I want (Voigtlander 125mm APO f/2.5, Zeiss 100mm f/2), but the great thing about the OM 100mm f/2.8 is that it's small and light (and cheap). f/2.8 would be plenty fast enough - if it was sharp.

Are there small, light, fast, sharp 100-125mm options out there?
OM 100 f/2.8 weighs 300gm, 49mm filter, and 6.5cm long (with the adaptor too)

How is the Olympus 100mm f/2.0 at f/2.8? Maybe I just need a mint copy of the OM f/2.8 ...

Last edited by meanwhile on Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:09 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is your OM 100mm f/2.8 single-coated or multi-coated? My MC copy is excellent.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's the E.Zuiko, and doesn't say MC on it anywhere, so it looks like it's the single-coated.
How is yours for sharpness wide-open?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:20 am    Post subject: Re: 100-125mm Smaller Options Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:
Hi all,

Are there small, light, fast, sharp 100-125mm options out there?
OM 100 f/2.8 weighs 300gm, 49mm filter, and 6.5cm long (with the adaptor too)

How is the Olympus 100mm f/2.0 at f/2.8? Maybe I just need a mint copy of the OM f/2.8 ...


olympus 100mm/2 is big chunk of glass (500g) compared to 100mm/2.8 (235g)

you could try pentacon 100mm/2.8 in m42 mount


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, the f/2 is bigger and heavier, but still smaller than a lot of the alternatives. Think I'll just find a mint MC version of the OM 2.8. If the focus is a little smoother, and it's sharper at f/2.8, all my needs are met.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have no experience with the Olympus Zuiko 2.8/100mm, so i can't comment on that lens in particular.

Before acquiring a new lens you might want to critically test your own Zuiko 2.8/100mm under more relaxed conditions:

* Chose a scenery with lots of detail in "infinity" (eg a city from a certain distance)
* horizon should go diagonally through your image (from one corner to corner)
* use a sturdy tripod
* focus carefully, using EVF and magnifier
* take images with self timer (10s) and electronic first shutter activated
* repeat 2-3 times wide open (f2.Cool
* repeat at f4, f5,6, and f11
* post crops from the center and the corners here

I can imagine two outcomes: Either you're surprised about the lens you already have, or the lens in fact has probmles (and therefore probably is a bad copy).

Looking forward to your testing images Wink

If it turns out that your lens really isn't satisfying, I have lot's of information regarding short tele lenses (eg Canon nFD 2/100mm and 2.8/100mm, Canon nFD 2/135mm, Nikkor 1.8/105mm and 2.5/105mm, Olympus Zuiko 2/100mm, Minolta Rokkor 2/100mm and 2.5/100mm, Minolta AF 2/100mm). But first we shuld check carefully what your lens actually can deliver.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
No idea if it'll fit a Sony with an adapter --- not my scene --- but my SMC Pentax-M 100mm f/2.8 is a lovely lens, one of my favourites. It is only 225g and 56mm long. Use an older metal Takumar hood as the "correct" M series one is a little delicate. There is an A-series version which is optically the same but goes for more as it has the A setting which makes it easier to use on Pentax digital SLRs.

Lots of example images on my Ipernity site: http://www.ipernity.com/tag/288579/keyword/1253385

Best wishes, Kris.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Before acquiring a new lens you might want to critically test your own Zuiko 2.8/100mm under more relaxed conditions


Hehe. You may have a point, and I fully understand what you are saying, that logic definitely has merit. That said ... if I can't apply it in the heat of battle, then it's not the right weapon!

The flare/reflection issue is one that has shown itself enough that it alone justifies going to an MC version. Design, ergonomics, weight, size, all wonderful and exactly what I'm looking for. The lens I have is one of the very earliest versions of this lens, so a newer, better condition copy should be both mechanically and optically improved. I believe from everything I've read that the optical formula stayed the same, but cleaner glass and the improved coating should improve contrast and also make the focus peaking more reliable.

Focus should also be a bit smoother with a newer mint copy, not that the current lens is in bad shape, it's not at all.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The shots you show above look good to me, but the first one is with the E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS if we can believe the exif on Flickr?
At those shutterspeeds there will always be some movement blur in some shots I think?
The 2 daytime static shots in that album look less convincing, but perhaps it could be focus error?

I have both Nikkor 105mm 1:1.8 and Canon FD 100mm 1:2.8 SSC and they are both quite good, but the Nikkor isn't very compact of course, the Canon is, but not very light.
Optically it's mostly perfect from wide open from corner to corner imo!
But I must admit, it isn't the easyest lens to focus without focus magnification and it does have some flare as well, so it might not be ideal for you, but at least you'll have an idea of what resolution I think the Olympus should be able to show at 2.8 as well.
The (micro) contrast could be a bit better, but that's an easy fix in PP as long as the resolution is there without to much real optical defects, but that is probably the reason it's not so easy to focus compared to some more contrasty lenses.

Some samples at long focus distance, they are 24Mp sooc jpg's with everything set to neutral on my A7:

f/2.8:

DSC09555 by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

Direct link to 24Mp: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koen_nhz/24981786430/sizes/o/

f/4:

DSC09556 by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

f/8:

DSC09558 by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

A full size one at closer range (taken true the bars/netting) at f/2.8, check the detail in the feathers:

DSC09830 by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

And some resized (but also unedited otherwise) images that might be more interesting for your application:


DSC00124_1920px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr


DSC00076_1920px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr
*There are some more photo's with this lens in the concert album, but they are not all tagged, most of them are with the 55mm Asph though.


Very nice bokeh and sharp dof imo:

DSC00354_1920px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr


DSC00332 (1)_1920px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr

And here you can see some funky flare as well (bottom left):


DSC00337_1920px by Koen Nieuwenhuize, on Flickr


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:07 pm    Post subject: Re: 100-125mm Smaller Options Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:
Focus is a little twitchy.


What do you mean by that? Zuikos typically have a very nice smooth focus. Perhaps your particular copy has an issue?

E.Zuiko would be an earlier lens, not the later MC - you can always tell with zuikos by the color of the coating, multicoated have purple tint in reflected light, early lenses - yellow.

As far as inexpensive, high quality, relatively light 100's go, look at Rokkor 100/2.5, Canon nFD 100/2.8 or Nikon 100/2.8.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only regular 100mm lens I have any experience with is the Canon nFD 100mm f/2.8. It isn't much bigger than a 50/1.4, so it's quite compact and quite light. But it does an excellent job, I've always found. Here are a couple of slides I shot with the nFD100 back in the late 80s. Film was Fujichrome 100 and the camera was an original Canon F-1.

Mid-Wilshire District, Downtown Los Angeles, circa 1987


IMSA race at Riverside International Raceway, Group 44 Jaguar passing a slower Camaro


You might not normally think of a 100mm lens as being good for architecture, but if you're going for more of a cropped look (which is what was after), it can work well. When I was at the race track, those areas where I could get close to the track surface itself, I found the 100mm to be just about the ideal focal length.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A Nikkor 105/2.5? It's been highly regarded, esp for its sharpness. Rumors say that Steve McCury took the famous portrait for the Afghan girl with it. The thing might not be quite light - it weighs about 1lb.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
The shots you show above look good to me, but the first one is with the E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS if we can believe the exif on Flickr?


Whoops, you are right! The first is the Olympus, but the second shot is which the Sony lens, forgot about that. I'll pick another for the post.

Quote:
At those shutterspeeds there will always be some movement blur in some shots I think?

The movement blur I'm happy with (and shot for), but being able to shoot at f/2.8 rather than f/4 would mean I'd be able to up the shutter speed a bit too without raising the ISO any further.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
What do you mean by that? Zuikos typically have a very nice smooth focus. Perhaps your particular copy has an issue?


Yep, that's what I'm thinking. It's just a bit imprecise, there's a bit of play, doesn't quite have the precision needed to nail focus on these kinds of shots. There are a lot of variables here, I realise, and most of them are down to me and not the lens. I just want to narrow down what's not human error. Smile

I figure if I shave a decade or two off the age and condition of the lens, that will help to get the best possible starting point.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many thanks to all for the examples. Some wonderful photos.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sounds like your lens may have a worn barrel/helicoid. Focus precision hasn't been a problem with my Zuikos.
The Oly OM you have is quite compact.

And the recommendations I would've made are already done by Gardener.

Nikon Series-E 100 f/2.8 is the smallest and lightest I've tried and gives up nothing optically. Very sharp and satisfying images.
I will add the Pentax S-M-C Takumar 105 f/2.8 for its size. Same size but heavier due to all metal body. The a-fore mentioned SMC Pentax-M is an updated version, great lens too.
I also have a Canon nFD 100 f/2.8, and it's a little larger, but still reasonably light. And image quality is excellent, concurring with cooltouch's opinion.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jiaming wrote:
A Nikkor 105/2.5? It's been highly regarded, esp for its sharpness. Rumors say that Steve McCury took the famous portrait for the Afghan girl with it. The thing might not be quite light - it weighs about 1lb.

Very good suggestion.

Rorslett: "The 105/2.5 is a killer combination on the D3. Even set wide open, high-contrast. bitingly sharp images result. "
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html

The AIS version. Cheaper than OM, probably. That is a VERY famous lens, and can take it WO. I doubt you can do better for the money.

Remember the older ones are a different Sonnar lens, while the later version is D gauss. The Sonnar is also a great lens, but the newer AI or AIS Gauss (1972+) are going to be stronger.

The really famous concert lens is the nikkor 180/2.8 ED, which is about 250USD and the only 180s or 200s which can beat it WO are much more money. Even those are not sharper but do have nicer bokeh.

All that said, 135 might be worth a try also. Smile Not sure which 135/2.8 is best at 2.8. The OM is pretty good and very small. Smile The Leitz 135 elmarits are absolutely gorgeous and strong WO, but will run 300 bucks.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:41 am    Post subject: Re: 100-125mm Smaller Options Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:

Are there small, light, fast, sharp 100-125mm options out there?
OM 100 f/2.8 weighs 300gm, 49mm filter, and 6.5cm long (with the adaptor too)


you should take a look at the MC Kaleinar-5N 100mm f/2.8 (380g, 63mm long and uses 52mm filter)







PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
you should take a look at the MC Kaleinar-5N 100mm f/2.8 (380g, 63mm long and uses 52mm filter)


That does look interesting, thanks.

Quote:
All that said, 135 might be worth a try also


135s seem to be (with some exceptions, and I have at least one - Takumar SMC 135/3.5) slower to focus, have really long focus pulls, or both, and are more difficult to use when people are moving around quite a bit. Plus they are usually, out of necessity, a bit bigger.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Check out Woodrim's shots with the tiny Topcor RE, lens specs on second page
http://forum.mflenses.com/tokyo-kogaku-re-auto-topcor-100-2-8-t53073.html


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Check out Woodrim's shots with the tiny Topcor RE, lens specs on second page
http://forum.mflenses.com/tokyo-kogaku-re-auto-topcor-100-2-8-t53073.html


That Topcor 10cm does look to be an amazing lens, but I've tended to avoid the Exakta mount lenses because the adapters seem to be very expensive.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:
Quote:
Check out Woodrim's shots with the tiny Topcor RE, lens specs on second page
http://forum.mflenses.com/tokyo-kogaku-re-auto-topcor-100-2-8-t53073.html


That Topcor 10cm does look to be an amazing lens, but I've tended to avoid the Exakta mount lenses because the adapters seem to be very expensive.

Yes the adapter is generally more expensive but on the upside Exakta mount lenses are usually cheaper to buy lol


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Yes the adapter is generally more expensive but on the upside Exakta mount lenses are usually cheaper to buy lol


Opening a new door for me is never cheaper. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Kaleinar 100 2.8 is an excellent choice.

And it does wonders on portraits.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OM Zuiko 100/2.8,Pentax M 100/2.8 and Minolta 100/2.5 "plain" MD are the smallest of all my 17,100mm/or so,normal (i.e. not macro) lenses.The Rolleinar 105/2.8 in QBM mount (Mamiya made) comes very close in size,but it's not 100mm.The rest (Zeiss C/Y,Zeiss N,Zeiss E,Canon nFD/SSC,Minolta Rokkor/MD,Konica AR,Nikon,Fujinon X/m42,Pentacon,Mamiya 645) is longer and heavier.

Anything faster than that is larger/much larger,with one exemption - the Canon nFD 100/2.0 - only 4cm longer and about 1,5 times heavier than it's 100/2.8 nFD brother.Sharp from f2 on the Sony A7 series cameras (A7/A7II/A7R),but 2-3 times more expensive.

If you look around 100/2.8,you can find some faster options among slightly shorter focal lenghts/ratios than the Zuiko,Pentax M 100/2.8,Minolta MD 100/2.5.Yet they are fairly small/lightweight and at similar price level still.The most interesting are as follows:

Canon nFD 85/1.8
Nikkor Ai/AIS 85/2.0
OM E-Zuiko 85/2.0
Rolleinar MC 85/2.0 (Mamiya made)

And 2-3 times more expensive lenses,worth the money,featuring better overall IQ, (wo at least as good as the OM 100/2.8 )

Minolta MD Rokkor/"plain" MD 85/2.0
Olympus OM Zuiko MC/Japan 85/2
Zeiss 85/2.0 HFT/or not (german made) - extremly small,beautiful,vintage Zeiss Sonnar look
Roleinar HFT 85/2.0 HFT - brother of the above from Singapore - QBM or m42 mount - best copies are on par (almost)
Leica R Summicron R 90/2.0
Leica R Elmarit R 90/2.8
Nikkor AiS 105/2.5

You can also consider lenses of the size/focal ratio comparable to the OM 100/2.8 Zuiko and the ones mentioned above,with better IQ wide open,priced 2-2,5x higher:

- Zeiss G Sonnar 90/2.8-with adapter it is actually shorter on the A7 series cameras than OM 100/2.8
- Zeiss C/Y Sonnar 85/2.8
- Zeiss C/Y Sonnar 100/3.5

Zuiko 90/2.0 Macro,Nikkor AIS 105/1.8,Zuiko 100/2.0 are excellent lenses,but significantly bulkier,heavier and way more expensive.

Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2