zuiko short telephoto 85/2 vs 90/2 macro vs 100/2

<p>Wondering if anyone has used these lenses and wants to comment on which one to get and why?</p>

<p>I understand that they are all very good lenses, trying to work out which one I should get as I sadly can't afford to get all of them!!</p>

<p>Also, how much should I expect to pick up a 100/2 macro for? KEH has the following prices in USD, looking for a fair comparison.</p>

<p>90/2 macro Ex. $919 Bgn $665<br>

85/2 Ex. $325 Bgn $215</p>

<p>At the moment the 85/2 is the better option for me due to the price.</p>

<p>Well if you need macro then 90/2 is the way to go (unless you want to deal with extension tubes). The 90f2 and 100f2 are later designs with special glass so they tend to perform a bit better than the 85/2 but they also cost more. The 90f2 is optimized for macro and is a bit heavier due to tube required to reach macro but it performs well as a standard lens (other than additional weigth).<br>

If you don't need macro then only you can decide if the 100f2 or 90f2 is worth the additional premimum over the 85f2 (which is a decent performer).<br>

If you need macro then you have to decide if the hassle of using extension tube (along with reduced performance) is worth saving $$$ over the 90f2 macro.<br>

An alternative lens (if you require macro) is the tamron/tokina 90f2.5 macro. This lens is generally a good performer and rather inexpensive. You have to spend a couple of hours with google to pickout the version you want (there are 3 or 4 versions over the year with different trade offs).</p>

<p>should have explained... I want to use the lens for portrait and general photography. I don't need macro especially.</p>

<p>Can only comment on the 85/2.0 - super performer and very small - about the same size as a 50/1.4, which fits with my Olympus philosophy of "smaller is better". The 100/2.0 has ED elements and is by all accounts is a superlative performer, but at twice the weight and 2-3 times the price of the 85, for the same max aperture and an extra 15mm in FL. If I was spending that sort of cash, the 90/2.0 seems to make a whole lot more sense - same great performance, similar FL, max. aperture and bulk to the 100, but also decent (1:2) macro. Bear in mind that the 85 has the added advantage if the common 49mm filter size, whereas the 90 and 100 take 55mm.<br>

For value, the 85 wins hands down, and it's not like it's a slouch optically. I have an older "silver nose" 85, which I think is great for B+W, but apparently the newer "black nose" version is even better. While I might justify the 90 to myself, I would have a hard time justifying the 100, given that I could probably buy an 85 <em>and</em> something else (like a 21mm) for the same money.</p>

<p>I have the 85/2 and it is excellent. A caveat, the 85/2 changed designs from 6 elements in 4 groups to 5 elements in 4 groups. The later 5/4 design is superior to the earlier 6/4 design. You can tell when they switched because the earlier single coated F. zuiko lenses were of 6/4 and the later lenses do not carry and F. zuiko on them, are multicoated and are of the 5/4 design. Serial numbers are<br />- Version 1, Serial number 100,000-115,000 had F. Zuiko on the lens, chrome ring, was single coated and had the old optic design.<br />- Version 2, Serial number 116,000-130,000 had a black ring and were marked MC (multicoated) and were of the new optic design.<br />- Version 3, Serial number 200,000-221,000 were marked Zuiko MC (200-204k) or just Zuiko (204k+) and apparently in literature were labled as NMC (New Multicoating? Nano Multicoating?). There is a difference in the reflective qualities of the version of lens I have (210,xxx, the 3rd version of the 85/2) and the 50/1.4 below SN 1,1m (probably of the ‘older’ multicoated design. I suspect the 50/1.4s after SN 1.1m have the NMC coating as well).<br />I have version 3 and it is sharp wide open and very sharp from f/2.8 on. From anecdotal evidence version 1 appears to be soft wide open, but becomes sharp by around f/4.<br />For Ebay prices, I'd say a good quality 85/2 will run you from about $160-250 depending on which version and just how good a condition its in. Not sure on the 90/2, but the 100/2 seems to run anywhere from $500 if you are lucky up to about $900-1,000 on Ebay.<br />As for value as a portrait lens, the 85/2 wins hands down. Especially the later versions are sharp, small and low cost (in comparison). Frankly I want a 100/2...but as expensive as it is its a pipe dream for a few more years.<br />If you buy one of the 85/2 from KEH, call them and ask them some information on each one so that you can figure out which one you want to get.<br />PS the serial numbers for the 85/2 are correct, Olympus seems to have skipped ahead from 130,000 to 200,000 when they changed from version 2 to version 3.</p>

<p>I had a 2nd Gen 85/2 for many years and I probably should have kept it. Very nice portrait lens, pretty sharp wide open, nice bokeh, small size/weight. There's nothing not to like. You could use tubes for macro, but this is not where it excels. I think it has some coma or some other aberrations on the outsides of the field, but they don't mean much in practical applications, esp for portraits.<br>

I've still got my 90/2, and it's the only high-end Zuiko that I will probably not sell. I found it at a flea market for $450 many years ago. Heavy, with an uncharacteristic rear-mounted aperture ring. I guess they had to do that for optical reasons, but it feels very different from almost all other single focal length Zuiko lenses, as most have the aperture ring out front. It's bite-ingly sharp, much more so that the 85/2. Rendering is 3-D, almost as good as my long-gone Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8. The macro quality is superb. I used it on the 65-116 Auto Tube for a long time to good results. Highly recommended. The hood is hard to find, but recommended, as the big front element is pretty "out there". It's the same clamp-on rubber hood as spec'd for the 135/4.5 bellows lens.<br>

The 100/2 is more like a 90/2 that's had the macro ability cut out and made to look more like a typical Zuiko with the aperture ring out front. ED glass design, like the 90/2 makes the quality and rendering superb. I never had this one, but have NEVER heard of anybody who didn't think it was great. MUCH larger than the 85/2. <br>

Skip</p>

<p>I have the 90/2 and 85/2 (v3), both are great. I like the 90/2 better for reasons already mentioned. the 100/2 is slightly better specs-wise at non-macro distances, as tested by Modern Photography back in the 80s. Pricewise, ebay pricing on the 85/2 is almost always at least $240-350 (not sure where someone finds them regularly @ $160). 90/2 is usually around $700-900, and the last few 100/2s have closed in the $450-600 range. The 100/2.8 is also worth considering, quite a good lens overall and cheaper than any of these other 3 mentioned. I had one of those for a while too.</p>

<p>-Ed</p>

 

<p>I saw a couple of earlier V1 85/2s sell around 160 in so-so condition (fine glass). Mostly I see them selling in the low $200s on Ebay.</p>

<p>Hmmm, $450-600 you say. I guess I haven't been keeping track of the 100/2s very much lately. That is almost in my price range, well almost in my 'my wife will kill me and make me sleep on the couch for a week' price range, but I feel it would be worth it.</p>

<p>Of the three Olympus OM Zuiko portrait prime lens choices you mention, you really can't go wrong with any of them and I agree with many of the posters about these lenses. You have picked the top 3 portrait prime lenses of the entire Olympus OM line. Which ever one you choose you will have fantastic portraits!</p>

<p>That being said I ran across a thread post from a few years ago here on your exact same problem (yes this topic has been mentioned many times) with which portrait lenses to choose, they talk about the exact lenses you have mentioned and it's interesting what everybody's responses were back then:<br>

<a href="../olympus-camera-forum/00INNw">http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00INNw</a></p>

<p>But if you want my opinion, I have owned the Olympus OM Zuiko 100mm f2 ED portrait for years both on a Olympus OM-3 film SLR (yes the rare one!) and the Canon 5D EOS Full Frame digital (with adapter) and the lens performs fantastically on both film/digital cameras. Hands down the Zuiko 100/2 ED is the finest portrait lens in the Olympus OM system and the one I recommend out of the three for portraits IMO. The 100/2 ED beats the other two because it has ED (Extra Dispersion glass). From what you said, you are not interested in macro. That really leaves you with 2 choices: the Zuiko 85/2 or 100/2 ED. If you are on a budget get the 85/2 and you will be fine but make sure its the later versions V2 or V3 as mentioned above. But if you have a bigger budget go for the Zuiko 100/2 ED. Matthew Newton was actually closer to the price range and yes they are pricey because they are rare, expect a range from $600-$1350 for the OM Zuiko 100/2 ED lens. If you are serious contact me as in my area someone right now has two OM Zuiko 100/2 ED lenses (yes two of these rare lenses!!) for sale in that price range. So for portraits the best in this order: 100/2 ED, 90/2 macro and 85/2. For macro: 90/2, 100/2 ED and the 85/2. Don't forget the 100/2 ED has some macro ability focusing at .7 meters and 1:5 life size which is not bad for any portrait lens, not near as good as the 90/2 macro at 1:2 life size, but since you are more into portraits like me, this lens is the perfect choice out of the three you mentioned. Hope this helps!</p>