85mm f/2 vs. 100mm f/2 OM Zuiko: help me decide!

<p>Hi Fellow Olympus fans,<br>

I want to buy a portrait lens for my OM system. Intended use is available light candid portraits. I like the classic look of subject in sharp focus, against beautiful background bokeh.<br /><br />I own and use Bronica SQ stuff, and Micro 4/3 stuff, but for this particular application, the sweet spot might be using my OM-2n with either the OM Zuiko 85mm f/2 or the 100mm f/2. Less cumbersome than medium format; shallower (i.e. better, in this case) DOF than Micro 4/3 for given FOV.<br /><br />I've read a lot about these two lenses on this forum and elsewhere, and know that the 100 f/2 is harder to find, more expensive, larger and heavier, and has 9 (as opposed to 8) aperture blades. I don't care about filter size. If I go with the 85, I'd opt for one of the later MC versions.<br>

There are multiple comments about the 100 f/2 vs. the 100 f/2.8, but very little about the 100 f/2 vs. the 85 f/2.<br /><br />Has anyone used both of these? Any opinions, or actual examples, of bokeh and sharpness?<br>

Thanks<br>

-Tom<br>

[this question also posted in APUG]</p>

 

<p>I think you will find plenty of 100 2.8 vs 85 f/2 threads, so if the 100 f/2.8 is better than the 85 and the 100 f/2 is better than the 100 f/2.8, you have your answer!</p>

 

<p>I used to own the 100mm f/2.8, and loved it. The extra focal length means that you don't need such a drastic aperture to get a smaller depth of field (I was even stopped down to f/4 for much of it), and it's a little bit longer perspective, which I enjoyed. </p>

<p>They're apples and oranges in terms of focal lengths. If the 100mm is your choice of focal lengths, the f/2 gives you better <em>conventional IQ</em>, easier focusing, less DOF than the /2.8. The 85/2 is more hand holdable at low speeds and renders a more volumetric image. Check the portraits of Jane Bown who used an 85mm extensivelyalong with a 50 during a long and successful career. I still have the 85/2 and a 100/2.8</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tom - do you actually even have a choice of getting the RARE Olympus OM 100/2 Zuiko ED? If so just snag it... the OM Zuiko 100/2 ED. I have used both the Zuiko 100/2 ED and Zuiko 100/2.8 and the 100/2 is just superb, besides a shallow DOF at f2, the color rendition and sharpness is exceptional. I found the 100/2.8 a good lens but nothing like 100/2. Its a bit heavy but not so much you will need a tripod. On a fullframe digital SLR its actually a perfect weight. The 100/2 is very very rare here is photo of it on my camera and a example portrait with the Canon 5D Mark I in my port if you havent seen one before.</p>

<p>The Zuiko 85/2 I hear only great things so if you can NOT get the 100/2 then get the 85/2. The focal length is for classic bread and butter portraits. The only thing is it is not ED glass like the 100/2.</p><div></div>

<p>Luis, I don't know if I'd call them apples and oranges focal lengths. They're both medium telephotos, with only about 15% difference in focal length, which is almost the same perspective. It's effectively negligible, and I'd say that most photographers would be very hard pressed to be able to identify the differences. In terms of use, it's a matter of a step forwards or back. You couldn't find two more similar lenses if you tried.</p>

<p>The 85/2 was specifically designed as a portrait lens "for obtaining soft focus effect by operating it in such a mode that slight symmetrical coma will remain with resolution kept at high level " (from the US patent 4063802 relating to the later, multicoated version) whereas the 100/2 (and 100/2.8) were optimized as general purpose (higher contrast) lenses. This agrees with my own experience with all three lenses (based on film; with digital now, Photoshop will allow you easily to reduce contrast and/or simulate various soft focus effects).<br>

The 100/2 isn't too difficult to find, only expect to pay a substantial price.</p>

<p>Thanks gentlemen, for all the great replies. Keep them coming! I appreciate every one of them. Rob H, that OM-3 rig with the 100mm is drop dead GORGEOUS. Konrad, that info from the US patent is seriously arcane, and interesting.</p>

<p>- Tom S.</p>

<p>Luis, I checked out some of Jane Bown's photos online. Those are some beautiful portraits. Thanks very much for that reference. Some commentator wrote that she typically shot 1/60 at f/2.8 with the 85mm. </p>

<p>- Tom S.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob H, that OM-3 rig with the 100mm is drop dead GORGEOUS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Tom. Its probably the only photo you will ever see of a Olympus OM3 and Zuiko 100/2 ED lens together. Both are beyond RARE.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 100/2 isn't too difficult to find, only expect to pay a substantial price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe in 1985. Today its probably easier to find a white jaguar than a Olympus OM 100/2 Zuiko ED lens, those puppies are extremely RARE. There are just not many left. See if you can find more than one or two for sale anywhere. I agree with you about the expensive price part though.</p>

There is one of the 100 f/2 on the bay right now for about a grand

<p>Yeah, that's the thing about ebay. It's given rise to a lot of speculators that buy up collectible camera gear, and then jack up the price to rich hobbyists, making a lot of gear unattainable or unrealistic to buy or use. If anyone dares list a lens for less than them, they snatch it up so that they control the market and pricing. A few sales a month to desperate collectors, and they get to stay in business and sit around fat and happy. If I had a 30 year old 100mm f/2.0 lens, there's no way I would use it when I could get $700+ for it online. Anyway, if Jane Brown's photos are 85mm at f/2.8, with a 100mm f/2 you'd have less than half the DOF shot wide open, so it may be worth it to you to just get the 100mm f/2.8 and "put up with" its lesser optical quality.</p>

<p>On the bright side, if you really want 100mm f/2, it's relatively easy to achieve, if you're willing to be flexible. You can buy a used Canon EOS film body for relatively nothing, and just throw the EOS 100mm f/2 lens on the front, which you can buy new for less than $500 today (currently $464 at Adorama, or a whopping $370 used). The Canon FD 100mm f/2 is pretty decent too, and it's selling for about half of the Olympus price, and AE-1's are cheapo repo, but personally, I couldn't bring myself to pay EOS prices for FD gear. Or grab yourself any of the dime-a-dozen Nikon film bodies, auto or manual focus, and grab yourself a Nikon 105mm f/2 DC lens, which costs the same as the OM lens, but has a warranty, repair parts availability, and has defocus control to play with the bokeh. The portrait lens can live on the camera body.</p>

<p>Rob,</p>

<blockquote>Thanks Tom. Its probably the only photo you will ever see of a Olympus OM3 and Zuiko 100/2 ED lens together. Both are beyond RARE.</blockquote>

<p>Snap, not so rare after all... <a href="../photo/16441214&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/16441214&size=lg</a> :-)<br>

But, it is avery nice combination. I've used the 85/2, 100/2.8 & the 100/2 - no contest in my opinion, the 100/2 is a great lens, grab one if you get the chance & <strong>make sure you use it</strong>.</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Snap, not so rare after all... But, it is avery nice combination. I've used the 85/2, 100/2.8 & the 100/2 - no contest in my opinion, the 100/2 is a great lens, grab one if you get the chance & make sure you use it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>I have shot with both chrome and color negative film with the OM-3 and 100mm f2 ED Zuiko many times</strong> <strong>all with outstanding results.</strong> Kodak 160 Portra was my all time color film favorite with the Olympus OM Zuiko 100mm f2 ED. When focusing the Zuiko 100/2 at f2.0 the DOF is very shallow so focusing manual is a challenge hand held. Shooting B&W film though you dont get to take advantage of the color rendition from the ED glass in the 100/2 Zuiko. As I mentioned already, I have shot with 100/2.8 lens and yes I agree... no contest.</p>

<p><strong>And yes it is indeed RARE.</strong> You just happen to be 2nd person besides me ever that I know of that has shot with this combo. Actually wish there were more photographers that shot with this combo. ;)</p>

<p>Original poster here...</p>

<p>I just purchased a late-model 85mm f/2 (SN 207,xxx) and should be getting it in the mail later this week. Theoretically, the ED glass in the 100 f/2 should produce sharper images, even in B&W, but this might not make much practical difference for me, because I tend to use minus-blue filtration for portraits, most of which I print in B&W. If I get a chance to buy or borrow a 100 f/2, I would like to compare it to the 85 f/2, and if so, will post the comparison on photo.net.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone, for contributing to a fascinating thread.</p>

<p>- Tom S.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have never handled the 100mm f2 lens so I can't compare but I have owned an 85mm f2 (s/n 218xxx) for many years and find it to be a very good lens. I did a bit of research on the design and posted my findings on this forum (13 April 2012). The lens is about as sharp as most Zuiko lenses; certainly sharpness, or lack of it, is not an issue for me. What I do notice about this lens is a nice smooth bokeh. I mean, you notice it on a 6x4" print, a print size that does not test the lens sharpness at all. As I said in my post, very sonnar-like. I think you will be very pleased with this lens. Good luck! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I do notice about this lens is a nice smooth bokeh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bigger isnt always better.</p>

<p>Although I am certainly one of the few photographers that have shot with this Olympus OM 100mm f2 ED lens IMO the Zuiko 85/2 will give nearly as good<strong> bokeh</strong> as the Zuiko 100/2 ED. In fact with B&W there is little or no difference. You can see an example of its bokeh that I shot with the Olympus OM 100mm f2 ED and Canon 5DMKI of this flower below.</p>

<p>Another advantage is weight and focal length. If I had to choose between the 85/2 and 100/2 for <em>travel documentary portrait</em> type of photography I would go with the 85/2, its much lighter, more portable and easier to carry n the Olympus camera and shooting portaits is much more low key with 85/2 than the 100/2. Smaller cameras are always better for travel (this is why Leica is sopopular for travel photography) The 100/2 is just a lot heavier and bulkier. Also the 85/2 is a better choice for portraits in small spaces.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Here are a few shots done with my "new" OM Zuiko 85/2 that illustrate its bokeh. Aperture was either f/2 or f/2.8. Expired HP5+ at 400, HC110 dil. B, OM-2n. Scanned with Epson 3200, so not critically sharp. - Tom S.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>One more shot</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Bigger isnt always better. - Rob H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Rob H. 100%. After spending 20 min. shooting with the 85/2, I realize that at my typical working distances, the 85 mm is just about perfect, and a 100mm lens would have been too tight. The small physical size of the 85 will encourage taking it places and actually using it. I envision carrying an OM body, the 85/2, and a 50/1.8 when out and about. So far, my only beef with the 85/2 is that I wish it had a closer minimum focusing distance, but I guess that would require bigger physical size or more optical complexity as the compromise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bigger isnt always better. - Rob H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Rob H. 100%. After spending 20 min. shooting with the 85/2, I realize that at my typical working distances, the 85 mm is just about perfect, and a 100mm lens would have been too tight. The small physical size of the 85 will encourage taking it places and actually using it. I envision carrying an OM body, the 85/2, and a 50/1.8 when out and about. So far, my only beef with the 85/2 is that I wish it had a closer minimum focusing distance, but I guess that would require bigger physical size or more optical complexity as the compromise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bigger isnt always better. - Rob H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Rob H. 100%. After spending 20 min. shooting with the 85/2, I realize that at my typical working distances, the 85 mm is just about perfect, and a 100mm lens would have been too tight. The small physical size of the 85 will encourage taking it places and actually using it. I envision carrying an OM body, the 85/2, and a 50/1.8 when out and about. So far, my only beef with the 85/2 is that I wish it had a closer minimum focusing distance, but I guess that would require bigger physical size or more optical complexity as the compromise.</p>

<p>Agreed, the 85mm handles like a standard 50mm lens. I can use it hand-held at 1/60th, in that respect its just like a 50mm lens. I have a 135mm f2.8 and a 200mm f4 Zuiko and I find these lenses need a higher shutter speed (1/250th or higher) to suppress the effect of vibration. If I am going to use these longer telephotos, I favour 400 ASA film and try to keep to a higher shutter speed. My 85mm version is particularly sharp at f2.8. Gary Reece in his exhaustive testing of all Zuiko lenses notes the same thing in one of his 85mm samples (his 'Zuiko MC' sample) so it appears to be a feature of some versions.</p>

<p>Hi all, this is my first post and one of the main reasons I joined, was this thread! <br>

The 100mm f2 is such a beautiful lens! I use it with my Olympus OM1 as well as my Canon 450D with an adaptor. I was surprised at how sharp it is wide open, especially on my crop sensor SLR. I have used the 85mm f2 and although its a great lens, if i had a choice it would still be 100mm f2, even though it weighs more etc, the quality is superb!<br>

<a href="

<a href="

In saying all that, I might be selling my 100mm f2 sometime in the near future.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Keep in mind with the 85 that it has a mechanism that induces "symmetrical coma" at f/2 and f/4, which you can see with most of the boring lens tests that people have performed on this lens. So, to achieve that classic portraiture feel of a sharp subject shoot it at f/2.8 or f/5.6, and f/2-f/4 to get the "glowy" look to your portrait. Theoretically, at 2 and 4 you still have all the resolution, but you've lost acutance, although shooting at anything but a face it'll probably just look soft. If mine ever needs service, I'm going to look into having the coma-gizmo removed as I seldom shoot portraits. I'm right there with you with the focal length, if anything I'd want to go a little wider than 85, with 100 just being flat too tight. If only there was a zuiko 70mm... By the way, I've been experimenting with extension tubes, and 7mm or 12mm seems to be plenty to compensate for the lack-luster MFD, I'll have to wait for spring to really test it out though. </p>