o.t. om 100/2.8

[back alley]

just won an oly 100/2.8 off ebay.
$142.
a bit more than i wanted to pay but these are normally going for more than i want to pay .
but not as pricey as the 85/2.

joe

[ruben]

The Zuiko 100/2.8 is an excellent glass. I own one. The problem comes afterwards, in resisting to own the 85/2 despite its price. The 85/2 is extremely tempting because of its range, enabling you to shoot headshots at close distances, in which the 50 is too wide and the 100 too close.

But after I bought the 85/2 I found myself not using anymore the 100 as my basic kit is 24-35-50-85-135-200: too crowded already.

Cheers,
Ruben

[kbg32]

It's a nice little lens. Enjoy it Joe!

[KoNickon]

It seems that's a standard pattern among SLR owners: The 100 or 105/2.8 is the first portrait tele you get, since it's significantly less expensive than the 85 or 90/2 or faster of that brand. But everyone still wants to get the fast 85/90 all the same. And like Ruben says, the 100/105 tends to get used less since it's in between 85/90 and 135.

[Sparrow]

Far more sensible than the 85 or 100 f2 :)


is there a tongue in cheek icon? :D



It’s a better filter size, anyway

[Xmas]

They are light and compact and if you can only afford one lens.

I have two.

Noel

[back alley]

well, that's me...sensible!
not.

more like this opportunity was there and i took it. i still will eventually get an 85...and i have the 90 hex for the zi if need be.

and i have that 70-150 zoom if i really really need the 85 length.
the 105 has long been a fav for portraits anyway so 100 is pretty darn close.
it's small and light which i like. i can pair it with the 28 or 35 for a small and light kit and keep the 300 in the car if i want/need it.

[ruben]

In my case it is not about what I have, it is more about what I don't.:D

[back alley]

well ruben, just to update you, since your exit from rff i have so far collected...
oly 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 100/2.8, 135/3.5, 180/2.8, 200/5, 300/4.5 - and oly 28-48/4, 35-70/4, 75-150/4
vivitar 19-35, 50/2.8 macro

[amateriat]

Far more sensible than the 85 or 100 f2 :)


is there a tongue in cheek icon? :D



It’s a better filter size, anyway I sometimes feel wistful for my old 100 f/2...and the OM-3 it was frequently attached to.

The f/2.8 is a little gem, though.


- Barrett

[ruben]

well ruben, just to update you, since your exit from rff i have so far collected...
oly 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 100/2.8, 135/3.5, 180/2.8, 200/5, 300/4.5 - and oly 28-48/4, 35-70/4, 75-150/4
vivitar 19-35, 50/2.8 macro


I guarantee you Maitani has many more surprises out there.:) which I refrain to mention for the wellfare of your family.

[Trius]

Joe: Here's a tip regarding the 100/2.8, and the 100mm focal length in general ...

It's for more than portraits. I remember "way back when", when I was just learning the photo ropes. I was headed out to the Rockies. My photo tutor advised me to use the 100, rather than a wide lens, for mountain shots.

He explained that while our tendency is to use a wide to "get it all in", the perspective of a wide angle results in tiny little mountains in the background, and the impact is gone.

Of course, you know all this, but since everyone immediately thinks of "portrait" when we talk about lenses in the 90-135mm range, I thought it would be worth a reminder. I primarily use the 100 for isolation. If it's a face, so be it; but I look for shapes and details that benefit from the 100mm perspective.

Oh, and the 100 with a set of auto extension rings ... that's a useful oBoy search. :angel:

[xayraa33]

the Zuiko 100/2.8 is a gem of a lens.
you will soon forget what you paid for it Joe, once you start savouring the images you will make with this wonderful compact lens.

[kbg32]

I've always lusted for the 18mm Zuiko.

[Trius]

24mm shift (http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/24mmf35.htm).

[giellaleafapmu]

I've always lusted for the 18mm Zuiko.

Well if it is dreams we are speaking about, then I wouldn't mind having any of the
180mm f2.0, 250mm f2.0 or 350mm f2.8...

Giella lea Fapmu

[amateriat]

Well if it is dreams we are speaking about, then I wouldn't mind having any of the
180mm f2.0, 250mm f2.0 or 350mm f2.8...

Giella lea Fapmu No, no...goes too hard against the core of the OM concept, IMO. The 180 f/2.8, which I owned around the same time as the 100 f/2, is fantastic in every possible way, including size...about as big as anything I'd care to put in front of an OM body. Not cheap (then or now), but far, far less than that monster f/2, and far more likely to actually get used.


- Barrett

[ruben]

Ho people, we shouldn't jump too fast to the higher echelons of the OM system, otherwise we may block the road. Why not throwing some cheaper bones as the sharpie, super cute, ultra pocketable, dirty cheap Zuiko 500 ? No clients for it ? No wishes ? Can any decent slr user, not to speak about The Perfect OM User, afford not having a 500 ?
Ok, then why not one of the Zuiko 50 macros ? Can one rest in peace without them ? How could you avoid sending a finger to the heavens of macrophotography without them ?

[Trius]

Either 50 macro is wonderful, the 50/2 a little more versatile as it is useful for lower light, candid shooting as well.

And while we're at it, the 90/2 macro. Joe, you may want to look for that instead of the 85/2. ;)

[oscroft]

I love the 100/2.8 - it's one of my favourite SLR focal lengths (I think it plus the 35/2.8 makes a great 2-lens combination). Mind you, I still want an 85/2 too.

[back alley]

And while we're at it, the 90/2 macro. Joe, you may want to look for that instead of the 85/2....

oh great...;)

[giellaleafapmu]

No, no...goes too hard against the core of the OM concept, IMO. The 180 f/2.8, which I owned around the same time as the 100 f/2, is fantastic in every possible way, including size...about as big as anything I'd care to put in front of an OM body. Not cheap (then or now), but far, far less than that monster f/2, and far more likely to actually get used.


- Barrett

Mmmmh, may be but just give me any of the lenses I mentioned and I am sure I will have quite a use for it. A 180 f2.8 would also be good and, in fact, also the 200 f4.0 I own is all-right but all these guys go most of the times with a tripod anyway, so no problems for the size... I have been to trips with two Nikon bodies and 7 lenses, a Mamiya 6x6 with three lenses and a Cambo monorail with two lenses and ten holders + Polaroid I don't get scared by a lens as the 180 f2.0 because of its size... Now, the price is what really scares me:D

Giella lea Fapmu

[sevres_babylone]

The 100 2.8 is one of my favourite zuikos. I bought it after reading an article praising the 100 F2 in Photo Techniques, and then not being able to afford it. The F2 focuses quite a bit closer, i believe, but as has been mentioned is quite a bit larger and much more expensive.

I found the 2.8 to be incredibly sharp, and it is so-o-o compact. I remember I was shooting an outdoor dance performance, and a photographer friend, who was shooting with his Canons, thought I was shooting with a 50mm.

I prefer the 100 2.8 to my 85 F2; I have never had much luck with the latter wide open, but then again some people like its softness for portraiture, and to be fair, much of the time I've been disappointed, I had been shooting in very dim circumstances with very slow shutter speeds (vive the R-D1!). I think, though, that the 100 2.8 wide open is sharper than the 85 at 2.8.

It is my intention to use my OM equipment when the weather turns bad, and I don't want to use the R-D1, but right now I'm hoping this current spring weather will last until...spring.

[xayraa33]

The 100 2.8 is one of my favourite zuikos. I bought it after reading an article praising the 100 F2 in Photo Techniques, and then not being able to afford it. The F2 focuses quite a bit closer, i believe, but as has been mentioned is quite a bit larger and much more expensive.

I found the 2.8 to be incredibly sharp, and it is so-o-o compact. I remember I was shooting an outdoor dance performance, and a photographer friend, who was shooting with his Canons, thought I was shooting with a 50mm.

I prefer the 100 2.8 to my 85 F2; I have never had much luck with the latter wide open, but then again some people like its softness for portraiture, and to be fair, much of the time I've been disappointed, I had been shooting in very dim circumstances with very slow shutter speeds (vive the R-D1!). I think, though, that the 100 2.8 wide open is sharper than the 85 at 2.8.

It is my intention to use my OM equipment when the weather turns bad, and I don't want to use the R-D1, but right now I'm hoping this current spring weather will last until...spring.

I agree with Jack on this one, I remember how dissapointed I was years ago at how soft the 85/2 Zuiko was at F 2 and F 2.8
no such problem with the 100/2.8, this is one sharp lens.

[Trius]

Not only is it sharp, but it is pleasing ... at least to my eyes. The contrast, transitions to OOF areas, etc., are all deceptively nice. I don't find it too sharp for portraits, but I can see that sometimes you might need to diffuse a bit.

[Peter Klein]

Isn't it interesting how there is often an Olympus SLR and Zuiko lenses in a rangefinder person's past or present? It makes sense when you think about it. Both are small, light, beautifully engineered, have excellent optics, and a bit of a cult following. :-)

The 100/2.8 is a wonderful lens. Enjoy it. I still use mine on my E-1, along with a 50/3.5 macro and a 50/1.4 for available light. Somehow, I haven't shot my OM-2 much since I went RF, though.

--Peter

[Trius]

I just found some Kodachromes (and a couple of Agfachromes) from '75, '78, '80, '82, etc. First off, they are in great condition vis-a-vis colour; they do need some minor cleaning (dust, a little bit of gunk), but things will be good.

Second, there are some shots made with the 100/2.8. One in particular is one of my favourite casual portraits. Once I get it properly scanned and processed, you will see what this lens is all about. ;)

[Trius]

And Peter: Yes, it's very interesting. I have to admit my OM has not been getting as much playtime as some other cameras. I'll take it along today.

[Trius]

Haven't gotten my slide(s) scanned yet (been busy AND they need some cleaning/attention for dust, etc.,) but I did think of a 100/2.8 shot. It's been posted before, but maybe worth seeing it again in this context.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/97/235427529_da3e8c77d7.jpg?v=0

[back alley]

garlic man!
guaranteed to turn your beard white...

nice shot earl.

[mike goldberg]

That's a good piece of glass... comparable with the Nikkor 105/2.5.
There's richness of detail here, great color rendition & use of DOF.
Ciao, mike

[KoNickon]

There's a story behind Garlic Man -- would love to know it.

Regarding Peter's comment, actually I came to own OMs well after I got involved with rangefinders. I had read some comments that they weren't really up to snuff as compared with the N, C and L brands, and I wasn't crazy about the OM-1 my college roommate had. (Film speed dial where the shutter speed dial should be? What's up with that?) But I always loved the looks of the cameras. Having now gotten the chance to acquire a few along with some lenses, I must say I am most impressed with the picture quality too, and the smoothness of the OMs' operation.

[Trius]

There's a story behind Garlic Man -- would love to know it.

<snip> (Film speed dial where the shutter speed dial should be? What's up with that?)
C, N, L are all BACKWARDS...

The story of Garlic Man, Ted Maczka ... yes, there is quite a story. It's sorta long, so I'll work on it for another time. Not like I'm the official biographer, but I do know him personally. He knows more about garlic than probably just about anyone else in the world... and he knows a thing or two about the Avro Arrow.

[Trius]

Mike: Thanks. Yes, it is. BTW, Superia 1600 shot at 800, f4/125s, handheld. Not as sharp as I'd like, but I'm not great on PS.