Oly 100f/2.8 or 135f/2.8?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by DaveyA, Mar 25, 2013.

  1. DaveyA

    DaveyA Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 12, 2013
    I am eagerly awaiting delivery of the 45mm lens that was part of the deal when purchasing my new EM5. It doesn't take too long to start drooling over different lenses. I would like a longer lens and especially the 75mm 1.8, but that will have to wait for now. Something more affordable like the 135f/ 2.8 seems like an option, but I was wondering whether the 100mm would be worth considering. They seem to be pretty thin on the ground but look much more compact. Is there much to choose between the two apart from one being more compact but lacking a little bit of length?
  2. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    You already nailed the big advantage to the 100mm/2.8. The thing is tiny!
  3. Glenn S

    Glenn S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 1, 2010
    I have both and size with either is not an issue but I can tell you the 100mm is a gem of a lens, considerably better IMHO than the 135mm. It would certainly be my choice to keep if I had to sell one.
  4. DaveyA

    DaveyA Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 12, 2013
    Am I right in thinking I need an adaptor to mount these lenses? If so do both lenses take the same adaptor?
  5. PaulGiz

    PaulGiz Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 3, 2013
    Rhode Island, USA
    You're talking legacy lenses, right? If so, Oly had a nice 135mm/f3.5 that was sharp and very small for a 135. I believe it has a built in retracting lens hood. I had one for my OM bodies and got some amazing shots of the 1986 Cycling World Championships with it.

    It should be readily available and much less expensive than either of the other 2 options.

  6. Glenn S

    Glenn S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 1, 2010
    Yes you need an adaptor but it fits all OM Zuiko lenses
  7. marcsitkin

    marcsitkin Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 24, 2013
    Harwich, MA USA
    Real Name:
    Marc Sitkin
    I have an Oly 135 f3.5 and it's very sharp. There is a photo I shot with it on the adapted lens sample thread, one of the most rescent postings. I have a16x20 print on the table in front of me, and it's "scary sharp".

    I also have a Nikkor 100mm f2.8 E series which I'm still testing. It's considerably more compact, and early results seem good. I'll post some to the sample forum once I get to it.

    Big difference in feel and effective focal length. Like a 200 compared to almost a 300 in FF. Neither was very expensive, however.
  8. fluberman

    fluberman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 19, 2012
    Real Name:
    You are aware that these lenses are legacy manual lenses and not native m43 lenses, aren't you? You need an OM to m43 adaptor, and it can be used on both lenses.

    I have both the 100mm and 135mm lenses. In fact, I had also the 135mm f3.5, but then sold it in favour of the 135mm f2.8. The 100mm is very good lens, better then the 135mm, and sharp wide open. Being said, the 135mm is not bad either. It has a built-in lens hood and the size is not big as well.

    You can see some samples photos taken with the 100mm in this thread:
  9. Narnian

    Narnian Nobody in particular ...

    Aug 6, 2010
    Midlothian, VA
    Real Name:
    Richard Elliott
    If you're looking down the pike at the Oly 75 maybe you should look at an 85mm. I have the 85/2.0 Minolta and there are lots of 85mm options out there. I have the Pentax 100/2.8 and that is a really nice lens but I usually grab the 85mm nowadays. I also figure it would pair nicely with a 135/2.8 later on.
  10. DaveyA

    DaveyA Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 12, 2013
    Well there is certainly food for thought here. There are more options than I realised. The good thing is that most of the lenses, except for the really exotic, are not prohibitively expensive. I suppose I could build up a nice collection over a period of time.
    Sorry, I realised my mistake in posting in the native lens section. But thanks for clearing up what type of adaptor I need.