OM 85/2 , 100/2.8 or Rokker 100/2.5 ?

chef... this will help you in your assessment of older Minolta lenses... the 'Rokkor Files'...
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/

Bokeh D

 

yea ya need a good fast 85ish f2 ish

i use the contax g 90 mm 2.8 incredibly sharp about 200$ on the used market but a pain to focus , is it is however one of the sharpest lenses in history IMHO

i also have the 85 1.8 af nikkor , a cool lens but not incredibly sharp

 

Hi,

I filled the gap with this lens :

http://www.samdobsonphotography.com/samyang-85mm-f1-4-review-nikon/

Not far out of your budget in NEW state.
And a very sharp lens, and a full stop faster than what you mentionned.
I'm very happy with it !

CU,
Rafael

 

ive heard a lot of good opinion on the very fast Samyang 85

on micro 4\3 thats 170mm eqiiv f 1.4 incredible....magical numbers ....unheard of speed
at that focal equiv.

 

unfortunately not but i will shoot a test photo wide open and post it soon

 

http://e-p1.net/index.php?topic=1065.msg7645#msg7645


here is a link to a modification i did to help th tiny focus wheel spin faster when manual focusing with the contax g to micro 4\3 adapter

ill post some pics of the lens in action soon

 

I'm waiting for my Rokkor 100mm f2.5 to arrive, should be here any day now. From all accounts, this is a very good lens. I picked up mine, supposedly in mint condiiton, for $85. I've seen more on eBay for a little bit more.

Cheers

Ray

 

it a rainy very grey day in nyc so i cant shoot outdoors but here is a sharpness assessment done with a small still life shot at 2.8 and then same shot at f8 ......shutter priority 1\160 sec .tripod and flash iso 400 on the ep1 [works great on my gf1 too]

"full size" jpgs are in the gallery for both images for close up inspection .........shot large \fine\ jpeg
contax G 90 mm f 2.8 at 2.8 iso 400

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

contax G 90m f 2.8 at f 8

 

Yep, I've been looking at that one.. I need a replacement for my Minolta Maxxum AF 85/1.4 G that I foolishly sold about six years ago... now it's worth a thousand dollars. Now, THAT was sharp, and all about bokeh.

B Diem.

 

bear in mind that the sharpness at 2.8 is but a shallow zone but is bigger at greater distances these shots were close ups from about 3 feet, look in the gallery for the large size of the 2.8 shot i manually focused on the 2" mark on the ruler ,so part of the lens characters and part of the silver cigarette case and part of the tapestry also are in this shallow plane of fpcus look there to judge its sharpness
when this lens is used at greater distances this sliver of focus zone expands alot
at about 8 feet the zone of sharp focus is more that a foot deep etc as a landscape lens it has the dof one would expect to see on a 90 mm lens[or 180  ]

 

copied from the contax g user pages , another opinion ,
[ below in quotations]

in mho
the g lenses are very highly regarded wherever an opinion has been offered ,
ive got the 45 and the 90 and i feel they are both the best of breed
exceeding even leica at least in sharpness.... if not build quality, bokeh and color rendition where some feel leica has an edge


copied

" ...........Contax G and Leica: Image Quality

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed comparison between these two fine cameras. If you don't mind, I have a few quick follow-up questions for you. One - do you feel that the image quality produced by the G2 is comparable with that of the M6. I understand that these are very different animals, and that all lenses produce slightly warmer/colder effects, but are the images of comparable sharpness/contrast etc.?

I don't currently own an M Leica (I think I sold my M4-P system in about 1990), so I can't answer this question by making side-by-side comparisons. All I can do is look at pictures in my files that I shot with my various M's and lenses, and compare them to ones I've shot more recently with the G's. This poses the risk of some distortions: for example, films have improved over the years, and this might make current pictures look better than older ones for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the cameras or lenses. And it's possible that my shooting technique has gotten better... although then again, it may have gotten worse!

Still, keeping these caveats in mind, I'd have to say that my overall impression is that the G's image quality is at least equal to the images I got from the Leica, and in many cases it's significantly better. This doesn't really surprise me, for a couple of reasons:

-- All the Zeiss lenses for the G were brand-new, fresh designs taking advantage of the latest computation techniques and optical glasses; many Leica lenses are either based on old designs (some going back to the '50s!) or "ports" from the Leica SLR line, which means they can't take advantage of the shorter depth allowed by a non-SLR body.

-- All the G lenses are pretty conservative in terms of speed and specs. Yes, the 90mm f/2.8 Sonnar gives substantially better images than either the 90mm f/2 Summicron or 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit I used to have. But what else would you expect? The Summicron is a full stop faster, and high-speed lenses are harder to design; the Tele-Elmarit was designed specifically for extreme compactness and light weight, so it used a very simplified optical design (only 4 elements.)

I always considered the pictures I got with my Leica lenses very satisfactory (except occasionally from the older of my two 90mm f/2 Summicrons, which was sharp but flarey at full aperture, and from my 50mm f/1.5 Summarit, which badly flared any light sources in the picture area -- sometimes a pretty effect, but other times NOT what I wanted!) But the current G lenses seem significantly better overall. Their most striking quality to me is something I call "microcontrast" -- even small details are imaged with very clear edge definition, which gives a remarkable richness to textures such as fabric and skin. In fact, I'd say that the three G lenses I currently own (35mm f/2 I just got, 45mm f/2, and 90mm f/2.8) are the best lenses in those categories of any I've ever owned or used.

If you prefer "objective" measurement, I think you'll find my impressions are generally borne out by lens tests in back issues of 'Pop Photo' -- the G lenses have tested at least as well as and usually better than any Leica equivalents. (I put more confidence in the 'Pop Photo' tests than some of those quoted so reverently on rec.photo for two reasons: 'Pop' uses very sophisticated statistical techniques to relate its raw numbers to real-world performance; and, you can check the actual magazine articles, rather than having to just rely on net.hearsay!)

Again, though, keep in mind that sharpness isn't the only thing -- for example, if you really need an f/1.4 medium tele, the Leica system has it and the Contax G system doesn't........................"

 

glad to hear it leica quality at 1\10 the price


enjoy them , i love contax and was deeply saddened when they went belly up

i hope the brand is revived for a new generation of digital

voigtlander is finding quite a niche in the digital world for leica digital and micro 4\3