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

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by chefkenny, Mar 29, 2010.

  1. chefkenny

    chefkenny Mu-43 Regular

    61
    Mar 10, 2010
    Florida
    Hey all, looking for some opinions to pickup a lens between 50 to 135. Since I have the 50/1.4 and 135/3.2 I am looking for something between that range so won't get a huge gap. Was searching online and have mixed reviews for OM 85/2 and 100/2.8 also Rokker 100/2.5 could be an option too. Any input will be appreciated. BTW the highest I can pay is about $200,can't go over that.


    Thanks
     
  2. Bokeh Diem

    Bokeh Diem Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 14, 2010
    Toronto
    chef... this will help you in your assessment of older Minolta lenses... the 'Rokkor Files'...
    http://www.rokkorfiles.com/

    Bokeh D
     
  3. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    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
     
  4. chefkenny

    chefkenny Mu-43 Regular

    61
    Mar 10, 2010
    Florida
    Thanks guys, I was searching on the rokkorfile too but can't found any about 100/2.5. I know the rokkor 85/2 is good but the price just set me away. The OM 85/2 is about $250 and the 100/2.8 and rokkor 100/2.5 are under $150. Tough call :smile:
     
  5. f6cvalkyrie

    f6cvalkyrie Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 12, 2010
    Brussels, Belgium
  6. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    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.
     
  7. chefkenny

    chefkenny Mu-43 Regular

    61
    Mar 10, 2010
    Florida
    Cosinaphile, do you have any picture took by the Contax 90/2.8 on your gallery?
    The lens runs about 200 on Ebay plus the Contax G to MFT adapter $ 70. I couldn't find gallery on the web for that lens.


    Cheer
     
  8. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    unfortunately not but i will shoot a test photo wide open and post it soon
     
  9. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
  10. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend Charter Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Real Name:
    Ray, not Oz
    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
     
  11. chefkenny

    chefkenny Mu-43 Regular

    61
    Mar 10, 2010
    Florida
    Thanks, just order the 90/2.8 with the adapter. I Just sold my 1D2 and 1ds so down to a 5D and 20D. I also try to see if I can pickup a 100 f/2.5 cheap - for my son.
     
  12. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    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
    [​IMG]

    contax G 90m f 2.8 at f 8
    [​IMG]
     
  13. chefkenny

    chefkenny Mu-43 Regular

    61
    Mar 10, 2010
    Florida
    Thanks cosinaphile, the sharpness is good on 2.8 if not going for the max print. Very usable. Most lenses stop down to 8 will have great sharpness that will not surprise me. But it looks good on wide open to me.

    BTW most review said that the rokkor 45/2 is not a sharp lens but I found my copy is pretty decent and usable on 2.


    Thanks
     
  14. Bokeh Diem

    Bokeh Diem Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 14, 2010
    Toronto
    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.
     
  15. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    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 :)]
     
  16. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    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........................"
     
  17. chefkenny

    chefkenny Mu-43 Regular

    61
    Mar 10, 2010
    Florida
    Good stuff Cosinaphile. Thanks again, the lens and the adapter will be here by friday.
     
  18. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    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