I never work completely wide open for portraits, you need a little depth of
field to keep the end of the nose in focus. My 85 and my 100 are both black
front lenses; the 85 says MC on it but I don't know if my 100 is multicoated
or single. I know for close up portraits my 100 is slightly sharper than my
85 or so it seems. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison at the different
apertures. I do like the 85 focal length better though, the 100 keeps me a
little further away than I usually like so I do actually use the 85 more. I
got the 100 first and used it until I got the 85 and now I usually use the
85. I suggested the 100 as a good alternative if price is an issue since it
can be bought much cheaper than the 85.
Moose,
Didn't the 50mm f1.8 also change number of elements/groups too at one point?
I wonder on the 85 what was the difference in performance between the old
and new formula. Mine, I assume, is the newer one since I have a black front
MC lens. I'd buy an old one to try but they sell for high prices too!
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Fort Wayne, Indiana
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
On 2/4/08 12:24 AM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris Crawford wrote:
>> The 85/2 is great for portraits, but consider also the 100mm f2.8. It's got
>> very smooth Bokeh; very close to that of the also excellent 85, and its
>> sharper than the 85 and costs a LOT less.
> Both you and Mike say the 100/2.8 is sharper than the 85/2. Although I
> have both, I've never had a shootout, but generally think them to be
> very close.
>
> For most portrait work, one wants wide open performance to be good
> enough for accurate focusing, but not tack sharp.
>
> In Gary's tests, the 85 beat the 100 at all apertures but very small
> ones, where it equaled it. Esp. at f2.8 & f4, the 85 was consistently
> much better.
>
> Remember that the 85/2 is relatively unique in Zuikodom, for having a
> significant change in optical formula mid-stream, from 6/4 to 5/4. I
> seem to recall that happened at the same time as the switch to MC, but
> could be wrong. The older design handily beat the SC 100/2.8 in Gary's
> tests, but he didn't publish the ser#s, so we can't place the 100/2.8 in
> AG's list of quality.
>
> It is also has a floating element for improved close-up performance
> (only in the second version, I believe?), which all the other teles
> lack, so it should outperform the 100/2.8 closer in. I've heard it
> reported here that it even works well with extension for macro. Never
> tried that myself, as I have a sufficiency of dedicated macro lenses.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|