> How do you rate it against the F2.8 100mm ?
I wish there was a simple answer to this question. The 100/2.8 has
been with me for 26 years now. To be fair, I don't think mine is
necessarily representative of the entire breed. I've used both newer
and older versions and there are differences. For example, the
colorcast and contrasting is most certainly non-standard. The
special-sauce somebody poured over it back at the factory must have
endowed a characteristic which makes it a bit off as compared to other
Zuikos. The closest I've ever seen is the Zeiss 80mm which came with
the Contax 645AF. Those two lenses have almost exactly the same
aberrations. Especially in the reds.
Set brighter than F4, the 100/2 is sharper than the 100/2.8 lens.
Between F4 and F8 they are essentially the same. At F11 they both
start to slide off but seem to just do it differently. I'll have to
look more closely at my lens tests to figure this out. I think I
prefer the 100/2.8 at F11 and F16, though. When sliding off, the focus
shift is not the same between the lenses.
Sharpness is only one factor. If you were to pick a lens based
strictly on that, the 100/2 is easily the one to grab. The contrasting
is definitely different. It is the contrastiest lens I have. Between
the excessive sharpness and midtone expansion, the 100/2 is almost too
brutal for things like portraiture. I find the 100/2.8 portraits to be
a little easier to work with and seems to be more skintone friendly as
the warmer nature of the lens acts like a very light yellow filter
that raises skintones a tiny bit.
The bokeh of the 100/2 is superior in every way. The 100/2.8 is great,
except at some odd distance where you are trying to get a half-body
shot with the Four-Thirds cameras. (Full length on FF 35mm). The
background gets a bit gravelly. This seems to move a bit depending on
camera-subject and camera-background distances combined with aperture.
With the 100/2.8, the closer you can get to the subject, the better.
In fact, it really doesn't matter how far away the background is,
because the closer, the better behaved it is. The 100/2.8, combined
with extension tubes makes for a terrific macro lens.
The 100/2 is giving me a different style of image. Landscapes, for
example, have a different look about them that is similar to that of
changing films. It's a Provia vs EktaChrome kinda thing. I'm still
coming to terms with the differences, but if you are doing the
hyperfocal trick and maximizing DoF, you know there is a difference,
but you are probably hard pressed to identify which one you like best.
It seems to be subject and lighting sensitive. I do prefer the greens
and reds from the 100/2.8.
>From this perspective, the 100/2.8 is the most undervalued lens out
there. When you can't decide which image you like best, that's a
pretty good sign. I believe Wayne will vouch for the quality of this
100/2--it's not a BGN-grade lens.
So, now we are into the applications.
1. For event photography, the 100/2 so rules. You can shoot wide-open
without fear. Images from this lens at events simply rock. I don't
have to do as much WB correction, so blue-channel noise decreases.
This is the killer telephoto lens for wedding and event work. The
focus "snap" in the viewfinder is noticable. The 100/2.8 has some
snap, but it doesn't grab your eyeball and try to rip off your contact
lens like the 100/2 does. If you shoot events, the 100/2 is a
must-have lens.
2. For landscape photography, I will actually give the nod to the
100/2.8. It's lighter weight, smaller and seems to render the greens a
little better. It also reduces the contrast enough that you get a
slight increase in effective dynamic range. (shadow boost in lens). On
a backpacking trip where I'm taking minimal equipment, I'd happily
grab the 100/2.8 instead of the 100/2. If you do a lot of foreground
object set against a background object, the lenses render this
differently and the 100/2 seems to be a little nicer, but the 100/2.8
implies sharpness where there is none.
3. Handholdability is easily the 100/2.8's advantage. the weight and
position of the rings fits an OM body a whole lot better. Not that the
100/2 is bad, but the 100/2.8 is just better.
4. Portrature. This could go either way depending on the person, but
the 100/2 is better in most regards.
5. Macro. Again, this could go either way. Neither one is bad. If I
had to choose one over the other, I'd say the 100/2.8 because it
balances better on extension tubes. The aspherical element in the
100/2 does also render the nearfield OOF bokeh a bit differently too.
Either lens is excellent for being a non macro.
6.Night photography is where the 100/2 really comes into play. The
additional one to two usuable stops makes a huge difference. To get
the same level of sharpness as the 100/2 is at F2, I have to stop the
100/2.8 down to F4. That, combined with the WB advantages means that
we have well over 2 stops in effective noise reduction if we are
shooting at same shutter-speed and using ISO/WB to match.
7. Handling, part 2: The 100/2 balances much better on an OM body with
a motordrive or on an E-body with or without a battery pack. Without
the grip, the 100/2.8 handles better.
8. Attractiveness. The 100/2 on an a black OM body or the OM-3Ti is
easily one of the prettiest camera-lens combinations ever made. Add
the MD2 to it and the beauty factor just increases.
9. The 100/2 has a built-in sliding lens-hood. Huge advantage over any
accessory hood for the 100/2.8.
10. Technical/critical/studio photography. No doubt the 100/2 is
better. The corrections in the lens are far better and also the lens
is less flare prone.
My ony oddity with the 100/2, which I haven't found the specific
criteria for causing it yet, is an occasional central hot-spot in the
image when shot on digital cameras. This is a problem that some lenses
with a flat rearward facing element will have. I've had, maybe five
images with this show up out of 2000 shots.
In a nutshell, let me put it this way: If you shoot at brighter
apertures than F4, then the 100/2 is the preferred lens and easy to
justify.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|