I've really not had much experience with Alts in this range. I've generally stayed sub 58mm. I've only actually owned the Rokinon 85, CY 85, G90, Nikon 105/2 and 2.5 and MD 100/2.5 and 135/2.8.
Since switching to the NEX, I've been searching for ways to get the most image quality out of my dollar while also keeping my kit relatively light.
Currently, I'm happy with my MD 100/2.5, but I'm always looking for other lenses.
G90 maybe? Never used it but it has a good reputation and if you can go by the G28 or G45 it should be awesome.
I haven't used the MD 100/2.5 much since i only got it a short while ago, what is your opinion about it?
I amended my owned list. I forgot about the G90. It's pretty amazing. Maybe the AFing G adapter will make me want to shoot with the G's more. My G28 loves the adapter I have currently. The 45 hangs at ~10ft.
The 100/2.5 seems to be a very good lens. Very sharp, decent contrast and color, better than average bokeh. Looks like a Rokkor!
I think my main issue with it is that the 105/2.5 AIS/AI and G90 are flat out better. In most if not all metrics. You can find the Rokkor for half the price of either lens though.
I just have to say, I find it interesting that you would say you don't have much experience with alts in this range when you've owned 7 lenses in that range. I haven't used the MD 100/2.5, but I see you've owned the MD 135/2.8, which would have been my suggestion, as I've found that to be a surprisingly good and very compact lens, especially for the price.
CV 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar: fairly compact, a bit on the dense/heavy side for its speed, SL I versions available fairly cheap. Good close focus down to 0.5m. Optically very well corrected; rendering style is a matter of taste (typically very sharp/colorful, but sometimes somewhat "flat" and slightly nervous/swirly backgrounds).
Zeiss Contax Sonnar 100/3.5: based on MTFs (exceptionally high 10lp/mm curves) and experience, great for apparent sharpness/contrast; decent but not top-level for fine detail; some lateral CA present. If you've used the CY 85/2.8, then probably similar to that (but longer and a hair higher performance).
It's a little short of 85, but the CV 75/2.5 is a great and very compact lens.
My bare bones 2 lens compact travel kit is the ZM 35/2.8 and the CV 75/2.5.
You might also consider a used Leica 90/2.8 Tele-elmarit, but I decided that if I want compact the CV 75/2.5 is close enough and for ultimate IQ, use my 90 Summicron.
Charlie (Uhoh 7) has posted lots of great landscape shots with the CV 75/2.5. Here's a portrait type shot that I took with the lens:
A less often considered choice: Mamiya 645 80/2.8 N.
Slightly clunky including adapter, but not huge either.
Moderate contrast, excellent sharpness/detail, very uniform and "clean" rendering.
Quite cheap, definitely good bang/buck optically.
Has anyone ever compared the Nikon 105/2.5 to the 100/2.8 Series E? The latter weights and costs half as much as the legendary 105/2.5 plus i could use it on the 5dII, i can't use the Minolta on it.
I have had or have no fewer than five contenders here. You sound restless, PM, a surefire symptom of GAS. lol.
Better still, all these are what might be called 'character lenses' and most are older, there is a lesson there maybe. FWIW, I currently use the CY 100/3.5 Michael mentioned, regard it as 300 grams of solid reliable greatness - re colour, flatness of field, accuracy and surprisingly bokeh, very nice for portraits.
But you can't go wrong with those listed above, so maybe do a Bifurcator and check 'em all out. I just checked out a suggestion by the very knowledgable rico - Leica M 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar, but alas no adapter available for Sony A mount.
Leica Tri-Elmar-M 135mm f/4, the older 1965-90 pre-APO version. Never really popular and like the 100/3.5 CY an aficionado's lens, and a little heavy at 550 grams, but I have seen some very special images shot with it - sharp but liquid, it would have been a great match for the a99 sensor. They are a bargain most likely due to the unpopularity of the FL for M r/finders (hard to focus) and cashed up L folks preferring the newer APO vsn. Well worth a look.
philip_pj wrote:
I have had or have no fewer than five contenders here. You sound restless, PM, a surefire symptom of GAS. lol.
I had only sold lenses for a straight year, until last week when I got the Sigma 19/30. I'll probably end up selling the 30 (even though it's a better lens. I'll use the G28 10x more than the Sigma.
I just bought a FL55. I'm thinking of a MD 85/2 now too. Anyone have experience wit it? I, generally, like Rokkors and Olys as much as any Alts.
plasticmotif wrote:
I just bought a FL55. I'm thinking of a MD 85/2 now too. Anyone have experience wit it? I, generally, like Rokkors and Olys as much as any Alts.
I had that and didn't like it, mine might have been a lemon though.
@f/2 and f/2.8 i wasn't too happy about sharpness and contrast
stopped down it performed flawless, great colors, and clarity
Bokeh was pretty bad, see attached samples
it is pretty small
[edit]now that i look at those pictures i want to test it again ;-).
I think the G90 is going to be very hard to beat. if the MTF charts are accurate, it looks like the G90 may be slightly preferable in many situations than the M90 Elmarit which is a very good lens in its own rights.
S-M-C Takumar 105/2.8 is great fun I should find an SMC M or A to see what they're like.
I've heard that some of the Pen F lenses in the short tele range are very good.
I know my Canon RF 100/3.5 is sharp, but I need to use it more to see how it behaves under more conditions.
My FD SSC 85/1.8 is sharp, but there is some CA to deal with in very high contrast shots.
I think the OM 85/2 is a gem, particularly for the size and price. It flares if you even whisper "light source" near the front element, so the hood's not optional, but it's sharp with decent bokeh. Purple fringing in the bokeh is evident down to about f/4, but it's easily corrected.
freaklikeme wrote:
I think the OM 85/2 is a gem, particularly for the size and price. It flares if you even whisper "light source" near the front element, so the hood's not optional, but it's sharp with decent bokeh. Purple fringing in the bokeh is evident down to about f/4, but it's easily corrected.
it's quite compact and has a floating element for close focus correction:
sharp enough, but not super sharp at f/2 and i never really got along with the bokeh:
edit: it can have some ninja star bokeh at f/2.8 too.
I haven't used the MD 100/2.5, but I see you've owned the MD 135/2.8, which would have been my suggestion, as I've found that to be a surprisingly good and very compact lens, especially for the price. 
