Folks go on and on about the cy 100/2 around here. Recently there was Rokkor love, now the zuiko 18 is the soup du jour, but the cy 100/2 has always been exalted as a favorite to many FMers. However, I have recently become a zuikoholic (thanks a lot guys) and my terrible habit is driving me towards the zuiko 100/2, but it is rare and expensive, but similar in price to the contax. So, my question is: does the zuiko stand up to the contax, or are folks who pay similar prices for a zuiko drinking something? (I can't find much info on the zuiko at all, and certainly no comparisons with the contax)
Zuiko is tiny, the cy is typical cy big. I am looking for a zuiko as well I am sure I have seen impressive zuiko images as I have had my eyes on this lens for a while, just usually too exp. some ebay stores are trying to sell it for over 1000 dollars, but that is just ridiculous.
one of these days I'd like to see some comparisons with the canon 100/2.
It seems to be almost a forgotten lens. Its reputation is decent in Canon-land with the few who use it and there are times when AF and open-aperture working are indespensable (weddings).
How i would love the forground-background contrast separation of the c/y but with AF!
A few days ago i saw samples from the zuiko in my browsings through Flickr and it certainly looked impressive. Not the same contrast separtion/ 3d of the c/y but the images had a very nice overall quality.
I have my Oly 85/2 in the "to sell" pile now that I have an Oly 100/2. Very impressive lens. I do like the look of the pictures. I also have a Nikon 105/2 DC, a Komura 105/2, Meyer Orestor 100/2.8, Nikon 105/2.5, Spiratone 105/2.5, Agenieux 90/1.8, Canon TS-E 90/2.8 and a Taylor Hobson Cooke 95/3.3. They are all great in their own way. I'll have to do some more side by side testing to see if I really need them all. And, maybe even I could post some of the images later.
I had the Canon 100/2 EF for several years. A nice lens, no complaints. Fast AF, great for sports and weddings as mentioned. It tended to accumulate dust though, which pissed me off. Overall build quality was not up to L standards but not bad.
the Oly 100/2 is certainly nice, I'd think. $1k seems a bit much, but I could see half that. Another lens to consider in that realm (which I have and certainly think is superb) is the Oly 90/2 macro.
I wish canon made a 100/1.4L EF - that would be a sweet lens and fit nicely between 85/1.2L and 135/2L
gasrocks wrote:
I have my Oly 85/2 in the "to sell" pile now that I have an Oly 100/2. Very impressive lens. I do like the look of the pictures. I also have a Nikon 105/2 DC, a Komura 105/2, Meyer Orestor 100/2.8, Nikon 105/2.5, Spiratone 105/2.5, Agenieux 90/1.8, Canon TS-E 90/2.8 and a Taylor Hobson Cooke 95/3.3. They are all great in their own way. I'll have to do some more side by side testing to see if I really need them all. And, maybe even I could post some of the images later.
Were you the one who just won from Ebay?
Yike....I went into shower, and I lost that one....
I also had the Canon 100 f2 and used it for sports. Nice quality lens, decent size and a good price. It did seem to have some purple fringing but not enough to really complain about.
gasrocks wrote:
I have my Oly 85/2 in the "to sell" pile now that I have an Oly 100/2. Very impressive lens. I do like the look of the pictures. I also have a Nikon 105/2 DC, a Komura 105/2, Meyer Orestor 100/2.8, Nikon 105/2.5, Spiratone 105/2.5, Agenieux 90/1.8, Canon TS-E 90/2.8 and a Taylor Hobson Cooke 95/3.3. They are all great in their own way. I'll have to do some more side by side testing to see if I really need them all. And, maybe even I could post some of the images later.
Fascinating bunch . . . email / PM me first when you decided to sell any!
I've tried Cv125, leica apo 100, and canon 135L, Tair 11-A, 85L II....
But nothing came close to the 3-Dness of Planar 100/2.0.
The separation of in-focus from out-of-focus is very unique and eye popping...even with my poor skill.
