I am looking for a telephoto manual prime and really like the 100mm focal length (always found the 85 too short and the 135 too long).
My main uses will be: landscape and portrait What I am looking for: lightweight (ideally not more that 500g), best IQ possible, sunstars
What would my best options be?
I understand some legacy lenses (CY 100 f3.5, OM 100 f2 and others) would fit my bill but unsure which one would work well on the a7rii.
Alternatively - the Makro-Planar 100/f2 or CV 110/2.5 look amazing and would allow me to do macro too. The size/weight is not really advantageous though..
It's a great focal length, for strangers and familiars alike. That's why everyone made 100s back in the day, often 2-3-4 of them. I went down this path and got the 100/3.5 -a classic 5/4 Sonnar, very settled near-bulletproof bokeh wide open, very easy to focus, I really like it.
280 grams plus adapter (I use a7 cameras). Landscapes easy to do too, a little pastel but preferable to the Sony 85s. Very little CA of either kind, way less than the 55/1.8 as an example. Look up my images here, I always label them.
Not much alternative, for me at least. The f2 lot are generally heavy, the one I'd like there is the 100MP but 670 grams then add adapter. People talk up the OM 100/2 too, see Phillip Reeve's site for more - 520 grams, more separation, more aperture blades, a very good alternative but pricey.
There are lots of small,very good IQ, affordable legacy lenses under 500g,with focal length 100mm and similar.
Basing on my own experience I would point out a handfull of most interesting and up to the criteria above:
Minolta MD/Rokkor 100/2.5 and MD/Rokkor Macro 100/4
Nikkor 105/2.5 AI/AIS or Micro Nikkor 100/2.8 AIS or Nikon E 100/2.8
Contax Sonnar 100/3.5
Olympus OM Zuiko 100/2.8
Konica Hexanon AR 100/2,8
EBC Fujinon X or M42 100/2.8
Canon FD 100/2 and 100/2.8 and 100/4 Macro
Elmarit R 90/2.8 or Summicron R 90/2 or Elmar R Macro 100/4
Rolleinar AR 105/2.8 QBM
For maximum IQ and versatility,yet at cost of higher price and weight,Voigtlander Apo Macro Lanthar 110/2.5 is the best,closely followed by Makro Planar ZE/ZF 100/2
Olympus OM Zuiko 90/2 Macro,Leitz Apo Macro Elmarit R 100/2.8 and Contax Makro Planar 100/2.8 are also great lenses with character,but pricey and a little heavier than 500g
You can find my samples from all those lenses on the Sony A7 series browsing Sony FE image thread
I currently have the CZ 100/2 ZE, CZ 100/3.5 AEJ CY, and Canon EF 100/2.8 L IS. Each is the 'best' at what I use it for: ZE, landscapes; CY, travel; EF, handheld macro. Like most Contax lenses, the 100/3.5 CY has a slightly warm cast, while the CZ and Canon have more 'clean' colours, with slightly higher saturation and contrast from the ZE.
I suggest you start with the 100/3.5 CY. It's relatively inexpensive and will probably give you all the IQ you'll need. Mine is on a bombproof Leitax CY > EF mount. You could get both the Contax 100/3.5 and a Nikkor 105/2.5 AI for less than the cost of the Makro-Planar or Canon, and have all of the bases covered.
My experience is limited, but when I jumped to MILC in order to take advantage of really good adapted lenses (quality for the cost, since I can’t afford the high end and native glass), I went for the Canon FD mount as the foundation. The FDn 100/2 was a splurge for me at around $300 at the time—picked up because of its reputation as being “L” quality—and it has been well worth it. It doesn’t have the LoCA challenges of many of the other vintage lenses, and the bokeh is downright painterly. Mine is sharp across the frame from wide open, and has a nice cool color palette. The compact size is excellent, although it belies a significant amount of glass in the lens. The only downside for your criteria is that the Canon FD line doesn’t produce great sunstars (which is fine with me, as I find they tend to overwhelm most compositions).
Much depends on your price range—several of the lenses on the list might be a bit smoother, but the price is significantly higher. I have a friend who has the OM 100/2, and it’s better from what I can tell, but much more preciously priced. I lust after a Zeiss MP 100/2 or the new CV 100/2.5, but not for the price. If given the chance I’d like to compare the CY 100/3.5 and classic Nikon 105/2.5, but haven’t yet.
My budget choice would be the Nikon Series E 100/2.8, a tiny, lightweight option that performs well, but is not quite a standout. It's effectively identical in performance to the original Nikkor-P 105/2.5, but cheaper, lighter & newer.
My preferred option is the Nikkor 105/2.5 AI-S (yes, specifically the AI-S as there's at least 3 variations out there and IMHO the AI-S is the best of the lot). This lens got an optical redesign mid-way through the Nikkor-P.C run, and a new aperture design for AI-S
The Nikkor 105 performs on par with the Zeiss ZF 100/2 throughout its focus range, and is if anything slightly better in terms of CA control. You'd really have to go to a modern exotic (like the CV 110/2.5) to better the performance. And it's reasonably sized unlike the f2 and faster options. It also does extremely well on an extension tube and can be used for near-macro work that way.
I like this FL and have an interesting assortment of primes including the CZ Sonnar 100/3.5, Planar 100/2, 100/4 S-Planar, all C/Y mount. I also have the Sony 100 T5.6 STF in FE mount. Of these, and given the modest price, OP should acquire the S100 tout de suite. Be warned that it's gateway glass!
I spent a bit of time looking at the options you all mentioned.
In terms of optical performance/weight ratio, it seems that these two are frequently mentioned, here and on other websites:
- CY 100/3.5
- Nikkor 105/2.5 ai-s
Sharpness is more important to me than having creamy bokeh. The CY 100/3.5 looks really tempting, especially for its weight, but would I be missing a lot compared to if I go with a modern lens?
philip_pj wrote:
It's a great focal length, for strangers and familiars alike. That's why everyone made 100s back in the day, often 2-3-4 of them. I went down this path and got the 100/3.5 -a classic 5/4 Sonnar, very settled near-bulletproof bokeh wide open, very easy to focus, I really like it.
280 grams plus adapter (I use a7 cameras). Landscapes easy to do too, a little pastel but preferable to the Sony 85s. Very little CA of either kind, way less than the 55/1.8 as an example. Look up my images here, I always label them.
Not much alternative, for me at least. The f2 lot are generally heavy, the one I'd like there is the 100MP but 670 grams then add adapter. People talk up the OM 100/2 too, see Phillip Reeve's site for more - 520 grams, more separation, more aperture blades, a very good alternative but pricey.
Thank you for taking the time to share. Does it do well for portraits too?
Edit: I'm browsing your uploaded photos, they are awesome! Seems you travel a lot. Would you mind sharing a full size example of a well focused portrait you took with the CY 100? It's fine it not, I would just love to pixel peep a little.
rico wrote:
I like this FL and have an interesting assortment of primes including the CZ Sonnar 100/3.5, Planar 100/2, 100/4 S-Planar, all C/Y mount. I also have the Sony 100 T5.6 STF in FE mount. Of these, and given the modest price, OP should acquire the S100 tout de suite. Be warned that it's gateway glass!
I think the Minolta 100/2 is a great under rated option. I owned a 100 ZF, CY 100, Mino 100/2 and Oly 100/2. They all had distinct positives, but I enjoy my Mino 100/2 and kept it.
mawz wrote:
The Nikkor 105 performs on par with the Zeiss ZF 100/2 throughout its focus range, and is if anything slightly better in terms of CA control.
I strongly disagree, except for the CA (even though I think you mean fringing). The main weakness of the Nikkor is still LoCA.
Also, I've had multiple copies of AI and AI-S and never saw any difference. Nothing indicates that there would have been optical improvements in AI-S. The pre-AI is totally different though.
I'd take the 100/2 Makro-Planar any day over the Nikkor, even if the Nikkor is a very nice lens.
Makten wrote:
I'd take the 100/2 Makro-Planar any day over the Nikkor, even if the Nikkor is a very nice lens.
Hi Makten,
I too love my 100/2 Makro-Planar! However I am interested in this 105/2.5 vs 100/2 MP comparison. Could you please give more details on why the Zeiss outperforms the Nikkor? I had a AI-S 105/1.8; it was a nice lens but the Makro-Planar is sharper overall, and much sharper wide open.
Thanx.
Merry Christmas!
P.S.: you know, the 100/2 MP suffers from LoCA at wider apertures.
Ripolini wrote:
Hi Makten,
I too love my 100/2 Makro-Planar! However I am interested in this 105/2.5 vs 100/2 MP comparison. Could you please give more details on why the Zeiss outperforms the Nikkor? I had a AI-S 105/1.8; it was a nice lens but the Makro-Planar is sharper overall, and much sharper wide open.
Thanx.
Merry Christmas!
P.S.: you know, the 100/2 MP suffers from LoCA at wider apertures.
I'd say the Nikkor 105/1.8 is about the same as the 105/2.5 at the same aperture. I've had the f/1.8 a long time ago and found I had to stop it down to get decent sharpness. The f/2.5 of course gives a bit more mechanical vignetting, but the image circle is still big enough to cover small medium format (33x44 mm).
Both Nikkors have inferior colors and contrast compared to the Zeiss, but they are both good performers. Yes, the Zeiss gives purple fringing and LoCA wide open, but at f/2.5 it's an overall better performer than either of the Nikkors. The difference isn't astronomic, but it's certainly there and I find the Zeiss to give very "3D" images thanks to extremely high local contrast (acutance).
Edit: The 105/2.5 is very nice for its size and low weight. If you own the M-P, it makes total sense to get the f/2.5 as a smaller alternative.
Really enjoying reading the opinions/recommendations of those of you in this thread that have experience with the notable 100's. I found a few years back that I really enjoy this FL and after some investigation and renting the Zeiss Milvus 100/2 myself ended up with a Carl Zeiss (Classic) Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ( Canon mount) probably because of its reference flat MTF and relatively few elements 9/8. I really liked the feel of the Milvus 100/2, strong/robust but sleek at the same time but the Classic was a far better value for me at the time. LR sliders clean up the wide open purple fringe and LoCA easy enough, but something to know about this lens particularly when doing white shirt/blouse/dress portraits.
I agree that a Zeiss 100/2 MP gives great results except for the purple fringing. It rarely shows up when I'm using it unless there are contrasty whites bordering darker colors.
One that no one has mentioned is the fairly new Laowa 100/2.8 macro, which is shockingly good, especially considering its bargain price ($499 new). It goes to 2:1, i.e. twice life size, in contrast to the Zeiss's rather frugal 1:2 ratio. It's basically apochromatic and has gorgeous rendering. If I didn't have one myself, I wouldn't believe it would be as good as it is. Here are a few sample shots wide open:
I can also recommend the Contax Zeiss 100mm 3.5 lens (which I foolishly sold several years ago). Very sharp and relatively small. Also, the best bang for the buck option might be the previously mentioned Nikon 100mm 2.8 E. Very small and light, but excellent IQ right from 2.8.
