In the days of film I used to have an OM 85 mm f2. I thought back then that it wasn't all that sharp at f2.
Then @Genji reminded me that there were two optically quite different versions, the late one was completely recalculated with different nos of elements, and kept the Sonnar design and rendering, but was a bit sharper wide open. Both versions had floating elements for good close range correction, reduced coma and so forth.
So I got a late model of it yesterday (from Genji!): the very latest with the new formula, and the last and best coatings as well.
I'm very pleased. It's sharp enough wide open to be able to used without a second thought for portraiture and the like, and it really does have a nice Sonnar rendering, and is very small. It's also wicked sharp stopped down. It doesn't quite have the electric contrast of a modern high end 85 (think Loxia 85 or actually even Batis for that) but that's exactly the point of having it. There's something about the look of these Sonnar designs that you can't get just by dropping contrast or clarity a bit in post.
Only got it yesterday, so nothing great yet, but here are a few simple samples: all wide open.
DavidBM wrote:
In the days of film I used to have an OM 85 mm f2. I thought back then that it wasn't all that sharp at f2.
Then @Genji@ reminded me that there were two optically quite different versions, the late one was completely recalculated with different nos of elements, and kept the Sonnar design and rendering, but was a bit sharper wide open. Both versions had floating elements for good close range correction, reduced coma and so forth.
So I got a late model of it yesterday (from Genji!): the very latest with the new formula, and the last and best coatings as well.
I'm very pleased. It's sharp enough wide open to be able to used without a second thought for portraiture and the like, and it really does have a nice Sonnar rendering, and is very small. It's also wicked sharp stopped down. It doesn't quite have the electric contrast of a modern high end 85 (think Loxia 85 or actually even Batis for that) but that's exactly the point of having it. There's something about the look of these Sonnar designs that you can't get just by dropping contrast or clarity a bit in post.
Only got it yesterday, so nothing great yet, but here are a few simple samples: all wide open....Show more →
So happy you like it, but even happier you didn’t post any pictures of me!
realVivek wrote:
The original f.zuiko version (the most compact) is the classic Sonnar clone. The late version had one element less and better coatings.
True, but it’s still has a similar Sonnar inspired design although they were able to improve it by producing a single element that did the work with a profile matching the doublet it replaced. In various tests including mine it comes out a little sharper wide open while preserving the look. Both the F.Zuiko and the later versions have a floating element which is another departure from a basic Sonnar. As for the coatings, the second optical design had two sorts of coatings. He first was multi coated with whatever coatings were used in the era in which Zuiko MC was engraved on the front ring. This may, or may no, be the same as was used on the small number of earlier lenses (of which the first 2/85 was not one) which were always multi coated. The second coatings were the ones Olympus touted as NMC (new Multicoating is my guess) which was introduced when the lenses switched over to being just marked “Zuiko” with neither the prefix indicating element count, not the MC.
