+1. It's also lighter than the RF 85/2's, but I'd highly recommend getting a hood for it. My copy liked flare so much, you only had to whisper the words "light source" near the lens to get it to show.
As for them being so-so, I'd rather shoot with a so-so OM than 90% of the RF lenses Cosina makes.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Haven't used it much, some first Impressions:
positive:
-outresolves the Nex-3 over the whole field from f/4
-quite compact
negative:
-really bad bokeh @f/4
-not so great @f/2.0
hmm, sounds like it's about comparable to my OM 85/2 then.
it looks like the olympus might be sharper at f/2, but even worse bokeh. better bokeh stopped down though with octagons rather than hexagons too. i was hoping the MD might have a similar look to my rokkor 24/2.8 to round out my rokkor collection.
@sebboh, did you look up the Minolta 85/1.7? It is reported to have really nice bokeh, not unsimilar to the 58/1.2, low contrast @f/2.0, okay contrast @f/2.8 and great contrast from f/3.5 onwards.
Its dimensions are 71mm x 62mm, 455 grams vs 64mm x 53.5mm, 285 grams for the MD 85/2.0 and its more expensive. http://phillip-voigt.de/FM/Tests/Zusammenstellung85mm_nah_center.jpg
Phillip Reeve wrote:
@sebboh, did you look up the Minolta 85/1.7? It is reported to have really nice bokeh, not unsimilar to the 58/1.2, low contrast @f/2.0, okay contrast @f/2.8 and great contrast from f/3.5 onwards.
Its dimensions are 71mm x 62mm, 455 grams vs 64mm x 53.5mm, 285 grams for the MD 85/2.0 and its more expensive.
yeah, it looks good, but is too big for the NEX imo. i already have the samylux for my big 85mm. it would be nice to have for film though.
sebboh wrote:
here's one that i don't think is much longer than the rangefinder equivalents, OM 85/2. the close focus is better as well with a floating element.
I didn't try the OM 85/2 on a NEX but a 5D, and it had a bit of lateral CA for my taste. The floating element design got my attention and I really wanted it to work. I didn't get a chance to try the Minolta 85/2.0 yet, but I wonder about it.
When I got right down to it, portraits was the intended use and I decided 100mm on full frame worked better and now have the Minolta 100/2.5. Photos to follow when the NEX arrives.
JimBuchanan wrote:
I didn't try the OM 85/2 on a NEX but a 5D, and it had a bit of lateral CA for my taste. The floating element design got my attention and I really wanted it to work. I didn't get a chance to try the Minolta 85/2.0 yet, but I wonder about it.
When I got right down to it, portraits was the intended use and I decided 100mm on full frame worked better and now have the Minolta 100/2.5. Photos to follow when the NEX arrives.
yeah, the floating element and small size were what attracted me. i think i would like it much more on FF, but the bokeh is just not to my taste on the NEX where my only use for it is longer portraits and occasionally landscape (where it does well). i've been contemplating replacing it with either the MD 85/2, nikkor s-mount 85/2, or pentax 77/1.8 (probably best option).
I found the bokeh to be the most common crux with most Olympus lenses. It's really sad, because otherwise I like these lenses a lot for their size, mechanics and often sharpness. Until now I liked the bokeh from the macro (50 2.0 and 90 2.0) the best. Not really outstanding, but above average. The 100 2.0 may have a good bokeh, too, from what I've seen. Never tried this lens. But anything else from Olympus below 180mm (because of the 180 2.0)? Not my taste in the bokeh-department.
