I can understand your desire to buy close to home. The 100/2.8 FDn should be easier to find in Europe than the 100/2, so it's at least worth keeping an eye out for. There's also a good 85/1.8 FDn.
The Pentax looks very nice, though it's pretty pricey. If you're willing to go with a 75mm focal length, there are also the two Voigtlanders, which are available new (or nearly so) -- the 75/2.5 is pretty inexpensive and lightweight, though not as fast. They've also got a 75/1.8, but it's as much as the Pentax.
The Pentax SMC-FA limited lenses are intriguing as they can be adapted to anything and seem to be keepers. There is also the 31 mm f/1.8. Since I am contemplating which fast ~28 mm to get as well, it may justify the penalty for another adapter. They are pricey, so they will need to fit into a long term strategy.
To the OP, consider the Tele-Elmar-M 135/4. Nice and sharp with great contrast and color wide open. The close focus bokeh is decent wide open, a little distracting stopped down, but for a tele-landscape lens, it shouldn't be an issue. Finding a bargain copy in user condition is fairly easy.
For incredible sharpness, micro-contrast - best is C/Y Sonnar 100 3.5 but MM version,
For very good performance - Nikon 105 2.5 ais
For small size,very good performance and lower price - Jupiter 9 85/2 or jupiter 11/zeiss opton 135/4 LTM and contax rf mount
The Nikkor 105/2.5 is actually pretty petite for its focal length and moderate speed but man is it a beast in regards to weight. I know by feel when my 105/2.5 Ai is on my Rebel XT
As suggested I think the C/Y 100/3.5 would be an interesting choice. From all I've read its nearly as good as the widely known C/Y 100/2 but more travel friendly as far as weight and size. And for head and shoulder distances on a cropper you can still get a good amount of separation at f/3.5 at this focal length (if that's a consideration in this choice).
'its nearly as good as the widely known C/Y 100/2'. May indeed be better, it's stronger at 10 lpmm. Less than half the weight, at around 300 grams, looks like a mid-sized 50mm. Great at close distances and on tubes, excellent bokeh. These Sonnars are fabulous into the very corners - equal to the centre - makes me wonder at their true coverage circle; very 'NEX7 ready'. The Nikkor is quite a lump, very good though.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
The Nikon 105/2.5 is excellent, but the Canon 100/2 FDn is, if possible, even better. Nice compact size (about the same as the 105/2.5), great handling, and the FD-NEX adapter is fairly slim.
In the 90's, I banged my head against the wall with the contrast-less head shots with the f/2.8 version of the FD 100mm lens. The printer finally said to me, "You ever considered it a lens problem?"
Upon, buying a Nikon 105/2.5 AIS and then a Nikon body, problem solved. The Nikon 105/2.5 is excellent.
Another option is the Minolta 100/2.5 for $100 bucks.
Weird. I've got them both sitting here, and if anything, the 100/2 is more contrasty than the Nikkor at wide stops. By f/8 they're probably indistinguishable.
Different lenses, different people, different experiences... who's to say.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
The Nikon 105/2.5 is excellent, but the Canon 100/2 FDn is, if possible, even better. Nice compact size (about the same as the 105/2.5), great handling, and the FD-NEX adapter is fairly slim.
+1 on that. I have the FDn 100/2 and it is a great fit on the NEX and m4/3 bodies.
Got an old FD 100 2.0 off ebay. The size and weight works well on the NEX 5N.
Very low contrast. I wonder if it is ok, the inner elements don't look clean.
The contrast recovers well with levels though, and resolution wide open is good.
Works well for snapshots at f/2.0, with focus peaking.
Sony 85/2.8. It's cheap new, focuses very close (0.6m) and is based on the optical design of the Contax 85/2.8 for around the same cost. Optical performance is comparable to the Contax version.
Oh, and you get AF (slow with the LA-EA1, fast with the LA-EA2).
mawz wrote:
Sony 85/2.8. It's cheap new, focuses very close (0.6m) and is based on the optical design of the Contax 85/2.8 for around the same cost. Optical performance is comparable to the Contax version.
Oh, and you get AF (slow with the LA-EA1, fast with the LA-EA2).
That looks like a very handy, and affordable, option.
Makes me wonder if it will convert to EF mount easily, for use on a 5DII, Jim?
Know what? I edited my comment a few posts above, about the FD100/2, as I have realized I was using the f/2.8 version. However, the f/2.8 lens should give more contrast than the f/2.0, at wide aperture. Sorry, for the faulty antedote.
As far as EOS conversion, the FD lens deal breaker for me is the non-standard coarse pitch screws Canon uses on most FD lenses. This requires re-drill and tap for new longer screws and is not my favorite operation. The other complication is custom aperture parts. I'm not familiar with the FD100/2.0 in this regard. I'd be willing to take a look, though.
Thanks for the opinions about my FD 100/2. I am still not sure if it is really off. It is very sensitive to background light. I did not use a hood, and there was strong background light in that shot, although I didn't have the sun directly on the glass. Other images look more normal, but still not anywhere near Zeiss contrast. I am not sure if my lens has SSC or not. There are a lot of reflections from the front element, the coatings don't seem to work that well.
Prior to purchase, I didn't find out if there is more than one version, and in that case, how to separate them. People talk about FDn and SSC, but I couldn't find anything systematic. Poor research from me.
For me, 85/2.8 is both too short and too slow, but it looks like a nice alternative in its own right.
