plasticmotif wrote:
How's the super affordable Nikon 85/2 AIS?
I played with one recently on my D800, and was pleasantly surprised, little CA, quite sharp, and nice (but classic AI Nikkor) boke. I will look for a cheap one for my FM2.
carstenw wrote:
I played with one recently on my D800, and was pleasantly surprised, little CA, quite sharp, and nice (but classic AI Nikkor) boke. I will look for a cheap one for my FM2.
Here are three Smallish telephoto lenses with Nex adapters installed so you can really see the final size. I just picked up the Topcon after noting that one of the forum members gave it high marks for sharpness. I bought it on ebay for $25. I may have been the only bidder. It is also quite light and has a very large and smooth action focus ring. The comparison pictures are taken with a 135 and a 90 so they do not match perfectly. I did not take any pictures today with the Elmar. It is not as sharp as the other two lenses but quite pleasing in its rendering.
Left to right: the Topconn 135mm f:3.5, Leica Elmar 90mm f:4, Contax g 90 f:2.8
Topcon 135
Contax g 90 RAW files using same preset for developing
Topcon 135
Contax g90 RAW files using same preset for developing
Many excellent lenses are available in this range and I have a few of them but, inevitably, the one that gets top billing is the CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 C/Y: central sharpness, illumination, bokeh, and handling are all top-notch.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Has anyone ever compared the Nikon 105/2.5 to the 100/2.8 Series E? The latter weights and costs half as much as the legendary 105/2.5 plus i could use it on the 5dII, i can't use the Minolta on it.
I've owned both (Two 100E's, the 105 in AI and late P.C form, currently own one E and the P.C although the latter is broken from a fall). The 100/2.8 E is comparable in performance to the original 105/2.5 design (often referred to as the 'Sonnar' one, although it's not a Sonnar) but the modern 105/2.5 is better in pretty much all regards. The 100E is somewhat smaller and MUCH lighter though.
The old (original version) Leica Elmar 135/4 is great for the price ($200-$300). It's at the long end, and also fairly long, but thin and relatively light. It's got wonderful color rendition - these are from RAWs but with no post-processing.
'CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 C/Y: central sharpness, illumination, bokeh, and handling are all top-notch.' I find myself using this one extensively for its lovely bokeh and colour, it seems to let the subject breathe rather than impose itself. Excellent value if you can find one.
mawz wrote:
I've owned both (Two 100E's, the 105 in AI and late P.C form, currently own one E and the P.C although the latter is broken from a fall). The 100/2.8 E is comparable in performance to the original 105/2.5 design (often referred to as the 'Sonnar' one, although it's not a Sonnar) but the modern 105/2.5 is better in pretty much all regards. The 100E is somewhat smaller and MUCH lighter though.
I have both, and agree with the iq assessment above, though I have not done an A/B comparison. However, I don't feel like anything is lacking when I am shooting with the E, it's that good. And much lighter and somewhat smaller, and cheaper.
carstenw wrote:
Could someone post some samples with the Contax 100/3.5?
There are some older samples I posted on the Zeiss lenses threads here, along with a shot here. And I can't locate the thread where I posted this one (I wish Google would index the .jpg file names; apparently they don't):
pbraymond wrote:
I have both, and agree with the iq assessment above, though I have not done an A/B comparison. However, I don't feel like anything is lacking when I am shooting with the E, it's that good. And much lighter and somewhat smaller, and cheaper.
I can't disagree, the 100E is a great little lens although it struggles a little more at wide apertures than the 105/2.5 does. It's noticeable on the NEX-7, but not so much on lower-resolution bodies.
Maybe the Sigma 85/1.4? I have to admit, I'm hungry after this lens, especially since my 24-85 EF seems to fall apart completely at 85mm. Strange, I can swear it used to be much better.
Or is it not "alt" enough?
Snopchenko wrote:
Sigma 85/1.4? I have to admit, I'm hungry after this lens, especially since my 24-85 EF seems to fall apart completely at 85mm. Strange, I can swear it used to be much better.
Or is it not "alt" enough?
Donīt know if it qualifies as smallish at 770g. But quite good.
