PDA

View Full Version : EF 100mm f/2. is it good?

Rebel
3rd of August 2005 (Wed), 12:17
Just ordered one which needs to come in from Japan (6 weeks-2months) I only ordered it because of the endorsement of one guy I never met, but I admired his work. He has the 85mm 1.2L in his kit and he still prefers the 100mm for sharpness. I'm guessing its not a popular lens because its old, but is it good? How so compared to the 100mm 2.8 Macro?

Help.
Joe R
3rd of August 2005 (Wed), 14:11
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm
jesusdelallata
3rd of August 2005 (Wed), 14:58
Believe me, you'll be very happy.
gcogger
4th of August 2005 (Thu), 01:20
The Castleman review shows the 100/2 to be softer wide open than the 85/1.8. I have, however, seen comparisons which show the opposite! There may be some sample variation...
Lester Wareham
4th of August 2005 (Thu), 12:05
Just ordered one which needs to come in from Japan (6 weeks-2months) I only ordered it because of the endorsement of one guy I never met, but I admired his work. He has the 85mm 1.2L in his kit and he still prefers the 100mm for sharpness. I'm guessing its not a popular lens because its old, but is it good? How so compared to the 100mm 2.8 Macro?

Help.

It is ment to be good, almost as good as the 135mm f2L. However the 100mm f2.8 is sharp and very flexible being able to magnify down to 1:1. So the macro was my choice.
buze
4th of August 2005 (Thu), 13:28
I'm thinking about the Canon 100 f2 too. I've been having a blast with my Super Takumar 105mm, I find I really really like that focale, just a little on the wide side to be handy, but with a definitive tele compression.
Is the 100mm f2 considerably larger than the 85mm f1.8 ? Bulkwise...
gcogger
4th of August 2005 (Thu), 14:24
The 100 and 85 are very similar in every way. There's a picture of them on the Castleman review linked above - click on the picture for a larger image.
buze
4th of August 2005 (Thu), 14:43
Thanks for that, they are almost the same in size!

I disagree with his (review) view on "tele compression" not being perceptible. I use the 85 for candids, and it makes magnificient pictures, but for street/landscapy shots it lacks a bit of that Tele effect that you can get so easily at 135. The 105 I'm using now already has that fairly marked. Thats why I'm looking into that range.

Here's a typical "compressed" shot. 135f2 L. The people were easily 40m from me, and the chruch was easily 300m from me.

http://oomz.net/IMG_6672s.jpg
Rebel
5th of August 2005 (Fri), 03:45
Okay, I guess it sounds like its worth the wait for my gold. I'm convinced! Thanks a bunch.