Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 27 Nov 2013 (Wednesday) 21:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why is Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM not popular????

 
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Nov 27, 2013 23:40 |  #16

I had the 100mm and yes, it was a great lens. But the 85mm is virtually identical and costs less. I think that's why people don't really look at it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Dec 2005
     
Nov 27, 2013 23:48 |  #17

Walkundertherain wrote in post #16485476 (external link)
This lens looks good for portrait with wide aperture and pretty long focal length, and costs just 1/2 EF 135mm f/2 . But why is it not popular?

It's somewhere between too short and too long for a lot of people, especially crop shooters.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jefzor
Senior Member
788 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 24
Joined Jul 2013
     
Nov 28, 2013 00:09 |  #18

Most crop users use the 85 instead, because the 100 would be too long. I think a lot of full frame users use more expensive glass like the 135L instead. Then there's the people who feel like they don't need it because they already have a 100mm macro.


www.jefpauwels.be (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Nov 28, 2013 00:26 |  #19

I don't know... there's a lot of lens that confuse me as to popularity.
Why are there more owners of the 70-200 IS II than the equally awesome 24-70mm II?
Why are there so few owners of the great 14mm II? It ain't much more than the popular 16-35mm II which barely out performs the 17-40mm. You would expect the 16-35mm II to be the unpopular one...
Why do so many people pass up on the wonderfully light and compact fast tele that is the 200mm II 2.8? You would think it would be a popular weight saving alternative to the 70-200mm f4 given that it provides the image quality and aperture of the 70-200mm IS II 2.8 for a third of the price.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,628 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5687
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 28, 2013 00:34 |  #20

no bigger brother to look up to. 100 was top notch for me.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcpoulin
Goldmember
Avatar
2,428 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Massachusetts
     
Nov 28, 2013 01:43 |  #21

The 100 f2 is kind of the ugly step child! There's the 85L, and the brother the 85 1.8 ( considered good close portrait lengths) ….the the 100 2.8 macro ( both cost versions easily avail)…why need the 100 f2…for one stop and no macro. It's kind of in space without a specific function.


1DX , 7D,16-35, 24-70 2.8II, 2.8L II, , 70-200 f2.8LII IS, 300 f2.8L IS, 500 f4 IS, 100-400L, Canon 100 2.8 macro, Canon 1.4X, 580ex, AB800X4
Canon CPS Member, PPA
www.capturingtimephoto​graphy.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Nov 28, 2013 02:01 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

Mornnb wrote in post #16485699 (external link)
Why are there more owners of the 70-200 IS II than the equally awesome 24-70mm II?

Because a standard zoom is just plain boring.

35mm + 70-200mm is the way to go.

Why are there so few owners of the great 14mm II? It ain't much more than the popular 16-35mm II which barely out performs the 17-40mm. You would expect the 16-35mm II to be the unpopular one....

14mm is a prime, people buy 16-35 as an UWA for landscape that gives better versatility.

Besides 14mm is most likely going to be used stopped down, so why would one want to restrict to one single focal length, it's not like it's sharper than the zoom.

Also let's not forget the Samyang 14mm can be had for 1/5 of the cost?

Why do so many people pass up on the wonderfully light and compact fast tele that is the 200mm II 2.8? You would think it would be a popular weight saving alternative to the 70-200mm f4 given that it provides the image quality and aperture of the 70-200mm IS II 2.8 for a third of the price.

You can't be serious about comparing the 200 2.8 to 70-200 f4...

70-200 gives you the versatility, 200 2.8 is a fixed, slow prime and without IS.

135L at least gives you one stop advantage, there is absolutely NO advantage on the 200 2.8 compared to a 70-200 2.8 zoom except the cheap price, and it's cheap for a reason.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
titi_67207
Senior Member
Avatar
496 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Strasbourg, France
     
Nov 28, 2013 02:08 |  #23

The 100mm f/2 is very popular to me ;) Very sharp wide open, f/2, light to carry...

Of course the focal length is more adapted to full frame bodys (a mythical lens for portraits on Nikon was the 105mm...) so that's the main reason why the 85mm f/1.8 is so popular.

Titi


Canon 5D MkII + Sony A7 + 24x36 & 6x6 B&W film cameras .
CV 15 4.5 III | TS-E 24L II | FE 28 2 | (50+85) 1.4 | 135 2 | 70-200 4.0L | a collection of old Zuikos + FD + Adaptall + AI-s + M42

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Dec 2005
     
Nov 28, 2013 02:10 |  #24

Mornnb wrote in post #16485699 (external link)
Why are there more owners of the 70-200 IS II than the equally awesome 24-70mm II?

Version specific, because version I is good enough and neither has IS so there's little incentive to ditch what already works.

Focal length wise as a whole, 24-70 is bread & butter but people don't talk about it because it's not a droolfest lens like the 70-200 range is. People who don't know what they're doing tend to just blur the snot out of their backgrounds because it's easier than paying attention. It's easier still with a telephoto than a normal range zoom.

So I doubt there are more people with the 70-200 of any variant than the 24-70 of any variant, it's just more people share their stuff using the former than the latter. A lot of people actually own both and pair them together.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,029 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 395
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Nov 28, 2013 03:18 |  #25

Walkundertherain wrote in post #16485476 (external link)
This lens looks good for portrait with wide aperture and pretty long focal length, and costs just 1/2 EF 135mm f/2 . But why is it not popular?

probably because the 85 1.8 is more popular.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Nov 28, 2013 03:19 |  #26

kin2son wrote in post #16485803 (external link)
Because a standard zoom is just plain boring.

35mm + 70-200mm is the way to go.

Nonsense, a standard zoom covers everything well. Landscape, architecture, portraits, events, travel you name it. It's sharp, high contrast and vibrant.


14mm is a prime, people buy 16-35 as an UWA for landscape that gives better versatility.

Besides 14mm is most likely going to be used stopped down, so why would one want to restrict to one single focal length, it's not like it's sharper than the zoom.

The 14mm II actually is sharper, higher contrast and wider than the zoom. The versatility is not that big of a deal, firstly because the 14mm II is significantly wider which is actually useful. And because the 24-70mm II overlaps significantly and is a much better lens than any wide angle. So if you have a 24-70mm II, the wide angle is a last resort to be used when you need REALLY wide. For that purpose, a quality and very wide lens like the 14mm II makes a lot of sense.

You can't be serious about comparing the 200 2.8 to 70-200 f4...

70-200 gives you the versatility, 200 2.8 is a fixed, slow prime and without IS.

135L at least gives you one stop advantage, there is absolutely NO advantage on the 200 2.8 compared to a 70-200 2.8 zoom except the cheap price, and it's cheap for a reason.

It's half the weight, that is a really big deal. And if your budget is limited to around $800, I am picking a sharp 200mm 2.8 over a f4 zoom. A standard zoom will cover the wide end, the long end is more important.
It's a perfect sports and wildlife lens on a 7D, and this is an area where 2.8 is invaluable.
The weight and size difference alone, makes it worth owning both the 70-200mm IS II and the 200mm II 2.8.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LeeRatters
Goldmember
Avatar
4,940 posts
Likes: 2756
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Nov 28, 2013 04:29 |  #27

I think it's the other lenses as said that are more popular/traditional which causes the 100mm to be a little left out.

85mm is the focal length that usually gets mentioned for 'portraits' thus the 85/1.8 is the younger step brother of the ultimate 85L & that's the route people take. Again if people want a 100mm they may well go for a 100mm macro instead as more of a dual use lens.

I mainly use 50mm. I also had 85/1.8 which I found too close to 50mm. I was going to trade it out for a 100/2 as I thought it would go well with a 50mm but I ended up also selling a Sigma 70-200/2.8 & going for a 135L :) IF I doidn't have the Sigma to help finance the 135L then I would have went 100/2 no doubt.


>> Flickr << (external link)


>> Instagram<< (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
riotshield
Senior Member
425 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Nov 28, 2013 05:57 as a reply to  @ LeeRatters's post |  #28

It's very similar to the 85 1.8 and costs almost $100 more. That's what kept me from buying one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Nov 28, 2013 06:03 |  #29

david lacey wrote in post #16485507 (external link)
Hmm what are the quality attributes that it does not have?

Macro mostly. It's just a couple bucks more to get the 100 f/2.8 which is a simply stunning lens for the money. Yes, it's a stop slower, but it also does macro and most people are more than happy to make the trade. It doesn't help that the f/2.8 is also stunningly sharp.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lexar
Senior Member
297 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
     
Nov 28, 2013 06:32 |  #30

I bought one specifically for indoor sports where the 15mm difference over the 85 f1.8 helps!
Great lens for portraits too...

No regrets at all!


Canon 70D | 15-85IS | Σ17-50/2.8 | Σ30/1.4 | 40/2.8 Pancake | 100/2.0 | 55-250STM | 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,425 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why is Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM not popular????
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KenJerrard
984 guests, 382 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.