100f2 - cheap alternative of 135L?

So basically I've been wanting to add a cheap, light-ish prime ever since I sold my Sigma 85 + 135L for the 70-200mkII.

I had my eyes on the Canon 85 1.8, but now I have an opportunity to pick up an used 100f2 locally for $290.

I am planning to use it wide open 99% of the time when I want to travel light and without catching too much attention. So does it has terrible CA and PF like the 85 1.8 wide open? How is the sharpness compared to the 135L?

Any comment is welcome

For that price, I think it's a good deal. Grab it!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

FL difference with 135L is significant (half body vs headshots).
Sharpness is less but still good.
Get it, you'll love it.

Earwax69 wrote in post #15490743
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Thanks for the link...but wow that PF @ f2....

hennie wrote in post #15490754
FL difference with 135L is significant (half body vs headshots).
Sharpness is less but still good.
Get it, you'll love it.

Thanks for the comment. I'm actually selling my 35L tomorrow to pick up Sigma 35 1.4 and this lens. Hopefully it works out.

kin2son wrote in post #15490777
Thanks for the link...but wow that PF @ f2....

All fast medium-short teles PF. Even the 85/1.2 is no exception.

I liked my 100/2

I love my 135L

If I didnt have the Sigma 85mm I would get another 100/2

futureal33 wrote in post #15491710
I liked my 100/2

I love my 135L

this^^ I personally think the 85 is more versatile as an "all around" but if I were looking for a substitute for my 135, it would be the 100 f/2. Its quite close in IQ to the 135.

Yes, it is a cheaper alternative to the 135mm f2. If you can't afford the 135mm, the 100mm f2 is a great lens!

Sig says you have the 100L. I wonder if the 100/2 might feel quite redundant.

for the price grab it.... been looking for one as well, all around 400 ish in my area.

tkbslc wrote in post #15492427
Sig says you have the 100L. I wonder if the 100/2 might feel quite redundant.

You are right about the 100L. But I use that for macro and macro only.

I am thinking of getting this for portrait and will be using it wide open 99% of the time. Therefore wide open performance is crucial.

leftnose wrote in post #15490975
All fast medium-short teles PF. Even the 85/1.2 is no exception.

Well I made that comment when comparing the two using the digital picture tool. Can hardly see any PF from the 135L wide open.

I still like the saturation colours of the 100L vs my Canon 85 f/1.8.

If you have a 100L I think its acceptable to get a mint 100 f/2 copy for 300 bucks. However I think its premature to dump your 35L for a S35 LOL!!!!! hehehehe!!!! This is of coarse if you have some issues with your 35L.

I'll have to say I'm impressed with my 100L in portraits. The 70-200 mk2 has similar micro contrast at f/2.8 as the 100L so in my books thats awesome. I highly doubt the 100 f/2 has this type of micro contrast. Even the 85Lmk2 and 135L has a different "sharp" look in terms of micro contrast compared to the fresh lenses from canon.

i've got both the 100L and the 100/F2.
100L is quite somewhat longer and I like the bokeh produced by the 100/F2 more.
100L gets more use, but the 100/F2 in my case is definitely not redundant.