EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Test Shots

I would have definitely gotten a 100 f/2 for my 5D if I didn't already have the macro. Looks like a great lens.

I own it and the macro. And it's one of the sharpest lenses in my kit. If a shot with it isn't sharp, it's probably user error.

OK, OK, we have recovered, so here is an unprocessed shot from today for anglers amongst you. (Boy, that guy was all smiles...) Yup, I have decided to keep the lens.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

lensview wrote in post #1998844
OK, OK, we have recovered, so here is an unprocessed shot from today for anglers amongst you. (Boy, that guy was all smiles...) Yup, I have decided to keep the lens.

WHAT A FISH!!!

liza wrote in post #1998831
I own it and the macro. And it's one of the sharpest lenses in my kit. If a shot with it isn't sharp, it's probably user error.

Or the lens copy in question is NFG.
I can not afford to buy lenses just to enlarge my signature....so any new one must add value to the kit. However, since the kit already contains the likes of 85L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8, 135L etc., the kit admission standards are getting somewhat stiff. However, the 100 f/2.0 copy I've got seems fit enough.

Now, once more about CA, this shot (a crop but no other processing) shows what I mean by good CA control. Well, if you do not believe me, try a similar shot wide open with 85L or 35L...perhaps even 135L to some extent.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

lensview wrote in post #1997599
I don't know, dood, there is somehow no WOW factor in the images. Maybe if I put them thru USM ?
Besides, Ronald said the lens was not sharp.
Here is one 100% crop of where the focus is, hope you don't mind a mosquito on the tag.

LOL, the lens MUST be a bad copy to only pick up ONE mosquito in a 100% crop from a test shot.

Mike.

Mikezoom wrote in post #1999830
LOL, the lens MUST be a bad copy to only pick up ONE mosquito in a 100% crop from a test shot.

Mike.

I say....one really has to pixel peep in order to see the bug......what kind of a lens is that ?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'm really torn about getting this lens, purely because I already have the 85/1.8. Is it worth having both of them ?

Gary.

quickben wrote in post #2003005
I'm really torn about getting this lens, purely because I already have the 85/1.8. Is it worth having both of them ?

Gary.

Honestly, I would not say so.
Both lenses are made of the same cloth, very very comparable performance.
Basically, 15 mm FL difference, that's about it.

In my particular case, I happen to use that sort of FL a lot......so I have decided to multiply the goodness ....IMO these are amongst the sharpest lenses Canon makes, well priced for what one gets.

Pictures look fine to me....

If I had the 85 1.8 (and I do) I would go up to the 135 2.0 instead...the 100 seems too close to the 85 to me

I have the FD 100mm f/2.0 lens and the optical formula is very nice. Not sure if the EF version is comparable, but it's based on the same design.

superdiver wrote in post #2003527
Pictures look fine to me....

If I had the 85 1.8 (and I do) I would go up to the 135 2.0 instead...the 100 seems too close to the 85 to me

Thank you Superdiver, I can tell you do recognize a good thing when you see it.

I also find your advice sound re 100mm and 135mm. Unless you wanna do some macros.....then the 100 f/2.8 beckons.....another hunter-killer class lens by your friendly Canon Corp.

DoubleNegative....yup, I see it too, their best FD designs being EF repackaged.