Canon EF 100mm F2

Another lens question, just what the forum needs heh?


After having so much fun with my Rebel and 50mm 1.8 at the bodybuilding show a couple weeks ago, I decided to get something a little longer for concerts.

The 85mm f1.8 is highly regarded, but I was thinking of something with a little more reach. The 135mm f2 is VERY nice, but rather $$$.

The 100mm f2 looks to fit the bill nicely.
However, I've read that at f2 it's alot softer than it's siblings (85mm and 135mm).

Read:
http://wlcastleman.com​/equip/reviews/85_100_​135/

What are others experiences with this lens?

Also, most places price this lens at around $379US.
However, at the fm forums, they show the average price to be about $317. Any idea where that would be?

Thanks again in advance
8)

I wouldn't pay much attention to that price, probably includes used prices too. I paid $330 for my 85 f1.8. Even if the others are a hair sharper wide open, could anyone notice this in an average picture? Maybe visable at 100% crop but who prints or views at this size?

I would pick the focal length that you think will be most useful and the price you want to pay. I picked the 85 because I didn't think the 15 extra mm meant much but could have gone either way.

not exactly an answer to your question, but for $270 there is also 135mm 2.8 soft focus lens to consider. I ordered mine on Sunday. Most reports on the web say that 85, 100 and 135 are very similar in quality.

Thanks, that is interesting.
So, I assume these "soft focus" lenses can be also set to "sharp" like a normal lens?

The 100mm f2 would be PERFECT, except that I've read so many reports of it being soft wide open compared to the 85mm and 135mm lenses.

I want a great low light lens for concerts, and I like the reach of the 100mm vs 85mm.

I think that when people say it is soft wide open,. that they mean ONLY in comparison to the 85 and 135mm primes,. these are some of the sharpest lenses "wide open" in Canon's line up.. and thus most lenses are "soft" wide open in comparison..

You may want to check with your 70-200mm whether the difference between 85mm and 100mm is really enough to make it worth your while.

As far as the 135mm soft focus,. you are correct,. the soft focus is a setting,. and when it is turned off ,. it is as sharp as a tack.

.../but at only f/2.8 you are loosing a lot of light. If f/2.8 IS fast enough for you,. I'd trade that 70-200mm f/4 for a 70-200mm f/2.8 and shoot the shows with that .. (this is what I use most often in the theatre)

Otherwise,. you allready know what the perfect lens is.. you just don't want to pony up the ducats.. (neither do I ) but the 135mm f/2 is THE answer 8)

CyberDyne,
I think you read my mind.

All of your points answered my question(s) perfectly.
Thanks

Few people get the 135/2.8 SF because it is well covered by L lens. Most people buy a 70-200mm zoom. Others will buy the 135/2L prime instead. Poor 135/2.8 SF (though it is very good, especially for its price...)

From what I've heard, the 135/2.8 SF lens has a dial
marked "0", "1" and "2" which controls the amount of
softness. the "0" setting corresponds to no soft focus effect.

One can find some discussion about that lens at dpreview canon slr lens forum.

msvadi,

Yes, you are right. "0" is no SF effect and it is a very sharp lens while "2" is the greatest SF effect. Personally, I seldom use SF.

I shoot a lot of low light concerts and found that 2.8 just doesn't allow enough shutter speed. You can jack up the ISO, but even at 1600 and 3200 I rarely get over 1/60 and on top of that, there's too much noise for my taste.

I was looking at the 85mm, 100mm, and the 135mm L. 85mm doesn't buy you much over a 50mm 1.8. The hundred is nice and at a reasonable price, but if I could afford it, I would get the 135mm L.

I don't think "wide open" performance in low light concert conditions comes into play. In most low light concert situations, you barely can stop action and besides the subject, the rest of the frame will be mostly black. At that point you are just trying to get something decent on "film/sensor"

100mm focal : think about the macro version , 2.8 is not 2, but that lens is a marvel, should really be rated an L canon lens. so sharp even wide opened, plus you have the possibility to go Macro 1:1 , and you'll need it one day or another
regards
Khalid

I use L Zooms and non L primes. The good primes, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0, 135/2.8, all deliver images that are fantastic. Very sharp, and wonderfully pleasing bokeh. Using this approach I get great images, but a break from the weight. And, I get a little more exercise with the "manual" zoom of the primes. The 24-70 isn't bad at all weight wise, but the 70-200/2.8L IS and the 100-400L IS are pretty bulky and heavy, especially over time. It's nice to drop on one of the primes and see that not all great shots have to be taken with a shoulder fired rocket camera.

Thanks for your info people.
I think I will go for the tried and true 85mm f1.8.
It cost less, is sharper wide open, and is a little faster than the 100mm f2.0.
Plus, the 15mm really doesnt make much difference.
I made a pseudo comparison using a pic from the bb show in which i used the 50mm 1.8.

50mm

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I own the EF100/2.0 and use it a lot. It is an awesome lens for the price. I don't have a 85/1.8, but I know the 100/2 is sharper at F/2.8 than any L-zoom.

Check out the tests at photodo.com.

Thanks for the info m8.

How is it at f2.0 ?