How is Canon EF 100mm F2 USM Lense

I need a 100 mm EF lense for Canon EOS and Canon 20d bodies. I am

thinking of Canon EF100mm F2 that is offered by Adorama for $390. Has

anybody experience with this lense? Thanks for anything you can share.

Sandy

Sandy,

 

I have it and it's a tack sharp lens. It has great bokeh also. The problem with it, is that on a 1.6 frame camera like the 20D, it's too short to really close in on far away subjects and too long close range photography. Consider it a portrait lens where you can maintain distance to the subject. I would recommend it for indoor sports where you're very close to the action, portraiture or close range animal photography in a zoo. It's got great bokeh and is a lens with professional aspiration at a consumer price. Would love to see it on a FF body though.

Optically, it's a fantastic lense IMHO.

It's a fairly hefty telephoto on cropped bodies. Whereas before it was head and shoulders from 10 feet, now it's more like head alone. I'd probably choose the 85/1.8 instead, which is for all intents the same lens but for the focal length.

 

DI

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/100-2">Canon EF 100 f/2.0 USM</a>

Hi,

 

I compared the 100/2 to the 85/1.8 on a 10D. Here's what I found:

 

* The field of view is nearly the same. I don't know if the true focal length of the 100 is slightly less than 100 mm and that of the 85 is slightly longer than 85 mm, but it was shocking how little difference there was.

 

* The two lenses appear to be housed in the same barrel. Different optics, same exterior. Same focusing speed (probably the same motor).

 

* The two lenses handle about the same on the 10D.

 

* The 85 focuses slightly closer than the 100. But it's also a slightly wider lens. Both lenses while focused at their minimum focusing distance provide the same field of view.

 

* Both lenses are truly excellent lenses. Tack sharp. Very nice for available darkness photography.

 

I didn't really experience any difference between the two lenses in casual use. I was honestly surprised that Canon have chosen to put two lenses on the market that are so close to being identical.

 

Before comparing the two lenses, I was leaning towards getting the 100/2. But my comparison convinced me that it was worth while saving $60 and get the 85/1.8.

 

Tom

I just have a few lenses (all prime), and my experience is limited. For portraits I was using the 100mm and sold it, and bought the 85mm. My reasoning being 100mm was just too close for me to use indoors-and I'm using film(!). I was either backed against the wall, or if at a party... the further back you stand the more of a chance of someone coming between you and the subject. However I don't know what you will be using the lens for. So which is the better lens? The pictures I took with the 100mm were just more "punchy-exciting-vivid". I think there is something to be said for Steve's review. And I think the 100mm/2 is under-appreciated.

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm</a> <b></b> </p>

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a> <b></b> </p>

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a> <b></b> </p>

<p> HTH.</p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

Thanks everybody for the advice on lense selection. I am realy appreciative

of your help. Thanks again. Sandy

<p>FWIW, photodo's measurements show that the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are each marginally shorter than indicated (83 and 97). Don't forget, though, that focal length is measured at infinity, and that the effective focal length of a lens often changes (dramatically, in some cases) at shorter subject distances. From what I've read, this is particularly common with internal-focusing designs (as opposed to those which focus using the front elements or by shifting the entire lens formula back and forth), and these two lenses both use internal focusing.</p>

I think it would be better to buy Canon f/2.8 100mm macro lens. You can have 100mm lens with almoust f/2.0 and macro. It is very sharp and good lens.

I have the lens on a 1.3 crop ID MkII. I used my 28-135 as a test to see where I usually found the most pleasing portraits and the 100 fit the bill. I have used the lens to catch both indoor and outdoors no flash and flash and I am impressed. I use the 1.8 50mm sometimes and really prefer the 100mm if the circumstances allow the room. It is personal preference on how much telephoto you want. Some noses require 200mm to make their owners happy with the picture.

This is my money lens. I shoot jazz gigs usually in dim lighting with the 300D and this lens, plus the 50 f/1.4. A slightly flatter perspective and slightly longer reach (compared with the 85 f/1.8) helps. Sometimes I have to angle the lens to fit what I want in the frame if I'm up close / on the stage, but it usually makes for a more interesting crop.

 

I find that the lens is sharp, bokeh is pleasing, USM is fast and accurate and shows little CA (however I haven't tried my lens on a FF). I found that this lens is very resistant to flare from stage lighting, esp. with the hood.

 

With the 1.6 crop it's a bit harder to work with portrait-wise but It's a good nose-reducing lens.

 

I bought the lens based on the review on this site, the concert photography tutorial and that I got a used one on the bay for dirt cheap.

 

Are you thinking of buying the 135 f/2L in the future? If so, then an 85 would complement it better. Just wondering, why the 100mm focal length? Let us know what you think of your lens when you get it.

 

-quote-

> "I need a 100 mm EF lens ..."

All who answered: Thanks for the advice. I just placed order for 85mm f1.8

from B&H. I plan to buy 135mm f2 sometime. Sandy