 |
|
|
hogband
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 639
|
|
Review Date: Jul 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
USM, lightweight, 2.0 speed
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I can think of
|
|
|
I purchased this lens in October 1995, two months after I attempted shooting football with a 35-80 4.0-5.6 lens after I got out college.
I used this lens with my Rebel II and loved it...In fact, I will use it during basketball season...It is always in my bag. I use it also, during baseball season, on my D60 when i'm shooting a 300 on my 10D.
Great lens.
|
|
 Jul 21, 2005
|
|
Gorham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 2, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, produces good images. Focuses well with quiet USM motor.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wish it were f/1.8!
|
|
|
This lens rather replaced my beloved 85/1.8 when I went to 1.3x multiplier cameras. This was a specific shooting distance and I needed to keep that.
I don't like this lens as well and in fact will probably not be keeping it. Not by choice. I like it pretty well but it was part of a grant project I was involved in and the grant PTB are likely to take it back.
I'd recommend the lens for medium tele work, especially with 1.3x (and similar) DSLRs.
|
|
|
May 18, 2005
|
|
jshetley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, rich colors and contrast, great background blur.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really. It is my favorite lens.
|
|
|
I love this lens. Everything I shoot with it comes out beautiful. The colors are rich and saturated, the contrast is perfect. Background blur is smooth and creamy. I use it for indoor sports as well and it produces some extremely sharp photos for me. I love to shoot low light candid shots with it. I think it does people shots very well - renders great skin tones.
|
|
|
May 12, 2005
|
|
gerrit p
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, fast af, can be used wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
highly recommended
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2005
|
|
pinna
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 30, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $369.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, nice DOF, focus speed and fast, especially for indoor sports
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing
|
|
|
I find really confortable with this lens. I use it especially for indoor sports(i shoot often at waterpolo events) and the results are always excellent. It's fast, sharp and the focus is enogh quick to catch any action. I use it also for portrait sometimes when i don't want to be too much invasive getting close like with childrens playing. I really reccomend this lens to anyone in a budget that doesn't need bigger, heavier and more expensive zooms.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2005
|
|
Ser G O
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2005
Location: Argentina
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Mar 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, light , small, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I bought it used. I ve got more out of this lens than what i payed for it.
Wish i had it before.
Ser G O
|
|
|
Mar 9, 2005
|
|
neiluk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great for close in sports in low light and very fast to focus
|
|
Cons:
|
non
|
|
|
I nearly didn't get this lens after being very disappointed with my 50.1.4 but am really glad I did as it is my most used lens after my 24-70L and has kept me shooting in low light. It seems to be a lot better built than my 50 prime and has got me interested in a 300F4IS. This lens is definitely worth considering even though most people seem to overlook it and get the 85 1.8 or 100 2.8 macro
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2005
|
|
spartan123
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3683
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, weight, color and sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Sharper wide open and less CA then the 85 f/1.8
Extremely good lens for general shooting. Love the photo's this lens produces. The size and weight are also a plus.
Yet another highly underrated Canon lens.
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $249.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great fast lens for those on a tight budget. I use it mostly for indoor Ice Hockey shots in smaller arenas (High School). The fast f/2.0 is good for the low light present in the low end arenas where the action is fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at f/2.0, better at f/2.8, but than I lose the abilty to capture the stop action in high speed sports in low light without bumping up to 800 or 1600..
|
|
|
I have used this lens to shoot waterskiing action and the background blur is amazing. Your subject stands out like red on white.
As a potrait lens it is left standing alone against all others and that includes the sister 85mm f/1.8 in my opinion.
This is no L lens, but darn close, and it is the perfect prime lens for the non professional.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical Quality or par with "L" lenses. Great AF speed. Light
|
|
Cons:
|
Had to send it to Canon Repair twice for the USM freezing up for non use.
|
|
|
I am stuck on Canon Prime lenses
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2004
|
|
rwduncan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 232
|
|
Review Date: Jul 3, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $365.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, very very sharp, fast AF, great low light lens! wonderful portaits, Priced right!
|
|
Cons:
|
None. Looking for more reasons to mount this lens!
|
|
|
This lens is a must for outdoor, evening work. Our kids are big swimmers and the meets all start at 5:00 PM in the summer or are indoors. This lens rules for late evening and indoor sports! (Basketball right around the corner) It also is sharp, fast, light and just wonderful!
You need to be very careful when taking outdoor candid portraits. I took a few of my lovely wife and she was very mad that she found blemishes that I swear can not be detected under normal light with the naked eye. I also took a few of her friends and she was surprised that they were also "showing a little age" If you are outdoors with your camera in early morning or late afternoon this lens is a must have. At 160 mm crop this lens is just right for low light sports, evening events of all types!
|
|
|
Jul 3, 2004
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredibly fast AF, extremely sharp, excellent colors and contrast, good build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't think of any.
|
|
|
I don't understand how some people could say this is a slow focusing lens. When used on my EOS-3 this lens focuses instantaneously, in almost any situation. You're probably using a Rebel or something like that?
Of course this is not a 135/2L but the optics are superb for the price and there are many used 100/2's floating around which are available cheap. This is one of the best portrait lenses I've used. The lens is very compact and it's a pleasure using this lens as a walk-around street-photog lens. Background blur is very pleasing and portraits come out very well.
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004
|
|
Jack Flesher
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3489
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast, reasonable cost
|
|
Cons:
|
not many...
|
|
|
This lens is a surprisingly good lens. IMO it seems slightly sharper than its smaller brother, the 85/1.8. It is a tad soft wide open, but this is not necessarily a bad thing for some subjects like portraiture. It makes a great short telephoto companion the the 50/1.4.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2003
|
|
Brendan Getchel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1990
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp. Cheap. Quick AF. Extremely compact. Small filter size. f/2
|
|
Cons:
|
Somewhat soft wide open, but otherwise perfect
|
|
|
This was my first lens with my migration into Canon dSLR from Nikon. I quickly replaced it with the Canon 135/2L USM, but only because it's so much sharper at f/2 than this 100/2 is. However, the 135/2 is also over TWICE the price of this one, so in that light it's hard to find fault with what may very well be Canon's best-price secret weapon.
The 100/2 is cheap, compact, incredibly sharp past f/2.8, has reasonably quick AF speed, and is just an all-around wonderful lens. Bokeh is very good, if not quite up to the quality of its big brother(s), and it'll make a very good portrait lens, if not a little on the long side on a 1.6X FOV dSLR.
If you hunger for a sharp portrait lens, then the 100/2 USM should satisfy even the most discriminating photographer. It's not much larger than the 50/1.4, so it won't break your back or the bank, for that matter. If you're not able to spring for a 135/2L or the venerable 85/1.2L, then this little gem doesn't make a bad compromise.
I would normally give it a 4/5 because it is noticeably softer at f/2 than the 135/2 is, but for the price that would be a damnable heresy.
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2003
|
|
Theresa Z.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2828
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as well suited for my digital with it's 1.6 multiplier. This was one of my most used lenses before the D60, and now it rarely gets used.
|
|
|
Outstanding, but most suited, IMHO, to cameras without a large focal length multiplier.
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2003
|
|
trsqr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, fast, good AF (USM)
|
|
Cons:
|
None I can think of.
|
|
|
I find the EF 100/2 to be the lens I like to use. It's fast, it's AF is
good, it has USM with simultaneous AF/MF, not too heavy or large.
It's a little sad, that it becomes 160mm lens on a 10D, which I don't find
as usable as the 100mm focal length. Overall, a great lens, which I will
hopefully find attached to my camera more often in the future (when full
frame DSLRs are reasonably priced).
Great for photographing concerts!
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
83
|
207313
|
Oct 5, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
96% of reviewers
|
$352.07
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.81
|
9.19
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
