I've fallen hard for the EF 100/2 on my mono full spectrum a7rII. I love that it maintains nicely even performance across the frame regardless of aperture, I love that the overall resolution is at a really nice place wide open for people and gets so strong stopped down. I love the nicely flat field and low distortion, and I love the low flare resistance because it flares beautifully. The nicely flat field and low distortion are nice reminders of how short teles used to be designed. So I'm in the honeymoon phase, and I'm looking to match it with something f/2ish between 28 and 40.
freaklikeme wrote:
I've fallen hard for the EF 100/2 on my mono full spectrum a7rII. I love that it maintains nicely even performance across the frame regardless of aperture, I love that the overall resolution is at a really nice place wide open for people and gets so strong stopped down. I love the nicely flat field and low distortion, and I love the low flare resistance because it flares beautifully. The nicely flat field and low distortion are nice reminders of how short teles used to be designed. So I'm in the honeymoon phase, and I'm looking to match it with something f/2ish between 28 and 40.
The EF 35 f/2 IS is a nice little lens for the money. Of course if you go for a f/1.4 there are tons of options, but much larger/heavier and more expensive.
TBH, Canon had more interesting wide options in FD mount than in EF. Almost everything other than the f/1.4L wides were aimed at the budget/low end and were on the slower side. Definitely competent but not necessarily inspiring.
I'd second the 35/2 IS as something a bit better from the non-L side. Otherwise maybe the first version 35/1.4L as it was a bit more flawed than the second version, which aimed to be Canon's Art/Otus at that focal length. If you don't need AF, there might be something from Zeiss in the ZE line, though most options will physically dwarf the EF 100/2. The first version EF 35/2 would more closely match the era of the 100/2, though it uses buzzy non-USM 'arc form drive' for AF and will be a bit less optically ambitious than the f/2 IS version. The 28/1.8 is polarizing as it's not an optically strong performer wide open, but that imperfection might bring certain charms.
artsupreme wrote: freaklikeme wroteI've fallen hard for the EF 100/2 on my mono full spectrum a7rII. I love that it maintains nicely even performance across the frame regardless of aperture, I love that the overall resolution is at a really nice place wide open for people and gets so strong stopped down. I love the nicely flat field and low distortion, and I love the low flare resistance because it flares beautifully. The nicely flat field and low distortion are nice reminders of how short teles used to be designed. So I'm in the honeymoon phase, and I'm looking to match it with something f/2ish between 28 and 40.
Anything spring to mind in that range?The EF 35 f/2 IS is a nice little lens for the money. Of course if you go for a f/1.4 there are tons of options, but much larger/heavier and more expensive.
I'll pick one of those up when I can find one, like my 100/2, with a burnt out AF motor in an otherwise EX+ body. Otherwise, it's a little too precious on the used market for this lark. I did like it on the DsIII, though. The f/1.4's are universally too big and questionable with IR.
rscheffler wrote:
TBH, Canon had more interesting wide options in FD mount than in EF. Almost everything other than the f/1.4L wides were aimed at the budget/low end and were on the slower side. Definitely competent but not necessarily inspiring.
I'd second the 35/2 IS as something a bit better from the non-L side. Otherwise maybe the first version 35/1.4L as it was a bit more flawed than the second version, which aimed to be Canon's Art/Otus at that focal length. If you don't need AF, there might be something from Zeiss in the ZE line, though most options will physically dwarf the EF 100/2. The first version EF 35/2 would more closely match the era of the 100/2, though it uses buzzy non-USM 'arc form drive' for AF and will be a bit less optically ambitious than the f/2 IS version. The 28/1.8 is polarizing as it's not an optically strong performer wide open, but that imperfection might bring certain charms....Show more →
We're of the same mind, Ron, I have nothing against the original EF 35/2. It's in with the simpler design ethic of the Nikon AF 35/2D, Yongnuo 35/2, Oshiro 35/2, and, a lens I just learned about today, the MIR 24h, all of which appear capable of some beautiful imagery, but I think they're also going to look underwhelming paired with the 100. I think sticking with Canon, the nFD 35/2 is a more comparable option, were I determined to be matchy-matchy with the brand. I'm not.
My point of the thread was more about picking the aging community brain for interesting options in the mount and see if anyone would champion their beloved internet underdogs, like the 28/1.8 (Canon or Sigma) or the Tamron SP 35/1.8. I'm probably over a decade too late for that conversation, though.
Yes, I forgot about the Tamron f/1.8 primes that for whatever reason never really seemed to catch on*. The 35 or 45 might indeed be an interesting pairing with the 100/2, though probably more modern in terms of performance.
* I recall trying these at a photo expo back when they were released and liked their wide open character, which IIRC was smooth had some SA softening/glow. But as I would have used these for event coverage, questions about AF performance consistency on Canon DSLRs pretty much ended my interest (a topic touched on in TDP's reviews). On mirrorless however, these should be better, even if their USM motors are apparently on the slower side, it should be possible to achieve better focus consistency. Interestingly the Tamron 85/1.8 exhibits focus shift while the 35 and 45 apparently do not (according to what I just skimmed from TDP's reviews).
I've always loved the EF 28mm f/1.8. It doesn't have the best image quality, but it's small, lightweight and reliable. It focuses close and it's great for candids.
I had the Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX DG--the much older model from about 15-20 years ago. It's okay but very heavy and unusually large, sharp enough but as I remember testing it, my EF24-70mm f2.8L v1 was sharper at 28mm f2.8 than the Sigma was at f2.8.
It is the exact opposite of the Canon EF2.8 f1.8 or 35mm f2.0 FWIW, it is not small. It may however be cheap and cheerful.
I too thought of the 35/2 either IS or non IS
But now thinking about it I too think the 28/1.8usm would pair very nicely.
Having said that my 35/2 is currently on my 5diii I’m favouring the older version over the IS version (have both) as it’s considerably more compact. I briefly used the 100/2 on crop (160mm ff eqv) but the lousy MFD constantly caught me out - the 85/1.8 is the same!!
Yes, the 28/1.8 usm would be a great paired with your 100/2
👍🏻
Edit
Those dissing the 28/1.8 … my copy is fine?? When I was using it (years ago) I paired it with the 85/1.8 as they both had usm and 1.8 apertures. Spent a few months just with those two lenses, worked great.
< you’ve now got me wanting to dig mine out once more!!) 🤣👍🏻>
Thank you all for the comments. I appreciate them. One thing I decided was not to look for a 35. I have five... plus three zooms that cover it. I need to be done there.
However, a coworker decided to sell a good portion of his EF collection, so I spent the weekend trying out his 28/1.8 and 17-40L. The 28 really impressed me on the full-spectrum mono mod with a UV/IR cut filter. The IR performance was disappointing, though. The center hotspot started showing up at f/4 with a 750nm filter and only got worse stopping down and/or using a deeper filter. At 950nm, it essentially is a hotspot with dark corners. In color, like with the 85/1.8, it can be a bit of a CA machine at wider apertures. That's a problem the 100 has under better control, but it wasn't a deal breaker. The undercorrected SA at wide apertures and closer focus diffuses the CA nicely. In the end, the IR performance had me looking elsewhere.
For now, at least, I think I'll go forward with the Minolta MD 28/2, Sony a-mount 50/2.8 mac, and the 100. Even with three different adapters, that only puts me at 1257g, there are no glaring differences in resolution at like apertures, and they share enough in common to make color matching the most effort I'll have to expend on the differences in post. And all three are excellent IR performers, so they're ready for anything.