 |
|
|
jlorenzo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I found it too sharp for portraits. But overall I like it a lot.
|
|
Cons:
|
I used it in AF mode at it closest focus and this wasn't a nice experience. I ended up putting it back in manual mode.
|
|
|
I like the speed of the lens in that at a proper distance it is quite fast in AF mode, however up close to the closest end of it focal range wasn't too impressed. AF kept jumping all over the place. Using it in manual mode was where I go thte best results, mainly for a portrait lens it's too sharp.
|
|
 Nov 16, 2007
|
|
Nello Milanese
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 7515
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Bright lens, super-fast focusing, sharp even wide-open, full-time manual focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I've had it for a few months now and i must say it's the best €€ I've spent so far. i don't use it a lot but when I do I get that dam** feeling and a smile! it's problably one of the fastest focusing lens in Canon's line-up. I wasn't expecting good sharpness wide open but boy was I wrong. this lens is SHARP even at F2..a few clicks down and it's a killer (maybe too sharp for portraits?). here's a shot that I sold to the dog's owner (he loved it) wide open:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1023/1460019926_484240bf03_o_d.jpg
I haven't seen the CA's that people talk about. Add a 50mm prime to this and you're all set. You really can't go wrong with primes. I'd never part from this lens. Love it. Highly reccomended.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2007
|
|
john Paul
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 150
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $370.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice focal length for portraits / head shots.. Fast, smooth AF.. Build quality is good..
|
|
Cons:
|
Useless wide open..because of the CA.. Not as sharp as 85 f1.8
|
|
|
Well,....if it weren't for the CA,...this lens would be pretty nice to work with.. It was noticeably not as sharp as my 85mm f1.8 either.. The CA was noticeable up to f4.0..and wide open, it was so noticeable that it made shooting wide open unacceptable. I've shot with many different Canon lenses from fisheye to super teles, and this was the worst as far as CA goes.. I ended up selling it after it sat for 6 months without using it..
It's possible that I just got a body copy, but then again, maybe my standards are higher than most...and for a prime lens, I felt the lens should have performed better than it did, considering my old 85mm is much better and shows no sign of CA....which was what I was expecting from this similar lens design..
Sorry!
JP
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2007
|
|
Ben Delfont
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 20, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Aug 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp, lovely bokeh, great shallow depth of field at f2
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a lot, really...
|
|
|
This lens is great for portraits - i use it on a 5D, and I can be far enough away not to be intrusive... Fantastic sharpness, no CA that I've noticed, lovely shallow depth of field... Highly recommended, and good value too, for once....
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2007
|
|
harbinder chad
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 20, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light weight, sharp, cost, right focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
CA in extreme light
|
|
|
There were three lenses in consideration for indoor sports: 100/f2, 135/f2, and 200/1.8. When compared to the classic 135/f2 on 1.6 crop, the 100/f2 out performed at all higher iso settings. Surperising after all the reviews posted on the 135/f2. Now if my camera shop in LA could get their hands on the 200/1.8, I could tell you the comparison. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007
|
|
damongrounsell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 3, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 165
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Razor sharp images, wide apperture, fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
CA's in extreme light,
|
|
|
Fantastic sharpness in film and digital, does what it was designed for, performance in low light is amazing even wide open it give good sharpness and focus performs in very low light. As good as my 50mm f1.8I in terms of sharpness but delivers much more pleasent portraits due to flattening of perspective. Amazing I love it, well worth the price I paid
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2007
|
|
Steven Myatt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight. Small size. Excellent sharpness. Fast focus. Great in low light. Cost.
|
|
Cons:
|
Purple fringing wide open on bright subjects.
|
|
|
I needed a lens to capture school events indoors. This lens is perfect for that mission. The first thing I did with this lens was test it out. Others have mentioned purple-fringing as a major problem with this lens. In the test shots I made, I did see a purple fringe around bright items (like snow piles on a dark driveway) at large aperture settings. As the lens is stopped down, the fringing disappears. By f5.6 it was gone. At this point, I'm seeing a razor-sharp, high-contrast, color-perfect, image. Wow.
In indoor situations (which is what this lens was bought for), purple fringing is not a problem. Outside, I stop the lens down a bit to get stunning images. This lens accomplishes its mission in spectacular fashion... and the cost was very reasonable. All in all, this is a hard lens to beat for the money.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2007
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
light, fast focusing, built well and very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
horriffic CA
|
|
This lens would get a good rating but the CA was soo bad with my copy. I suspect it was a return as the box was not sealed 
the pictures were amazingly sharp though and if you get a copy without the levels of CA I got then great but sadly mine was bad.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2007
|
|
Christian S.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, small, f 2, feels sturdy, silent USM.
|
|
Cons:
|
CA worse than kit lens!, focus range, AF hunts in low light.
|
|
|
This lens broke my heart.
I love the way it feels and I love its sharpness. The sharpness kills every cheap lens I ever owned and / or tested. And for that price...ahhhh.
But the CA is so extreme outdoors, best see the shot. I admit it's with f 2 but see for yourself:
<img src="http://percievium.com/100tst.jpg>
Combining its bad performance outdoors (w sunlight) and its troubles indoors with a min distance of about 1m and 160mm focal range, I can't find any use for this lens.
I will buy it if I ever have a full frame, but for now it's going back...
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2006
|
|
Dave Indech
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Surefooted AF, solid build, small size, very sharp at close distances, excellent bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp until at least f/2.8 past ~2m
|
|
|
This is a stellar portrait lens.
Various reasons why:
Unlike a 70-200/L zoom, it's small, short, and black. It rarely ever causes people to give it a second glance. It's possible to be unobtrusive with this lens.
AF is very accurate in low light, very fast, and almost completely silent. On my 300D, it'll pick up contrasty targets in a room lit by a single 60W bulb with no assist.
Build is very good; similar materials as my 50/1.4, but with more heft, and no loose pieces inside. I've dropped this one from a short distance. Save for a dented filter, no harm.
Optical quality is way up there at close distances. I have Provia portraits on this one from my Elan II, wide open, that are just exceptional. I can count lines on the irises on certain subjects.
It isn't so strong over longer distances. Detail perks up at f/4 or so, but it's definitely soft at f/2 if I'm shooting people 10m to infinity. Over very long distances (>50m), I'd rather use ISO 1600 and f/2.8 than ISO 800 and f/2.
---
I should point out my copy is a refurb, and unlike my 50/1.4, I haven't sent it back to Canon a dozen times for calibration, so I have no idea if this performance is 'OEM spec'.
---
But none of this is surprising. It's optimized to be a portrait lens.
Incidentally, at 160mm equivalent, it's a little long for the job on a crop body. I tend to use my copy in good light because handshake becomes a major problem indoors. Even f/2 and ISO 800 isn't enough when you want to maintain 1/200. My 50/1.4 is at least two stops faster in relative handholdability.
Nor is it so easy to zoom with one's feet at 160mm. If you want to take a picture of two people, you'll have to stand about ten feet back. That makes it bit impersonal, and if it's at all crowded, you may not be able to move that far back.
I highly recommend this lense for the following:
Anyway, I highly recommend it as a portrait lens when you need discretion. Various zooms can catch it at f/4, but none have that gorgeous f/2 bokeh.
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2006
|
|
Dan Zinc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2006
Location: Romania
Posts: 39
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Pros:
- 10 pts, central to marginal sharpness:
- 10 pts, contrast and color rendition, in Adobe RGB, despite the Kelvin degree of the light;
- 10 pts, AF speed in medium to low light, even in AF Servo;
- 10 pts, weight and handling;
- 8.5 pts, build quality (front glass is too close to the extern barrel);
- 8.5 pts, prints over 40cm;
- 9 pts, overall quality of the pictures produce by this lens;
- I like the discrete way it looks on the camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cons:
- 6 pts, 7 blades diaphragm which produce poor backlight bokeh;
- 7 pts, sever CA at the boundary of white or high reflecting surfaces when shutting backlight;
- no hood in the kit.
|
|
|
Reviews about this lens have misleading me. My experience – most with Zeiss lenses – taught me that there is no universal lens. On digital, I use to shot with 300D, 350D, 30D and 1D.
Canon lenses: EF-S 18-55/kit; EF 17-40/4L; EF 70-200/4L, EF 200/2.8L; EF 100/2.0.
In short..., about 100/2.0 USM
Pros:
- 10 pts, central to marginal sharpness:
- 10 pts, contrast and color rendition, in Adobe RGB, despite the Kelvin degree of the light;
- 10 pts, AF speed in medium to low light, even in AF Servo;
- 10 pts, weight and handling;
- 8.5 pts, build quality (front glass is too close to the extern barrel);
- 8.5 pts, prints over 40cm;
- 9 pts, overall quality of the pictures produce by this lens;
- I like the discrete way it looks on the camera.
Cons:
- 6 pts, 7 blades diaphragm which produce poor backlight bokeh;
- 7 pts, sever CA at the boundary of white or high reflecting surfaces when shutting backlight;
- no hood in the kit.
Conclusion:
- lens dose the best job by shutting action on low light, but no far than 20m targets;
- very good on action at snow sports (ski, snowboarding, etc) if you carry the camera (that why I bought it);
- good on portrait (a little bit too sharp if the subject is over 30 yo)
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2006
|
|
ivyinvestor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 237
|
|
Review Date: Sep 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $394.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, bokeh, value, size, focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I love this lens. I'd previously tried a friend's and was quite impressed with the sharpness from f2.2/2.5 onward, and the bokeh around f2.8/3.2. Upon purchasing the lens, I was overjoyed to discover both better sharpness (impressive wide open and just great by 2.2/2.5 in most circumstances) and smoother bokeh. I've also done some comparing of my lens with an 85mm f/1.8 that I used to own and I'm quite a bit more impressed with the CA performance at wide apertures with the 100mm than with the 85mm: at f/2, CA is present in high contrast situations, but not nearly as bad as with my 85mm; by f/2.5-2.8, the CA is already greatly reduced; and, by f/3.2-4, it's nearly absent. For a non-L, the contrast and color are great, as well. For the cost, size, and capability, I have yet to use a more impressive prime!
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2006
|
|
Califfoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2006
|
|
Heechee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 383
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality is already very nice at f2. Small size.
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't focus very near.
|
|
|
If you want a 100mm prime, the choice between this one and the f2.8 macro USM is pretty hard. I tried the macro a while back, and decided not to keep it.
Reasons:
- Macro lens was too large
- I really need f2 for low light action shots
- I shoot macros pretty infrequently
- Did I mention the macro is too large :-)
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2006
|
|
joe mama
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 4618
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, speed, size, weight -- everything
|
|
Cons:
|
Absolutely nothing.
|
|
It is my most used lens on the 5D, usurping the 85 / 1.8. I have nothing bad to say about the 85 / 1.8, and, in fact, the 85 / 1.8 and this lens are basically the same. I guess I just prefer 100mm.
I used to own the 135 / 2L. However, I found that I almost always used the 100 / 2 and got closer instead. The IQ is identical (if there was a difference, I never saw it) as was the AF speed. Actually, truth be told, if anything, the 100 / 2 might be a bit quicker on recovery from a miss.
But the size and weight of this lens makes is a joy to use, and, as I mentioned, the IQ is *top rate*.
Let me put it this way -- the lens is so good, that you will find a way to frame a shot at 100mm even when you want something different, and be happy with what you got.
That said, I own a few other lenses, too. : )
Oh yeah -- pics. Millions of them. Here are a few:
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/61342151/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/62001005/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/62102132/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/60364439/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/61244174/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/58583932/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/59653078/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/56892684/original
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/61035077/original
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2006
|
|
Denizen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 470
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great focal length for portraits. F2 is certainly enough for low light and for a pleasing bokeh (at this focal length).
|
|
Cons:
|
I give my 135 2L the edge over this lens but at over twice the cost I might have expected more than just an edge.
None really.
|
|
|
I went to a local shop (My new favorite) to do a side by side comparison between the 85 1.2L and the 85 1.8. Christy being my new favorite sales person set me up with a card, reader and nice display screen to sample the results. (Must say, I could ogle the 1.2 for the length of time I was getting out of debt from it but really not any discernible difference between the two side by side. (at least not $1,550 worth of difference!)
Anyway, my new favorite sales lady, knowingly slid a 100 2 across the counter. With my trusty super model girlfriend along to help me test. I snapped some shots, put them on the display.... and WOW!
A clear winner.
I shot with this lens the very same day that I bought it and was amazed by how 3D of an appearance I got. My subject was 2-3 feet from the closest object with the rest of the background much further off and it was shocking how much she appears to be separated from her surroundings.
Stunning!!!
I feel like I will have to strap some weight to the side of it and paint a fine red stripe around the end to make me feel better but when I pull the images up I can't help but think of all of the money I will make on top of all of the money I've saved.
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
86
|
248360
|
Nov 27, 2021
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
97% of reviewers
|
$354.31
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.78
|
9.19
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
