Canon EF 100mm f2 USM review

Love this lens. Clear and sharp photos. Used it mainly to photo my son playing water polo outside. Excellent! I recommend this lens.

I bought this for portraits and am very happy with it. The speed of F2 combined with the focal length is perfect for my need. The 135mm F1.4 is just a smidge long for me. I'm very happy with this.

This is my eighth lens, and while this is a FF lens, I am using it on a crop. I purchased this lens for portraits, in particular with children and candid street portraits. Let us review the competition, which would be the set of short tele primes. From canon there is the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2L and the Canon 135mm f/2L, then there are a plethora of good f/2.8 macro primes, such as the Canon 100mm macro and the L version, Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm and the sigma 105mm. In manual focus, there are the Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 and Ziess 100mm f/2 planar. Those would be the main competitors. The 100mm f/2 is a good compromise of price, AF, speed, length and weight. Lets consider the length. Now, if you consider the competition, the 135L and 85mm f/1.8 are the most comparable, and while the 135L does shine, on an APSC, your talking about an equivalent of 200mm. I tried it and it was just a touch on the long side, not only to get things in, but also to get a decent shutter speed, you are trying to get 1/200 of a second, which is a little difficult. In the end, as great as that prime was, it was just too difficult to use on a crop. While the 135L is legendarily sharp, the drop to 100mm is just long enough for inside head shots and intimate moments. The working distance was also a godsend with shy children. My niece is quite shy, and this was just long enough for her to open up. The 85mm is also a valid option, but at events, I'm afraid 85mm didn't cut it. The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens, and it is optically very similar, but I just found myself wanting something a little closer. Also, 85mm was just a little too close in length to my 60mm prime. Everyone is different, and 100mm for me fit the bill. In dark situations, I would use this over a 70-200mm f/4 and crop with good results. Now I have shot with this for a while, I have a better understanding of the optics. The sharpness, under ideal conditions, is great. Not mind-blowingly brilliant, but great. In all honesty the 135L and the 60mm macro are sharper, but the sharpness is for all intents and purposes, good enough. The sharpness wide open is ok, not spectacular, but very good. Certainly good for most applications. The canon 100mm f/2 improves pretty rapidly from wide open, you need only stop down to f/2.5 for general constrast to improve and by f/2.8 it is about on par with the 100mm macro (non L). I was very impressed with the optics of the 100mm L, which I felt was a little sharper at f/2.8 and at f/4 the 100mm f/2 is incredible and very comparable to many of the macros at that aperture. This is truly a testament to the quality of the prime, especially when you consider macros typically have a conservatively defined aperture, making them very sharp. It's quite an achievement for the 100mm f/2 to hold it's own. The depth of field at f/2 for portraits is just shallow enough. It doesn't deliver the shallowest depth of field ever, but certainly enough to isolate the subject with a good amount of the face in focus. The rendering of the out of focus blur is superior to the 85mm f/1.8, but not to the 135mm and 85mm f/1.2. The out of focus blur just sits somewhere in between the 135L and 85mm f/1.8. The colours and contrast of the 100mm f/2 aren't quite up to the same standard as the 85L and 135L at large apertures, but you can bring that back in post fairly easily. At f/2.8 and up, it is barely noticeable. So, what you get is a with the 100mm prime over the 100mm macro options is a sharp lens that you can stop down to f/2, albeit at slightly decreased contrast and sharpness, but with increased MFD. This could also be said of the phenomenal Ziess 100mm f/2 planar, but since I was shooting children, AF was desirable. One thing you have to watch out for when stopping down to these levels is the chromatic aberrations. While it is easy to go crazy and shoot wide open all the time, it does result in somewhat undesirable purple and green fringing in high contrast conditions. This isn't a huge issue, but it is often better to shoot at f/2.2 or even f/2.5. This is still faster than the macro options, but certainly something to be mindful of. Onto the Autofocus. Now, this is where the 100mm f/2 shines over many of the macro options, since it is very fast and accurate. Some macros do tend to be a little slow, since they can cycle through the entire focus range. This is true of the 100mm macro and to a lesser degree the 100mm L. I found lenses like the tamron 90mm and sigma 105mm to be a little slow and be inaccurate to focus, although this could be better in the Sigmas new HSM version. I have heard of issues with the tokina as well. The 100mm is fantastically fast, and on par with both the 85mm f/1.8 and 135L. It is a lot faster than the 85mm f/1.2, which I would find impossible with children. Now lets consider the size. The lens weighs about 460g (or just a touch over 1 pound), this makes it very inconspicuous. I know it may be a little difficult to ascertain the size but it is truly difficult to believe, by the look of it, that it is indeed 100mm. I mean, if street portraits are your thing, 100mm is a great length which does not attract the same attention as a 760g 135L or a big white canon 70-200mm f/4 or massive f/2.8. It is certainly close, yet inconspicuous enough to get a very nice candid portrait. This lens hardly attracts a second glance in the city, especially on my 550D. Being so light, it's incredibly simple to hold with one hand if need be, increasing the speed at which one may take a candid shot without unnecessarily altering the state of your subject. Overall, what you get is a very sharp, fast, inconspicuous prime. It fit a niche I needed filling quite well and I have not turned back. It delivered to me about 90% of the performance of the 135L at a more manageable focal length that suites me better at half the price.

This is my eighth lens, and while this is a FF lens, I am using it on a crop. I purchased this lens for portraits, in particular with children and candid street portraits. Let us review the competition, which would be the set of short tele primes. From canon there is the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2L and the Canon 135mm f/2L, then there are a plethora of good f/2.8 macro primes, such as the Canon 100mm macro and the L version, Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm and the sigma 105mm. In manual focus, there are the Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 and Ziess 100mm f/2 planar. Those would be the main competitors. The 100mm f/2 is a good compromise of price, AF, speed, length and weight. Lets consider the length. Now, if you consider the competition, the 135L and 85mm f/1.8 are the most comparable, and while the 135L does shine, on an APSC, your talking about an equivalent of 200mm. I tried it and it was just a touch on the long side, not only to get things in, but also to get a decent shutter speed, you are trying to get 1/200 of a second, which is a little difficult. In the end, as great as that prime was, it was just too difficult to use on a crop. While the 135L is legendarily sharp, the drop to 100mm is just long enough for inside head shots and intimate moments. The working distance was also a godsend with shy children. My niece is quite shy, and this was just long enough for her to open up. The 85mm is also a valid option, but at events, I'm afraid 85mm didn't cut it. The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens, and it is optically very similar, but I just found myself wanting something a little closer. Also, 85mm was just a little too close in length to my 60mm prime. Everyone is different, and 100mm for me fit the bill. In dark situations, I would use this over a 70-200mm f/4 and crop with good results. Now I have shot with this for a while, I have a better understanding of the optics. The sharpness, under ideal conditions, is great. Not mind-blowingly brilliant, but great. In all honesty the 135L and the 60mm macro are sharper, but the sharpness is for all intents and purposes, good enough. The sharpness wide open is ok, not spectacular, but very good. Certainly good for most applications. The canon 100mm f/2 improves pretty rapidly from wide open, you need only stop down to f/2.5 for general constrast to improve and by f/2.8 it is about on par with the 100mm macro (non L). I was very impressed with the optics of the 100mm L, which I felt was a little sharper at f/2.8 and at f/4 the 100mm f/2 is incredible and very comparable to many of the macros at that aperture. This is truly a testament to the quality of the prime, especially when you consider macros typically have a conservatively defined aperture, making them very sharp. It's quite an achievement for the 100mm f/2 to hold it's own. The depth of field at f/2 for portraits is just shallow enough. It doesn't deliver the shallowest depth of field ever, but certainly enough to isolate the subject with a good amount of the face in focus. The rendering of the out of focus blur is superior to the 85mm f/1.8, but not to the 135mm and 85mm f/1.2. The out of focus blur just sits somewhere in between the 135L and 85mm f/1.8. The colours and contrast of the 100mm f/2 aren't quite up to the same standard as the 85L and 135L at large apertures, but you can bring that back in post fairly easily. At f/2.8 and up, it is barely noticeable. So, what you get is a with the 100mm prime over the 100mm macro options is a sharp lens that you can stop down to f/2, albeit at slightly decreased contrast and sharpness, but with increased MFD. This could also be said of the phenomenal Ziess 100mm f/2 planar, but since I was shooting children, AF was desirable. One thing you have to watch out for when stopping down to these levels is the chromatic aberrations. While it is easy to go crazy and shoot wide open all the time, it does result in somewhat undesirable purple and green fringing in high contrast conditions. This isn't a huge issue, but it is often better to shoot at f/2.2 or even f/2.5. This is still faster than the macro options, but certainly something to be mindful of. Onto the Autofocus. Now, this is where the 100mm f/2 shines over many of the macro options, since it is very fast and accurate. Some macros do tend to be a little slow, since they can cycle through the entire focus range. This is true of the 100mm macro and to a lesser degree the 100mm L. I found lenses like the tamron 90mm and sigma 105mm to be a little slow and be inaccurate to focus, although this could be better in the Sigmas new HSM version. I have heard of issues with the tokina as well. The 100mm is fantastically fast, and on par with both the 85mm f/1.8 and 135L. It is a lot faster than the 85mm f/1.2, which I would find impossible with children. Now lets consider the size. The lens weighs about 460g (or just a touch over 1 pound), this makes it very inconspicuous. I know it may be a little difficult to ascertain the size but it is truly difficult to believe, by the look of it, that it is indeed 100mm. I mean, if street portraits are your thing, 100mm is a great length which does not attract the same attention as a 760g 135L or a big white canon 70-200mm f/4 or massive f/2.8. It is certainly close, yet inconspicuous enough to get a very nice candid portrait. This lens hardly attracts a second glance in the city, especially on my 550D. Being so light, it's incredibly simple to hold with one hand if need be, increasing the speed at which one may take a candid shot without unnecessarily altering the state of your subject. Overall, what you get is a very sharp, fast, inconspicuous prime. It fit a niche I needed filling quite well and I have not turned back. It delivered to me about 90% of the performance of the 135L at a more manageable focal length that suites me better at half the price.

This is my eighth lens, and while this is a FF lens, I am using it on a crop. I purchased this lens for portraits, in particular with children and candid street portraits. Let us review the competition, which would be the set of short tele primes. From canon there is the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2L and the Canon 135mm f/2L, then there are a plethora of good f/2.8 macro primes, such as the Canon 100mm macro and the L version, Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm and the sigma 105mm. In manual focus, there are the Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 and Ziess 100mm f/2 planar. Those would be the main competitors. The 100mm f/2 is a good compromise of price, AF, speed, length and weight. Lets consider the length. Now, if you consider the competition, the 135L and 85mm f/1.8 are the most comparable, and while the 135L does shine, on an APSC, your talking about an equivalent of 200mm. I tried it and it was just a touch on the long side, not only to get things in, but also to get a decent shutter speed, you are trying to get 1/200 of a second, which is a little difficult. In the end, as great as that prime was, it was just too difficult to use on a crop. While the 135L is legendarily sharp, the drop to 100mm is just long enough for inside head shots and intimate moments. The working distance was also a godsend with shy children. My niece is quite shy, and this was just long enough for her to open up. The 85mm is also a valid option, but at events, I'm afraid 85mm didn't cut it. The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens, and it is optically very similar, but I just found myself wanting something a little closer. Also, 85mm was just a little too close in length to my 60mm prime. Everyone is different, and 100mm for me fit the bill. In dark situations, I would use this over a 70-200mm f/4 and crop with good results. Now I have shot with this for a while, I have a better understanding of the optics. The sharpness, under ideal conditions, is great. Not mind-blowingly brilliant, but great. In all honesty the 135L and the 60mm macro are only slightly sharper, but the sharpness is for all intents and purposes, fantastic. The sharpness wide open is ok, not spectacular, but very good. Certainly good for most applications. The canon 100mm f/2 improves pretty rapidly from wide open, you need only stop down to f/2.2 for general constrast to improve and by f/2.8 it is about on par with the 100mm macro (non L). Generally, I shoot at f/2.2 or f/2.5 to avoid chromatic abberations, and at these settings I'm always very pleasantly surprised by the stunning results. I was very impressed with the optics of the 100mm L, which I felt was a little sharper at f/2.8 and at f/4, but that said, the difference is so negligible it couldn't be used as a basis for differentiating them. The 100mm f/2 is incredible and very comparable to many of the macros at that aperture. This is truly a testament to the quality of the prime, especially when you consider macros typically have a conservatively defined aperture, making them very sharp. It's quite an achievement for the 100mm f/2 to hold it's own, so if you didn't need macro, the 100mm f/2 wins hands down. The depth of field at f/2 for portraits is just shallow enough. It doesn't deliver the shallowest depth of field ever, but certainly enough to isolate the subject with a good amount of the face in focus. The rendering of the out of focus blur is superior to the 85mm f/1.8, but not to the 135mm and 85mm f/1.2. The out of focus blur just sits somewhere in between the 135L and 85mm f/1.8. The colours and contrast of the 100mm f/2 aren't quite up to the same standard as the 85L and 135L at large apertures, but you can bring that back in post fairly easily. At f/2.8 and up, it is barely noticeable. So, what you get is a with the 100mm prime over the 100mm macro options is a sharp lens that you can stop down to f/2, albeit at slightly decreased contrast and sharpness, but with increased MFD. This could also be said of the phenomenal Ziess 100mm f/2 planar, but since I was shooting children, AF was desirable. One thing you have to watch out for when stopping down to these levels is the chromatic aberrations. While it is easy to go crazy and shoot wide open all the time, it does result in somewhat undesirable purple and green fringing in high contrast conditions. This isn't a huge issue, but it is often better to shoot at f/2.2 or even f/2.5. This is still faster than the macro options, but certainly something to be mindful of. Onto the Autofocus. Now, this is where the 100mm f/2 shines over many of the macro options, since it is very fast and accurate. Some macros do tend to be a little slow, since they can cycle through the entire focus range. This is true of the 100mm macro and to a lesser degree the 100mm L. I found lenses like the tamron 90mm and sigma 105mm to be a little slow and be inaccurate to focus, although this could be better in the Sigmas new HSM version. I have heard of issues with the tokina as well. The 100mm is fantastically fast, and on par with both the 85mm f/1.8 and 135L. It is a lot faster than the 85mm f/1.2, which I would find impossible with children. Now lets consider the size. The lens weighs about 460g (or just a touch over 1 pound), this makes it very inconspicuous. I know it may be a little difficult to ascertain the size but it is truly difficult to believe, by the look of it, that it is indeed 100mm. I mean, if street portraits are your thing, 100mm is a great length which does not attract the same attention as a 760g 135L or a big white canon 70-200mm f/4 or massive f/2.8. It is certainly close, yet inconspicuous enough to get a very nice candid portrait. This lens hardly attracts a second glance in the city, especially on my 550D. Being so light, it's incredibly simple to hold with one hand if need be, increasing the speed at which one may take a candid shot without unnecessarily altering the state of your subject. Overall, what you get is a very sharp, fast, inconspicuous prime. It fit a niche I needed filling quite well and I have not turned back. It delivered to me about 90% of the performance of the 135L at a more manageable focal length that suites me better at half the price.