Canon LTM 100mm Canon F/2 How best to test?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Excellent! :-8
The 100/2 is a luxury.
You seldom need the speed, but if you do, the lens is not *too* heavy, when compared with others. I found that the size advantage of the black 85/1.8 doesn't matter (and with most Canon bodies the 100mm is a better choice).
For some reasons a sharp 100/2 lens seem to need certain volume. The Canon has the same size as the Olympus OM 100/2, which performance is comparable. The Komura 100/1.8 is smaller thanks to Ernostar but not as contrasty. My oppinion is that the Canon 100/2 and 85/1.8 are the first "modern" (means: size and weight optimized) Gaussian telephoto lenses in history.
 
Life is too short to worry about lenses that went away.
Enjoy your Canon 100/2, and show us more results.
 
I used to have a 100/ 3.5 black and got rid of it because the only use I had for it was filming performers on stage (at night) that were constantly moving and I couldn't keep it in focus. I got rid of it and bought an 85/1.8 black just for portraits. I also have an Jupiter 9 85 Russian too. 85mm is the practical, upper limit for my RF lenses.
 
This Just Arrived From Japan.

This Just Arrived From Japan.

My new 100mm F2, mounted on my new (second) Sony Nex-3.

Very nice combo. I will be using this one alot.
 

Attachments

  • DSC04080.jpg
    DSC04080.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 0
There are several high quality tele lenses that can be used. The Canon 100/2 is one of them. Is it somehow superior to the Nikon 105/2.5? I doubt it.
 
raid said:
There are several high quality tele lenses that can be used. The Canon 100/2 is one of them. Is it somehow superior to the Nikon 105/2.5? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

What's to doubt? It's faster, sharp wide open and does not weigh any more (could be lighter) than the nikon RF 105--which of course is not the same lens as the newer SLR 105.
 
uhoh7 said:
What's to doubt? It's faster, sharp wide open and does not weigh any more (could be lighter) than the nikon RF 105--which of course is not the same lens as the newer SLR 105.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 105 is very sharp wide open. The Sonnar design Nikkor is a pleasure to use.
 
I like the Nikon too

I like the Nikon too

the 105//2.5 works great on the NEX but for me, the fl. is a bit long. 57/1.4 is about the longest I use regularly. I carry the kit 16 all the time, as it's so small and light, but rarely use it. Mainly using the 40 Hexanon AR pancake, CV 21/4, and J3 50/1.5, and 57/1.4 Hexanon AR.

raid said:
The Nikon 105 is very sharp wide open. The Sonnar design Nikkor is a pleasure to use.
Click to expand...
 
uhoh7 said:
What's to doubt? It's faster, sharp wide open and does not weigh any more (could be lighter) than the nikon RF 105--which of course is not the same lens as the newer SLR 105.
Click to expand...



I'd much rather have an F2 lens rather than F2.5 especially since it's quite sharp wide-open.

This is a great lens in my opinion. Other than size and weight (which are not factors for me), what's not to like?
 
I think there is no doubt the 105 is great, I'd like to have one too :)

but better than a canon 100/2?

no way. the 105 was produced in large numbers, but less so the 100/2, and the 105 inherits it's newer cousin's reputation, so it's a really well known lens.

but the 100/2 and the 85/1.8 canons are canon's masterpieces technically. Both designed by the really famous guy.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom