Koni Kowa
Well-known
Same roll, better framing :
Koni Kowa
Well-known
I think I may keep this lens for a while...
Last edited:
noimmunity
scratch my niche
lovely composition...!
menos
Veteran
Yes, it is technically an extremely impressive lens ahead of it's time in lens design (this and it's close relative, the one year later 85/1.8).
I really love the 100/2 for it's very modern qualities, but lack of clipping blacks, while being tack sharp from ƒ2 on (!) and giving that unique Sonnar look.
I love mine so much, I even consider, to find another sample and compare them (I had to collimate mine to Leica digital, to work spot on, curious, if all need some sort of work - the 85/1.8 was totally off).
I am not sure, if this is a lens design or just a collimation issue - I strongly suppose the latter.
I am quite impressed though by the detail, this Canon 100 ƒ2 juices out @ infinity wide open! it is a 50 year old lens design after all!
What I like these Canons best for though is thin dof close up portraits:
M8.2 | Canon 100 ƒ2 ~ 2.8
Looking at menos portraits, I could not resist any longer so I found a very nice Canon 100mm f/2 LTM in june and used it during the summer.
…
Haha - congrats on the lens, it is such a beauty!
These Canons are so good, that in fact a Leica latest pre ASPH 90 Cron collects dust in storage, while I take the Canon 100/2 and 85/1.8 out to shoot.
Sure, the Leica is a bit convenient with it's double helical focus mount, but it ain't no Sonnar and it just looks different.
I really prefer the black superspeed Canon teles.
Nice moody photographs with the Canon ;-)
Here is one from Dresden/ Germany, that shows the Sonnar look, I like about the 100 ƒ2:
Dresden - Nymphenbad by teknopunk.com, on Flickr
raid
Dad Photographer
I chose the Nikon 105 over the Canon 100/2.
I have no regrets.
I have no regrets.
menos
Veteran
Raid - why did you decide that way - I am curious?
When I got the Canon 100/2, there was a Nikon 105/2.5 in the shop as well.
I didn't know about the Nikon's reputation, read a bit and went to the shop next day, to get the Nikon as well, to decide, which to keep.
The Nikon is an amazing lens, regarding it's rendering, I think, more modern and less unfortunate for facial details, but compared to the fully aluminum made Canon 100/2, it is a dog to use.
My decision for the Canon is entirely from a user perspective. It feels much better balanced on a M without motor.
uhoh7
Veteran
Menos, wonderful samples, and I would not doubt you may be correct about collimation
today I had the 100/2 out in horrendous conditions:
f/2 iso 400
outside it was dark and raining, inside very dim, and to make matters worse the light source is begging to purple fringe and cuts horribly accross many frames. I did recover the highlights a tad and reduce noise a bit in LR.
Both my canon 85/1.8 and nokton 50/1.1 were fringing wide open much more.
The canon 100 is quite a bit sharper wide open than my nikon 10.5, but the latter is dirty ---hold it
well maybe its not so dirty, here the 10.5 on a different day looking fairly snappy @ f/2.5
obviously light and distance very different than first shot.
and on review of that shoot in shots with similar challange to first shot here, I have to say the nikon is fringing even less than the canon.
the nikon in portrait mode:
today I had the 100/2 out in horrendous conditions:
f/2 iso 400
outside it was dark and raining, inside very dim, and to make matters worse the light source is begging to purple fringe and cuts horribly accross many frames. I did recover the highlights a tad and reduce noise a bit in LR.
Both my canon 85/1.8 and nokton 50/1.1 were fringing wide open much more.
The canon 100 is quite a bit sharper wide open than my nikon 10.5, but the latter is dirty
---hold it
well maybe its not so dirty, here the 10.5 on a different day looking fairly snappy @ f/2.5
obviously light and distance very different than first shot.
and on review of that shoot in shots with similar challange to first shot here, I have to say the nikon is fringing even less than the canon.
the nikon in portrait mode:
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I had both lenses, and had also the 105/2.5 in Nikon F SLR mount.
I like it so much that I prefer it. It is a personal choice in the end, Menos.
I traded the 100/2 for a 50/1.5 with a RFF member. He is happy,and I am happy about the trade. No money was involved.
My choice was based from a user perspective too.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Concerning the Nikkor 10.5 (or the canon 100), are you using the 90mm lines or are you using special viewer?
Sonnar2
Well-known
I sold my LTM Nikkor 105/2.5 in favor of the Canon 100/2 and don't regret it.
The Nikkor was always a bit "off" RF-wise, except for infinity, not really sharp. I kept my SLR-Nikkor 105/2.5 which is way cheaper to buy. But to be honest, I like the modernized version of the 105/2.5 (Planar design) more. (pictures of both here)
Compared the Canon 100/2 with the old Nikkor 105/2.5 there are worlds in between. Lens research and development has galloped in these years, going slowly nowadays. The Canon is much ligther in weight too, although it is more than half a step faster.
Going one development step further you get the modern "clinical" sharpness look, like the Apo-Summicron 90/2 or Zuiko 100/2 shows.
The Nikkor was always a bit "off" RF-wise, except for infinity, not really sharp. I kept my SLR-Nikkor 105/2.5 which is way cheaper to buy. But to be honest, I like the modernized version of the 105/2.5 (Planar design) more. (pictures of both here)
Compared the Canon 100/2 with the old Nikkor 105/2.5 there are worlds in between. Lens research and development has galloped in these years, going slowly nowadays. The Canon is much ligther in weight too, although it is more than half a step faster.
Going one development step further you get the modern "clinical" sharpness look, like the Apo-Summicron 90/2 or Zuiko 100/2 shows.
Koni Kowa
Well-known
Menos, I really LOVE your portraits with this 100/2.
Congrats, I think they're really great : expressive, many details, good BW rendition, beautiful out of focus area.
I took my very first portraits with the 100/2 only yesterday.
I only made landscape shots with it before. Here I was near to the minimal focus distance (1 meter) on my M2 :
I made a "reportage" during a protest yesterday morning.
I used my good old Canon 35/1.5 LTM for all the serie, except for the portraits with the microphone, where I used the 100/2.
The entire serie is HERE.
It's made on Kodak Tri-X and Ilford LC29.
I'd like to find a Nikkor 105/2.5 one day but I'll take a camera with a 100 or 105 frame too,
because shooting with a 105mm lens using a 90mm frame won't work with me.
Last edited:
Mackinaw
Think Different
Raid------All digital or was the B&W done with film? What camera(s) and what aperture(s)?
Jim B.
Jim B.
raid
Dad Photographer
uhoh7
Veteran
Canon 100/2 yesterday:
around f/4
around f/4
Sonnar2
Well-known
Raid, I like your pictures for the nice young ladies, not the lens you took them with. Looks a bit like my Nikkor 105/2.5, slightly "off". So it was you who bought it?...
Wheras the Canon 100/2 has "landscape lens quality" as uhoh7 proves...
Wheras the Canon 100/2 has "landscape lens quality" as uhoh7 proves...
raid
Dad Photographer
I'm not so sure that I can agree with you on this.
Your personal preference is one lens..... for "landscape lens quality".
This is new to me.
I am learning something new here.
Your personal preference is one lens..... for "landscape lens quality".
This is new to me.
I am learning something new here.
Last edited:
menos
Veteran
uhoh7 - great photo with the horse - like the first a lot.
That Nikkor really shines for portraits - much nicer look in my opinion than the more crisp, contrasty Canon!
It is only a choice regarding usability and imaging, not economics. Many people on the net preach the superiority of Leica glass over all, but there are those wonderful LTM choices, I love more and more ;-)
The Canon 100/2 LTM is the lens, that started the short tele frenzy with me.
After this lens, I got several lenses from 73 to 105 and somehow love them all for one or the other reason.
My biggest preferences though are with the exceptional late black Canon 85/1.8.
I was going through old photographs recently and then it hit me:
The way, these two Canon lenses render from sharp focus to out of focus (around a face for example) very similar, the Nikon 58mm ƒ1.2 Noct-Nikkor does. It has a very, very smooth and clean, yet organic and non artificial look in this regard - I love that!
Raid, your portraits with the Nikkor are beautiful - makes one understand, why you like this lens so much. The Canon would not show this mild soft look, but would look less pleasing in these situations.
On film, the M8.2 and M9, I use the 90mm frame lines for either the 100mm and the 85mm and compensate a little by feel.
I mostly don't frame accurately with the tele lenses, but shot loose and correct a bit with cropping.
Things move so quickly, when shooting action, that the focussing is demanding enough.
most close up portraits, I do with these teles are uncropped though, as I often do a series and work different views and details and select the more pleasing ones later.
I dont do landscape (with very few exceptions).
The Canon 100/2 is really fun to use!
Like your shots on TriX alot with this lens - reminds me, to try it on film!
That Nikkor really shines for portraits - much nicer look in my opinion than the more crisp, contrasty Canon!
Raid, I can fully understand! Often personal choices are very strange - I can't understand my own reasoning, why I so much prefer the two Canon teles over the equivalent Leitz glass.
It is only a choice regarding usability and imaging, not economics. Many people on the net preach the superiority of Leica glass over all, but there are those wonderful LTM choices, I love more and more ;-)
The Canon 100/2 LTM is the lens, that started the short tele frenzy with me.
After this lens, I got several lenses from 73 to 105 and somehow love them all for one or the other reason.
My biggest preferences though are with the exceptional late black Canon 85/1.8.
I was going through old photographs recently and then it hit me:
The way, these two Canon lenses render from sharp focus to out of focus (around a face for example) very similar, the Nikon 58mm ƒ1.2 Noct-Nikkor does. It has a very, very smooth and clean, yet organic and non artificial look in this regard - I love that!
Raid, your portraits with the Nikkor are beautiful - makes one understand, why you like this lens so much. The Canon would not show this mild soft look, but would look less pleasing in these situations.
I never use external finders except for the 15 Heliar.
On film, the M8.2 and M9, I use the 90mm frame lines for either the 100mm and the 85mm and compensate a little by feel.
I mostly don't frame accurately with the tele lenses, but shot loose and correct a bit with cropping.
Things move so quickly, when shooting action, that the focussing is demanding enough.
most close up portraits, I do with these teles are uncropped though, as I often do a series and work different views and details and select the more pleasing ones later.
I dont do landscape (with very few exceptions).
That is too nice of you ;-) I am just playin'
The Canon 100/2 is really fun to use!
Like your shots on TriX alot with this lens - reminds me, to try it on film!
uhoh7
Veteran
great posts everyone
here the nikon 10.5 @ f/5.6
100%:
same lens @ f/2.5
as you see, a hint of swirl which i do not think the Canon will do under any circumstances--but I may be mistaken. I do like swirls, and if I'm correct it's worth having both for that difference alone.
100%
not bad at all, sun was down, skylight only.
both shots from today, no fancy PP, in fact the WB is auto and I only touched the NR a whisper
I need to get the nikon out for some bright trees.
bokeh in close up is pretty dang smooth
these seem to be running 225 for nikon RF and closer to 3 or more for LTM: good users. The canon can be found for around 4, but not so easily. I think there were 10 times as many nikons made
here the nikon 10.5 @ f/5.6
100%:
same lens @ f/2.5
as you see, a hint of swirl which i do not think the Canon will do under any circumstances--but I may be mistaken. I do like swirls, and if I'm correct it's worth having both for that difference alone.
100%
not bad at all, sun was down, skylight only.
both shots from today, no fancy PP, in fact the WB is auto and I only touched the NR a whisper
I need to get the nikon out for some bright trees.
bokeh in close up is pretty dang smooth
these seem to be running 225 for nikon RF and closer to 3 or more for LTM: good users. The canon can be found for around 4, but not so easily. I think there were 10 times as many nikons made
Last edited:
RF_newbie
RF_newbie John
Great shots, every one of them. I like the 100/2 a lot, but still love to fondle my nikon 85/1.5 more, even with the long throw
uhoh7
Veteran
well i took out the 10.5 today
I shot at f/5.6, which is sharpest on my aps-c sensor. What comes accross right away is that the nikkor has far less contrast unadjusted than the Canon. Now my Canon is cleaner than my nikon, which may account for some of it.
But shooting film, I'd say the Canon would be much better for landscapes just for this reason.
with digital its not even an issue really, in fact it might be better, since 2 secs in LR will get you fine contrast and maybe you will blow less highlights.
properly focused, the nikon (my copy) is just a hair less sharp than the Canon, but quite sharp. Both behind the Canon 85/1.8.
I shot at f/5.6, which is sharpest on my aps-c sensor. What comes accross right away is that the nikkor has far less contrast unadjusted than the Canon. Now my Canon is cleaner than my nikon, which may account for some of it.
But shooting film, I'd say the Canon would be much better for landscapes just for this reason.
with digital its not even an issue really, in fact it might be better, since 2 secs in LR will get you fine contrast and maybe you will blow less highlights.
properly focused, the nikon (my copy) is just a hair less sharp than the Canon, but quite sharp. Both behind the Canon 85/1.8.