Canon 100 f/2 appreciation

[rsolti]

I set off searching for a good condition Canon 85 f/1.8....couldn't find one. Happened to stumble upon a 100 f/2 which I initially wasn't interested in as it is a little longer than I like on a RF. Well, my opinion has definitely changed. Mine is spot on accurate with my M9 and it is a joy to use. The long focus throw provides for accurate focusing even at f/2. It is a very modern look, VERY sharp even at f/2. The oof rendering is unreal. Why this or the 85 f/1.8 (I assume renders very similarly) doesn't have a stronger following I don't know. The only real negative to this lens is the size.....its a beast!

Samples

at f/2

f/5.6

 

[goamules]

I think they do have a following, but there aren't many that shoot legacy lenses from 45 years ago. Some do, but only shoot other makes, so the subset is pretty small. But there is agreement these are two very good long lenses.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I've had a couple, though I don't have one at the moment. It's one of the best-rendering lenses ever, I think. Certainly that I have used. It is freaking huge and heavy, and the aperture ring turns when you focus, which is why I don't have one now. But it is amazing.

 

[rhl-oregon]

I have the tiny 100/3.5 Serenar , and it performs wonderfully, and even better, weighs nearly nothing (unlike my 85/1.9 Serenar, aptly described on Antique&ClassicCams as "heavy and beautiful").

Great images. Treasure the IQ and accept the weight.

 

[Brian Legge]

The F2 tends to go for $600-700. :\ I'd give one a shot but not at that price. I don't shoot long lenses enough to justify more than the 100mm 3.5 which is also an excellent piece of glass.

 

[rscheffler]

Great samples Ryan!

Wow, I haven't seen any for $600-700. More like $1000, at which point my curiosity is tempered by availability of Leica options for slightly more.

Maybe the Canon LTM lenses don't get much love because my impression is many 'alt' users are rather apathetic about current Canon glass, which may also affect their perceptions about these older lenses. I have grown to appreciate the 50/1.4, which is a definite step up in across-frame performance over the Sonnar 50s of the era, yet still retains a certain drawing style different from modern glass.

 

[Lss]

I have eyed these Canon lenses for some time. They are too long for me (M8 & R-D1, and these days I seldom use longer than 50mm on film), but would work great on full frame. I currently have the Serenar 85/1.9.

This being a 100/2 thread, I will only link these pictures with M8 & 85/1.9: 1, 2.

 

[Brian Legge]

Yeah, I need to use my 100mm 3.5 more often. Its small enough to take out that I don't really have an excuse.

 

[rsolti]

Now you guys have me curious about the 100 3.5...may need to try that one. Here are a few more from the 100 f/2 though

f/4

the rest f/2

 

[furcafe]

Aside from relative scarcity, I think you sort of answered your own question at the end: both the 85/1.8 & 100/2 are big (for RF) lenses. Also they were introduced towards the end of the RF era, & by that time long lenses were already the province of SLRs.

. . . Why this or the 85 f/1.8 (I assume renders very similarly) doesn't have a stronger following I don't know. The only real negative to this lens is the size.....its a beast!

 

[jmilkins]

Prompted me to try mine out today on the Nex 7 . It is sharp alright, with quite modern rendering. This is at f2.8.

I like it on the Nex, though the 100/3.5 is also great.

[/url] ..immovable object meets irresistible force... by transalper, on Flickr[/IMG]