View Full Version : 100mm f/2
seen this ?
A rare Canon RF lens, one of the latest (and best reputated). A proud reserve price, but the condition seems excellent.
Would be a good addition to my Canon-P... I wonder if this perfoms better than my 3.5/100 or the 1.8/85 ?
Looks not so compact.. but probably not so heavy as my Nikkor-P 2.5/105... tempted to bid.. :-)
very nice but out of my price range.
I wonder if i could make it fit my future contax?:D
Or my minolta af slr?hmm...
I think I need a canon rf. :D
canon is the new leica.
I shoot with both the 85/1.5 and the 100/2, and in my experience (and opinion):
-- At wide apertures, the 100/2 is somewhat sharper in the center and considerably sharper at the corners. The 85 is okay, but the 100 is noticeably better.
-- At moderate to small apertures, the differences level out and both lenses perform very well.
-- Neither of them has quite as much contrast as a modern lens in the same category (my main basis for comparison being the 85/1.4 Minolta I used to own and the 85/1.8 Nikkor I have now) but the 85 is acceptable and the 100 is good. (If you're nuts for contrast and texture and want a vintage lens, you're probably better off scaring up a 105/2.5 Nikkor -- but the Canon is 1/2 stop faster and is still pretty good for contrast.)
-- The 100 is much better at full aperture than the 90mm f/2 Summicron I used to own (first generation model with removable lens head.) The Summicron produces a halo around bright highlights, while the Canon's image is clean.
Overall, I'd say that of all the vintage teles I've used, the 100/2 comes closest to the sharpness and contrast of a modern optic, while still retaining something of a "vintage" look. With most older high-speed medium teles, you find yourself saying "It performs really well for a lens designed in 19__," while with the Canon you can say "It performs well," with no qualifications.
Another advantage vs. the 85 (since you mentioned that you're a P owner) is that you don't need an accessory viewfinder for the 100, but you do for the 85!
One downside (also true of the 85 and most other Canon RF tele lenses): it's got a single-helical focusing mount, so the aperture ring rotates as you focus, and you have to hold the focus ring still with your free hand to change apertures! Lots of other oldie lenses are like this, too, but it seems odd with the 100/2 because it is so modern in most other respects...
Hej, Great info... :-)
Yes the single-helicoil is a bit annoying (the 1.8/85 has the same). For the lightweight 3.5/100 its OK but not the expensive, bigger ones...
I always suggested the 6-element 2/100 should be a bit better than the 5-element 1.8/85.. even Canonmuseum says it was released 1959 where the 1.8/85 was 1961 (and kept the design well into the 90's!)...
575 USD - I guess it's worth but too high for me for this big piece of glass... and too similiar to my 1.8/85... it's true, the Canon-P don't have framelines for it (looking for apropriate brightline finder..!) but my Canon-7 has.. :-)
Anyway, my shelf starts sagging under the weight of Telephoto-lenses, i.e. fat Nikkor-P 2.5/105... The Canon 3.5/100 is also not a bad lens, far more compact and much cheaper... mostly in my coat, not at the shelf... maybe the reason why the 2/100 is rare...
Beside, IMHO, at this high speed lenses here starts RF insanity... ;-) I've bought a very nice Zeiss 1.4/85 for 500 USD (quite the same weight as my old Canon and slightly sharper at f/5.6-8, not to speak about wide open). Portrait sharpness at 1.4-1.8 is a question of milimeters... you can't stop focussing for a second when looking through the finder... the same with the 0.95/50.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.