Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM Telephoto AutoFocus Lens - Refurbished

2020-12-26T19:00:00

A splendid optic for portrait work! It delivers excellent sharpness and contrast at nearly every aperture, rendering wonderful backgrounds at f2-2.8 settings. Using it with a 5Ds body, and it handles the file size with ease. Love the small compact size, and uses less expensive filters than the f/2.8 tele zooms. Luckily I found a new copy, and I hope it’s with me for years to come....

Retired P.

Originally posted at

2019-04-09T20:00:00

This is a follow-up to my 2015 review. This lens still continues to blow me away in full frame format. It has to be one of Canon's most underrated lenses. It excels in all possible ways. My prior review primarily focused on landscape photography at smaller apertures. I'm now also using this lens at large apertures for shallow depth of field photography (plants/flowers. Image quality from f/2.2 to f/2.8 is exceptional. Very sharp deep into the mid-frame with excellent bokeh, minimal light fall-off, and excellent color/contrast. f/2.5 and beyond is edge to edge sharp. This lens is also becoming my go-to environmental wildlife lens for elk in low light. The compact lightweight portability of this lens is just such a no-brainer. I hope that Canon never discontinues this lens. Red ring L quality in an affordable compact lightweight package. The obvious alternative to this lens is its sibling the EF 85mm f/1.8 which is also very good.. I've extensively used that lens over the years. The EF 100mm f/2 is a bit better in all aspects and is my personal preference overall. You just can't go wrong buying this lens. I've said in other reviews that it sometimes comes down to red ring bragging rights or results. This lens falls into that category. Results always win for me. Rugged durability or apertures larger than f/2 are in my opinion the only reasons to consider the similar L offerings. I'll take affordable lightweight portability every time if it delivers the goods.

solobackcountry

Originally posted at

2017-12-19T19:00:00

I have had this lens for a couple of years now and have enjoyed this lens.

DavidR

Originally posted at

2015-12-01T19:00:00

I bought this lens not knowing what to expect. It was my first prime lens which I got myself and for some reason, I picked this 100mm over the nifty fifty. When I finally received it, it was a really good lens. But when I kept using it over the months, I realized that this was a great lens. I prefer it to the 50mm f/1.8 II. I love taking portraits with this lens, especially of my dogs. I have taken many great photos with this lens and now, I use it more than any other lens that I own. It is the main lens on my camera.

Maryse S.

Originally posted at

2015-07-21T20:00:00

Superb medium telephoto landscape lens on full-frame at apertures ranging from f/8-f/16. Clean and sharp edge to edge, nearly zero distortion, and great color/contrast. It's exactly what you want for professional landscape work. I only use prime lenses.. The obvious alternate choice for me before purchasing this lens was the 135mm L. Unless you must have the additional 35mm and the added robust built quality, the 100 is a smarter choice for landscape work. It's more then half the price and wonderfully light weight. It handles so nicely on the tripod. A full-frame camera body is heavy enough. The last thing I want or need is an overbuilt front heavy L lens. L lenses are just not as important on primes. Zooms are a different story. Based on technical reviews, 135mm L mostly excels in the extreme large aperture range (f/2-f/2.8 for specialty shallow depth of field work. That aperture range is irrelevant in landscape photography. If you can get past not having a red ring around the front and if you don't throw your gear around like chunk a firewood, save some money and buy the 100mm f/2. It wont let you down. Its a smart buy.

solobackcountry

Originally posted at

2015-01-29T19:00:00

This is the only non-L lens in my kit. It is often overlooked because of Canon's other 100mm offerings and some say that the 2.8L IS macro makes this lens redundant. If you shoot macro and want something that doubles as a portrait lens, then by all means go for the 2.8L IS. If you want a great portrait lens at 100, this is better wide open than the macro. For me, 100 mm is the perfect focal length for portraits on full frame. This lens is super sharp, has practically no distortion, and focuses lightning fast even though it is one of the older lenses in Canon's lineup. Creamy bokeh, and the lens looks unobtrusive and doesn't scream "expensive". Although it is not an L lens, it is very solidly built and even has a metal filter thread.

Lobohowler

Originally posted at

2014-01-15T19:00:00

This lens is very well built, it may not be fully sealed but in my opinion that's the only thing stopping this having a red ring. The lens does not move either the front or rear element for focussing which means it is naturally reluctant to attract moisture or dust internally. The proper ring-USM focuses nearly immediately, it's frighteningly sharp even wide open, the Boke and low light ability is lovely thanks to its wide aperture. What would I change? IS is obvious by its absence, but that would bump up the price and frankly is unnecessary given its wide aperture. I would probably change the aperture blades by adding one as this currently has an even number and that means half as many spikes on sunstars when stopped down... that's it. As anyone can see I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything wrong with this lens.

photoblogger

Originally posted at

2013-05-19T20:00:00

Despite its age, that's still an amazing lens. Unfortunately, it lacks the stabilizer and the AF is not up to the best Canon lenses, but other than that, this lens is just great. Distortion is negligible, vignetting is very well controlled and sharpness is very good throughout the whole frame even at f/2. Bokeh is nice even stopping down. Build quality is good and the quite large MF ring is very helpful if you use the lens with a follow focus. In my opinion, the only reason to spend more money for the 135/2 is the addictional focal lenght and the "L" built quality. Other than that, you won't miss anything with the 100/2. I really hope for a new IS version with the same optical quality...

Lurcus

Originally posted at

2012-12-20T19:00:00

I love this lens, I use it on a Canon 5D Mark II for very low light theater photography and I get some really stunning photographs. Even in situations when there is almost no light I am able to obtain really good results.

Mark

Originally posted at

2012-06-09T20:00:00

This is an amazing and affordable mid-range prime lens. Often over shadowed by the 85 f1.8, the 100 provides a little more reach for those of us that don't like to be too close. The bokeh is smooth, the images sharp. The focus is acceptable, however, does hunt in low lighting, despite the f2. I have "L" lenses, and I can honestly say, this is one of Canon's non "L" that feels, shots and performs like it deserves the red strip. Excellent lens.

JerseyPix

Originally posted at

2011-10-04T20:00:00

Yes- its better than the 85. Buuuuut both are loooouuudddd when autofocusing... I wish they would come out with a mii with a silent autofocus. It sounds like someone is chattering their teeth... Other than that, great little lens for portraits and candids- long but small so people dont know ur taking a photo of them... Get it!

Gblader

Originally posted at

2011-07-23T21:00:00

For the Price it fit's the bill.

Alex R.

2009-08-06T20:00:00

If you can only buy one prime and shoot a lot of heads the EF 100 2L USM is the one to buy! Oh sure the EF 135 2L USM may be a bit sharper on film or high-end FF EOS 1Ds XX body and it is a lot more sexy than the more pedestrian EF 100 2 USM. But what the EF 2 USM lacks in sexy it gives back in real world image quality, much lighter weight and saves you enough money to buy another good prime. This is another workhorse lens that splits the range between the EF 85 1.8USM and EF 135 2L USM and because of it is less narrowly defined in what you can do with it. Depending on your EOS sensor format it can be used for a lot of different subjects and can produce very fine images if you do your part. A bit more money for some reason than the shorter faster EF 85 1.8USM but has the extra reach you may need or want on a smaller format chip EOS body. Similar build to the EF 85 1.8USM which is to say solid feeling with fast and quiet focusing. Another excellent image and value lens IMO.

EOS4me

Originally posted at

2009-02-13T19:00:00

I recieved this lens for Christmas, hoping for a great portrait lens. And I got just that! This lens is amazing for portraits! The Bokeh is soo buttery! The colour and contrast are right on, and the sharpness is like a razor! Great great lens! The only con is, I wish it had image stabilizer. You either need UBER steady hands, or a tripod. This lens is not ment to go out to a party and get candid shots. But if you're serious about getting a better feel for portrait photography, this is a great starting point! You will not be dissapointed!

NnySacci

Originally posted at

2008-11-06T19:00:00

This really is a fine lens. It's quality is outstanding. Even at f/2 the main subject is sharp and contrasty. The usm drive is quiet and fast. It produces photos, in my opinion, nearly as good as the 135mm f/2, at 40% of the price. I can say that because I've owned both lens. Where it doeslag, as with the 85mm f/1.8, is build quality. It may preform like a L lens, but it isn't built like one. Today, with most of using digitals with ap-s size sensors,the small 85mm is often the preffed choice. But the 100mm, although never as popular, is a great lens. Perhaps one of the best portrait lens you can own.

tc.boxer

Originally posted at