EF 100mm f/2

[X-ray-spex]

Anyone have one of these? Am interested in getting one for low light photography.
Have read a few reviews and it seems to be a good fast lens for a reasonable price or would you opt for something else?

[hughbie]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

IS 70-200 2.8L / 100-400L IS / nifty 50

With a nifty fifty and a 70-200 f 2.8L, I'd have thought you have the 100mm range reasonably well covered for low light. Benefit of the 100mm f2 could be marginal IMHO - but I have no experience of the lens, sorry.

[briansquibb]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

The difference between f2 and f2.8 is one stop - in my case that would have been the difference between camera shake and no camera shake for the goaly

[X-ray-spex]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

Never really had much joy with the nifty fifty for some reason ... too slow on focusing maybe ..... was recommended this as a faster focusing option

[EOS_Jim]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

The difference between f2 and f2.8 is one stop - in my case that would have been the difference between camera shake and no camera shake for the goaly

Brian
The one stop you had wasn't the difference it was the focal length you used. You could ghave shot at 100mm and gotten a nice image with no shake at the 100th you used.

For the OP
Certainly the extra stop is a help though there are other options like the 85 f1.8 - a very nice lens too or the 135 f2L - more expensive but one of Canon's best.

[briansquibb]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

Brian
The one stop you had wasn't the difference it was the focal length you used. You could ghave shot at 100mm and gotten a nice image with no shake at the 100th you used.

I say that 1 stop would have made the difference - that is a fact without argument. You are saying that I should have taken the shot differently - which is not relevant to this discussion and is your opinion made in hindsight without not being aware of the true situation when the shot was taken. As I took the shot, that 1 stop would have made the difference which is why I am considering the 100/135 f2 - because I KNOW it would made the difference.

[EOS_Jim]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

But my point is you are looking at a 100mm lens..... Had you shot that image at 100mm it would have been fine (do you see what I mean)? You may be better with the 70-200 f2.8 as that would have allowed you to shoot at 200mm

[briansquibb]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

With a nifty fifty and a 70-200 f 2.8L, I'd have thought you have the 100mm range reasonably well covered for low light. Benefit of the 100mm f2 could be marginal IMHO - but I have no experience of the lens, sorry.

Jim - I am answering this statement where Hugh says that he has the 100mm range covered by the 70-200 f2.8 and the benefit of the 100mm f2 is marginal. I am saying that the one stop could be critical as in my case the picture I took of the goaly with the 70-200 F4 would have come out OK with the one stop faster 70-200f2.8. So that one stop can be critical. I was not looking to re-open the discussion about the goaly as I probably wont be doing any more shoots like that in the dark.

[EOS_Jim]

Re: EF 100mm f/2

Nor was I Brian. I won't rattle on here but you're not seeing what I mean. i am really trying to help and I can see my persistence is maybe coming across in a bad way.

I really want to help :)