10 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp wide openNone for the price
I bought this lens on ebay and expected to get what I paid for. Man, I got lucky! This thing is tack sharp @f/2.2 and sharp enough @f/2.0.reviewed August 7th, 2009 (purchased for $300)
I liked this one so much, I bought the twin sister - 85mm f/1.8 USM. While the 85mm is a really nice lens, I prefer the 100mm because of the consistent sharp pictures I am able to get.
If there is a con to this lens, it would be that 15mm down you have the 85mm f/1.8 and 35mm up you have the 135mm f/2.0. Then on the other hand, if you need a lens in those focal ranges, maybe the 100mm f/2.0 is a good compromise?
9 out of 10 points and recommendedFast, sharp, and cheapWide open it is not too sharp
After buying the 100mm f/2.0 and falling in love with it, I decided to get the lens everyone was suggesting for a good cheap prime, the 85mm f/1.8.reviewed August 7th, 2009 (purchased for $325)
While I am not disappointed with the lens, I see it as a 85mm f/2.2 because that is where the lens really becomes usable. Now f/1.8 or f/2.0 are not terrible, and if the light is so off that I have to use it or get a blurred shot, I will open this lens to the max and take the shot. But if I can get by with it I always use f/2.2 for the max aperature setting and I become very happy.
If I could get the sharpness of f/2.2 with the bokeh of f/1.8, I would consider this lens unbeatable.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedFocal Range, weight, ISAperture
Not a bad lens. It deserves a better rating than it is getting.reviewed July 1st, 2013 (purchased for $325)
I use this lens in Av mode, and when I can I zoom to 135mm, set the aperture to 8, and get pretty sharp pictures at just about any focal distance.
This is one of my favorite treking lenses