| Author: | | Inactive Account Registered: September, 2006 Location: Perth Posts: 669
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 15, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Solid Build, relatively sharp wide open | | Cons: | | |
I bought this lens for when my two hobbies come together (martial arts & photography) as I needed something relatively fast to take indoor shots and freeze the action. Not having the funds for one of the new DA* zooms (or even one of the F or FA variants) I decided to try an m series prime.
This lens performs its duties admirably pictures are sharp even at f2.8 I am very happy with this solid little lens. I do find I need to tweak the contrast up a little with this lens compared to my DA 16-45 - but that may just be a matter of my taste.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2007 Location: Near Utrecht, Netherlands Posts: 1,221
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 22, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $125.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Small, nice handling | | Cons: | none, really | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| |
I bought this lens in 2002, I think, to go with my MZ-5N, for indoor portraiture. It met all my expectations from day 1 one. I like the feel of the lens; and I found that 100mm is a great focus distance for portraiture. I even got so used to it, that I think the 135mm is too close.
That's immediately why I do not use it very often, anymore. Since I have a DSLR, the crop factor turns this in a "feels-like-150mm-lens" and that is too close.
In my experience the lens makes very sharp images, even under pretty hard circumstances. A big pro is that it is so small.
| | | | | Giveaway winner! Registered: December, 2007 Location: beantown Posts: 944
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 14, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $145.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp and solid built | | Cons: | feels too light | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Its a good lens and the weight is comfortable as M series tend to be light, but feels well built.
A little test I ran back in 2002ish, but my choice of film made things less than clear so with a grain...
My little test rated the lens at about 74lpmm average @f4 and 81lpmm @f5.6 and 84lpmm @f8, is that good? My test is less than scientific lab perfect and the test lighting was not great, but the lens to my eyes is superb. Had the lens since 1999 with matching hood and case. Not found my test results for wide open, but regular use shots seem very good.
Also worth noting... GET A HOOD FOR YOUR LENS! I found a 8 to 14 lpmm jump in some tests due to glare being controlled. SMC is great, but not absolutely perfect.
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: South of Sweden Posts: 10 | | Review Date: January 8, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, very solid metal built, small for a f2,8 | | Cons: | autofocus! | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 9
| |
I bougt this lens for my ME Super for about 20 year's ago, i'm now using it on my K10D very often and even att 100% pixel peeping i find this lens very sharp and with good contrast. It's also very good in low light situations wide open i think.
Kjell
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Posts: 4,461
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 24, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, contrasty, good portrait lens, light | | Cons: | Fully manual | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I had this lens for a number of years prior to purchasing the A-series 100 f 2.8 macro. I sold it with some regrets as I just couldn’t justify having two 100mm lenses. It may have been a mistake. Prior to the arrival of the macro the M 100 f 2.8 was one of my favourite pieces of glass. It was light, sharp, reasonably fast and balanced well on my MX. It was the first lens I reached for when taking people pictures. It wasn’t large enough that it scared people and it had just enough length to put the subject at ease. Many of my best portraits were a product of this lens. I actually kind of miss this aspect of the M 100mm f 2.8 as I look at its larger, heavier and much more expensive replacement. This lens did not have a flare problem but I bought the Pentax lens hood for the 100 just as I do for all my other optics. I believe lens hoods protect the front element and serve a useful purpose in keeping out stray light. In addition they look pretty cool. Boz Dimitrov provides techincal details:
(Non working link removed)
The Pentax M 100 f 2.8 would be an ideal fit mated to an LX or any of the K or M series cameras. For film I would highly recommend this lens to one and all. On digital I can only speculate but based on personal experience with several other M-series lenses I suspect it would still deliver the goods. There would be, however, all the limits to be expected when using a fully manual lens in this format. Metering will be stop down, no AF and no f stop information in the viwfinder.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2007 Location: Denmark Posts: 146
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 7, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp, bright, small, light, nice build quality | | Cons: | Some pf wide open, bokeh sometimes slightly "busy" | |
Got this lens as part of an M lens bundle for next to nothing. It's great if just a little long for portraits, and surprisingly sharp wide open. The sharpness is what drives my rating.
It does, however, show some pf/ca (don't know which is which) when wide open with very contrasty shots.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 10,685
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 15, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $118.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | great combo of focal length, speed, IQ, size, build quality, and cost | | Cons: | much more purple fringing in very high contrast situations than other lenses | |
As I said in my summary above, this lens provides a fantastic value proposition - a really useful focal length (both on 35mm and APS-C, if for different reasons), decent speed, fine IQ, incredibly compact, solid build. And it's a bargain - I paid a little over $100 for mine, but also I bought one for my wife for a little *under* $100.
One of the things I do most is concert photography - digital - and I've decided this lens is as close to perfect a single prime lens as I could hope for. Wide open, I'm pretty sure it is outresolving what my (K200D) sensor can muster at the high ISO levels typical of concert photography. The focal length is pretty much ideal for isolating performers from a vantage point near to the front as you'd likely be if you're at least somewhat serious about it. It could work as a portrait lens outdoors or for really tight head shots, and it's just long enough on digital to feel like a "real" telephoto lens in other situations as well (if, obviously, not a wildlife lens). On 35mm, it would make a great portrait lens or for certain types of street candids, and would also work for concert photography if you like a little space around your subject or intend to shoot from right on stage.
So for me, it's pretty tough to beat on paper just based on specs, assuming it takes a picture at all. But I suppose most people will concentrate more on IQ :-).
Below, I'll link to a comparison against a couple of other M series telephoto lenses. But for now, I'll summarize that by saying it's the sharpest of the bunch at f/2.8. At high ISO, it's probably more resolution than my camera can use, and at lower ISO levels, I can clearly see my reflection in the eye of a portrait of my cat.
Stopped down, it's clearly at least as good as a consumer zoom like the 50-200 or Tamron 70-300. And comparisons posted by "Douglas of Sweden" on the SLR Lens forum show the optically-identical "A" version to hold up quite well against the extraordinarily well-regarded DA* 50-135 wide open. But I do suspect the 50-135 would win more clearly at f/5.6 or f/8, as the M100/2.8 doesn't actually perform dramatically better at these apertures compared to f/2.8. The resolution tests published by Yoshihiko Takinami show it not reaching maximum resolution until f/16, and while I haven't done any formal testing, this does seem consistent with what I've noticed.
Because I use the lens primarily for low light concert photography, I did notice the Achilles heel of this lens for quite some time. But shooting high contrast subjects wide open in bright sun, it has more purple fringing than any other lens I have used. Not that shooting high contrast subjects wide open in bright sun is a particular common thing to be doing. That fact that the lens lacks the built-in hood of the M120/2.8 and M135/3.5 is a disadvantage, too.
The bottom line for me regarding IQ is that at f/2.8, it's competitive with just about anything else, it seems, which is saying a lot considering the price and the size. At f/8, it's competitive (at least) with a consumer zoom, if perhaps not with a DA* or a macro. And at f/16, it's probably competitive again with any high end lens that started to become diffraction-limited at f/8 or f/11.
Here is my comparison against the M120/2.8 and M135/3.5:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/137220-shootou...5-3-5-a-2.html
My conclusion from a few posts later in the thread:
 Quote: The 100 is the sharpest when comparing images at constant magnification (by a small margin over the 120 and a larger margin over the 135). And not that the others are particularly large or heavy (they aren't!), but the 100 is *noticeably* smaller and lighter. However, it has the most purple fringing by far, it lacks a built in the hood, and it can't blur a background to the same extent as the other two. It is the most generally useful portrait focal length of the three, but it has the least "reach". It is not too hard to find with a little patience, and it usually goes for $100-$150. Again, given what you're getting for the money, it's a really great package!
Sample concert shot at f/2.8:
 | | | | |
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 22, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | very sharp | | Cons: | manual | |
Very great and sharp lens.
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: October, 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 258 | | Review Date: April 18, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, compact | | Cons: | Wish aperature can be wider | |
Very good portrait lens, very sharp image even at f2.8, small and compact for a 100mm lens, f2.8 wide open might is kind of slow for low light, but over all it's a great fast prime lens
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: February, 2009 Posts: 43
1 user found this helpful
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: July, 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 1,100
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 18, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, Bokeh, Contrast, Weight | | Cons: | nothing really | |
This is one of the sharpest lenses I have owned. f/2.8 is fast enough for me at this length. The bokeh is fantastic, very smooth and the contrast is excellent as well.
Set your aperture on the lens, focus, meter with Green button and fire, very easy.
| | | | |
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 19, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Size, weight, image quality | | Cons: | None really | |
As various versions of the Pentax 85mm lenses are demanding absurd prices in the second hand market, this 100mm is an excellent alternative.
Light but strongly bulit as all M lenses. Not much differernce in the focal length comparing with 85mm, and with the much sought after milky bokeh.
It handles nicely, with excellent sharpness and image quality, although with the APS-C crop factor it is a 150mm equivalent, and is no longer a traditional "portrait lens"
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 761 | | Review Date: March 28, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $160.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Fast, extremely sharp, size (so small) | | Cons: | nothing major | |
I got this lens about a month ago and I love it more and more each time I use it. I bought it mostly for indoor photography, concerts and stuff. Famous Marc Sab. was recommending it.
I mostly use this lens wide open and I find the lens very sharp. It's the sharpest wide open lens I have tried so far.
The lens is very small and well built. Focus is smooth and after some practice, it's very easy, and quick, to focus with.
I strongly recommend this lens, if you can get it at a good price. I could have waited a little bit longer and thus find a better deal but I really wanted to try it out. Now, I don't see myself selling it, until I get my hand on a A version... of course.
Just my two cents
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 509
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 11, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | light, compact, well built, good IMQ-corner to corner | | Cons: | slightly low contrast and resolution at f2.8 | |
In contrast to my other 100mm or so lenses, this is the lightest and smallest one. It is similarly well built as other M lenses. I would say that they are not as robust as the K lenses but much better than latter plastic lenses.
As similar to a couple of M lenses that I own, it has lower contrast and resolution at the largest aperture than its K counterpart. Minimization allows most M series lenses to have 49mm filters and shorter length than the K series . But it has taken its toll on image quality in some cases.
Is it worth it? Perhaps if you do not shoot too much at the largest aperture. Slow down a bit, IMQ increases steadily. One great advantage of a fixed focal lens is its corner to corner IMQ. This is no exception.
Overall, a good choice.
| | | | | New Member Registered: May, 2010 Location: Ames, IA Posts: 18
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 5, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $165.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Great feel, fast, good portrait length, but not unusable for other shots. | | Cons: | none really | |
This is a fantastic lens. It's got that great feel of the M series lenses, and it's pretty fast. Gives a nice shallow dof for portraits, and the bokeh looks good- not distracting at all. Also, it's got that legendary SMC sharpness and contrast, especially when stopped down a little bit.
Many say that the 100/4 is better for portraits, and that might be true from a technical standpoint. However, the usefulness of this lens makes it worth it to me. In addition to taking great portraits, it's fast enough that I can take it into a bar at night and take decent shots of the band playing. I've also used this lens for urban cityscapes, and landscape photography.
I think the 100mm length is about perfect for portraits anyway. It's short enough to give you an intimate portrait (and a more intimate portrait making session), yet it's long enough to give a good head and shoulders portrait without being right in someone's face. Like someone else said in their review- 135mm now feels "too far away."
The only con this lens has, IMO, is that the "wow factor" of sharpness and contrast is a bit less wide open. This should be expected with just about any lens, and I don't feel that it detracts from the quality or the value of the lens.
If anyone is thinking, "Man, I really need a decent portrait lens, but would like to use it for other things," Give the M100/2.8 a shot.
| | |
;)
;)
