Yongnuo 100mm f/2 lens for Nikon F-mount review (YN100mm F2N)



Here is a video review of the Yongnuo 100mm f/2 lens for Nikon F-mount (YN100mm F2N):

The Yongnuo 100mm f/2 lens can be purchased on Amazon.

Update - some sample photos can be found on flickr:

Yongnuo 100mm f2 (YN100mm F2N)

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Rollo Harte

    The reviewer needs to work on his enunciation. All his words run together in one continuous undifferentiated murmer. Canadians are great enunciators. He should study how they talk.

    • Allan

      “Canadians are great enunciators.”

      Careful. Trump might invade us.

      🙂

    • It must be wonderful to be blo**y perfect

      • Rollo Harte

        If you are going to do voiceovers, it is critical that you need learn to separate your words. Improvement happens when you are made aware that you are not coming across clearly. I have no doubt that this reviewer can make a good review better by speaking clearly. Rudeness is an act of malice or contempt. Your assertion about me may be strongly felt, but it has no basis in fact or logic.

        • Alexander Gray

          I think it’s the fact that you tell someone else what they NEED to do and SHOULD do instead of simply relaying how you felt. It’s ok to say “I couldn’t understand because their annunciation. I hope they work on that.”

          The way you worded it came off harsh. Not enough for me to have said something about it but since it came up I figured I’d chime in on why someone may have felt the need to reprimand you.

          Not taking sides.

        • I laugh at moronic comments, this chap is not disabled BUT you don’t know, HE may have had a speech impediment, he may like many many people I KNOW personally NOT be able to talk with confidence and yet YOU DARE to judge someone, get a life

    • Scott

      I edit the voiceover to limit pausing. I have had critical comments on the opposite end as well (pauses too long). I have yet to figure out a perfect balance.

      • Allan

        Thanks for your review, Scott.

        This is a site that where people like to nitpick; most of it is in good humor.

      • Aldo

        Moral of the story : Can’t please everyone. Keep up the good work. Like everything, once you have a solid foundation, improvements come with mere practice.

        • fanboy fagz

          Scott has nothing to do with “pleasing everyone”. he spoke of the lens, gave his opinion, posted images and let others decide for themselves. he doesnt have to please anyone. he did his share. yongnuo are the ones who have to please everyone. theyre not doing so great with their lenses though. flashes, triggers, thats something else.

          • Aldo

            Yeah I was referring to his critiqued method to deliver the information.

        • Scott

          Thanks Aldo, will do! I’m open to having critiques, because it’s an opportunity to see things that I miss. Though it’s all in delivery. There are commentators that do it well, and others that add digs/insults like a Youtube guy saying “your novice level shows” or whatever.

          • Aldo

            You are most welcome. Thank you much for your contribution.

      • fanboy fagz

        take a look at christopher frost reviews. he sounds a bit retarded when he talks but he has nice reviews.

        I dont pay much attention to what the reviewers opinion is. only how they show the physical features of the lens is critical to me. full size unedited images and I decide for myself.

    • Bakersfield

      Canadians are “great” enunciators? Really? You must not have spent much time in the United States. The first thing I notice on trips home to Canada is the funny (cute) way they talk.

  • finally!

  • Captain Megaton

    Executive summary please.

    • Scott

      The lens is sharp, but isn’t the best at handling flare. I has nice background blur in my opinion. It also has odd quirks in auto-focus and exposure reported to the camera, though that could be improved in firmware considering it has a USB port. Whether Yongnuo will step up, we shall see. Have they updated firmware on the 50/35/85/40? I haven’t looked into that.

  • TurtleCat

    Kind of an unusual focal length. I would think the Samyang 135 f2 would be much preferred. Mine is super sharp with no coma. Great for astro and still subjects.

    • Scott

      Yongnuo has plans at least to release a 135mm, though who knows when that will happen. The difference between this lens and the Samyang is price ($470 vs $180) and that the Yongnuo has auto-focus. This lens is quirky, but a solid value.

      • Have you seen any reference online about this Yongnuo 135mm lens?

      • TurtleCat

        To me it would make more sense if this was a macro at 100 f2 and it would be cool. The price is a good differentiation and I don’t begrudge people looking for less expensive options but I haven’t been impressed by the results I see.

  • Fly Moon

    Nicely done review.

  • br0xibear

    Had a flashback when I heard that AF motor sound…reminded me of the whine my scalextric cars made, lol.
    Here’s another review of this lens (Canon Mount)…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_NC8su9Wis

    • Allan

      ” … scalextric cars …”

      Good one.

      🙂

  • Zanner

    Better off buying a used afs 85mm

    • fanboy fagz

      or a used 105 2.8D micro. this yongnuo is not sharp at all to my eyes. tons of ca. in the waterfall image you show ca and go from f/2 to how it looks at 5.6, I would have liked to see f2.8 and 4 before 5.6 because 5.6 will fix the problem in almost every lens but to see how much it can be better by stopping down just a little. and personally if I buy such a lens, im going to be shooting it from open to around 4.5 at most.

      the lens doesnt seem sharp. at 6:03 you shoot some orange leaves/trees and this was at 5.6 and it looks quite soft for 5.6.

      @disqus_E8YcabLR56:disqus do you have the original UNEDITED images for download? you can upload to dropbox for us to look at. maybe the video capture doesnt show the sharpness the lens performs as you kept saying “its sharp/has detail” .

      • Scott
        • fanboy fagz

          thanks for the images. much appreciated. I have to say that I am not impressed at all. there is an image
          https://www.flickr.com/photos/152056770@N07/37316858580/in/album-72157685978716892/
          which was shot at 5.6. I looked at it and it seems very soft. I did a crop here of the cous area, im assuming and you the image has no detail in the rock area of the ground. see a before after of sharpening and this would be what I would have thought a 5.6 image would look like.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cae3380525fbbf656c81bdd2c426c6db7e88fb32ed1f87a0d74657dee8a8df3f.jpg

          the top is before. Scott my comments have nothing against you but commenting on the lens solely. not the image or composition but just the lens performance. nothing against you and I appreciate your review because I was very interested in this lens and noted that if it could perform similar to the 105 2.8d Id get it just to hold it as a backup lens. so you saved me a huge headache and disappointment. so very much appreciate. I will pass on this lens.

          • Scott

            I’m sure we all have various expectations and one person’s “sharp” isn’t for another. I’ll try to be more considerate of the highly analytical people for future reviews by providing 100% photos.

            • fanboy fagz

              its not analytical more then its a very quick assessment. I dont need to analyze images more then 2-3 seconds to tell if its good or not. as soon as I saw the images in your video it raised my suspicions. I looked through your images, clicked to zoom 3-4 seconds viewing on each with a quick assessment and moved to the next.

              a good lens makes me want to stay and look at it more time. here, I moved through them all in less then 30 seconds with disappointment. shame. I was looking to purchase this lens. I even posted to Peter if he had any news on the yongnuo 100mm about a month ago.

            • Albert

              I think there is also a disconnect between expectations and reality for a new $175 lens.

            • fanboy fagz

              why? I can buy a $230 nikon 105mm macro lens and I expect it will deliver fantastic images. this does not. I wouldnt buy it if it was $100. its not a bargain.

            • Albert

              Link to this $230 wonder?

            • fanboy fagz

              ebay nikon 105 2.8d micro

            • Albert

              The cheapest undamaged one I saw listed was $268, shipping from Japan. That is a lot more than the $175 of this Yongnuo.

            • fanboy fagz

              Youre just trying to be a wise asz with the lens. The nikon can be bought for a bit less and the yongnuo is 180 shipped. So i like how youre trying to pull the numbers that way. In fact the lens would be worth more then that should it have peformed. Ita a terrible performer and i wouldnt but it for 100 bucks because the end result is horrible. No matter how much stopped down. All their lenses suck. This one isbno exception. And truthfully im disappointed as i was very interested

            • Albert

              Whatever your attitude issues, the fact is the Nikon is $100 more, and that is a completely different price bracket. As to the 180, if ebay is acceptable for the Nikkor shipped from Japan, then so should the Yongnuo where it can be bought for less. I don’t agree with the horrible performer part though. It would be for a lot more money, but for what it costs, I think it is fine. Would I buy it? No, but nor am I on a shoestring budget requiring me to.

            • fanboy fagz

              “Would I buy it? No, but nor am I on a shoestring budget requiring me to.”

              then stfu. your comment is worthless here.

            • Thom Hogan

              > One person’s “sharp” isn’t for another

              Then the word sharp loses all meaning.

              Given that sharp is something is measured with several different surrogate tests (e.g. MTF), applying a random subjective assessment seems odd, too.

            • Scott

              Yes I get it, there is no middle ground in “sharpness” conversations. His assessment disagreed with mine so I simply was trying to figure out why. Grasping at straws if you will.

          • Scott

            I’d also like to point out that those two specific photos were shot in a dark area and I likely did “focus and recompose” to get the framing I wanted. There are a huge number of factors involved when it gets down to it like hand shake or shutter shake being factors. I’ll consider doing some photos on tripod in the future with mirror lockup.

            • Aldo

              “tripod, mirror lock up, handshake” it’s like I’m getting flashbacks of torture all of a sudden. VR a godsent

          • Aldo

            I agree with you man, but 2.8 and 2.0? The fuzzy ear and nose crowd are shaking their heads at you.

      • Scott

        Waiting for my link comment to be approved here, but I updated the video description on Youtube with a Flickr link (100% PNGs). Basically, I separated photos into sections to show a property of the lens. The image at 6:03 was meant to show flare, not absolute sharpness specifically.

        • yes, I already added the flickr link to the post

        • everything should approved now – just refresh the page, or give it a minute or two to update

  • Aldo

    Unrelated. After shooting many events with the 24-120mm f4, I picked up a 24-70G (again) and realized that once I run both lenses through LR there is little to no difference. So yeah the F4 is a lot ‘flatter’ (pre post) and quickly loses sharpness past 65mm, but unless you plan to shoot only jpegs, it seems it doesn’t matter. Distortion is also worse on the F4. Yes, obviously the G is faster (though handheld you are forced to shoot faster anyway) and there are other reasons why to get the 2.8 instead, but if you buy expensive glass merely because you want your photos to look ‘a lot’ better, you are honestly deluding yourself.

    You don’t hear many reviewers talk about this, the fact that most people who are serious about photography shoot raw anyway. This may lead you to believe that a more expensive lens will yield ‘much’ better results when in practice, you can get pretty darn close to the expensive lens after post. This is why sharpness and good AF remain as some of the top qualities of any lens…. despite what some ‘angry’ photographers may want you to believe.

    • fanboy fagz

      im positive without a doubt, the nikon 105 2.5 AIS would easily outperform this yongnuo.and it costs $100.

      its not about cost. for $180, the lens performs like a $180 lens. the $230 used 105 AFD micro would also outperform this lens. the 85 1.8 AF non d will also EASILY outperform this lens and it costs peanuts and even the 50mm 1.8d will outperform this lens. price is not the issue. were not even talking about $500 comparisons. let alone $900-15000 lenses. the idea is that youre getting a bargain for $180 and its not the case here. the lens is worth what youre paying for it. no more no less.

      just like all the other yongnuo lenses. its worth exactly what you payed. I thought after some experience theyd be able to deliver something better but to no avail. I was looking to get this lens as a backup. disappointing

      • Scott

        I had a 85mm f1.8g and was really not a fan of that lens. Though, it could have been that my copy was refurbished.

        • fanboy fagz

          ive had the 85 f/2 AIS and 85 1.4 AIS and now my current is the 85 1.8D

          those lense were excellent performers. from around 3.2 theyre amazingly sharp. and 85 1,8g will outperform the 105 2.8 VR

          • I have the f/1.8D and it’s superb. One of the real bargains out there.

          • Aldo

            hate the fringing on the 85 1.8g otherwise a winner.

            • fanboy fagz

              yes bad fringing.

          • Max

            I bet you you miss the 1.4 ais

            • fanboy fagz

              I miss it for leisurely photo taking but for weddings it was too hard to work with.

              I remember when I started weddings I shot all sigma 2.8 zooms. after a few years of wondering why my images dont have the zing in IQ that high end pros had (not composition/lighting) I received the 85 1.4 AIS from a friend, shot a test roll and was shocked what the lens can do. I then realized why the nikon lenses were so expensive and that I was shooting with crap equipment for years. I thought I was being smart by not buying the nikon. exactly the opposite.

      • Spy Black

        “its not about cost. for $180, the lens performs like a $180 lens. the $230 used 105 AFD micro would also outperform this lens.”

        You just contradicted yourself.

        • fanboy fagz

          how so. we know the nikons perform well the reason wed want to buy the yongnuo is because it performs extremely well for that amount. more then lenses more expensive then it. it doesnt perform at all. its not sharp.

    • Scott

      I love this comment. Can’t think of anything else to add that you didn’t cover!

      • Aldo

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e120b5eb852ad3639dc0fbbe17d86756e22d5b0135eb50b15f1f0e0ff1c93cc0.jpg Can you tell which one was shot with the F4 and the 2.8G? (don’t mind the power lines, both shot at 24mm)

        • f/2.8 on the right?

          • Aldo

            stay tuned 🙂

        • Thom Hogan

          You should be careful about such “tests’ as they don’t reveal what you think they do. What both those images reveal to me is a misfocus.

          • Aldo

            Not sure what you mean there Thom. Question is simple… take a guess as to which image was shot with the 2.8 and the f4. There is no misfocus…

            • Thom Hogan

              You’re asking about sharpness. Both images are not focused where they should be, thus it’s not possible to judge them for sharpness properly. If you can’t see that, it explains a lot about the position you’re taking.

            • Aldo

              Oh Thom I wish I could see what you are looking at… all I can tell you is that you are on a misfire. Even if I missed focus (which I didnt) these images are stopped down significantly enough for anyone (yourself included) to venture into saying such thing… especially when we are talking about a downsized image uploaded to disqus

        • Tony Beach

          Faces on the right photo are sharper than face on the left photo (more magnification too, but not that much). Right photo is back-focused; left photo is front-focused. There are too many variables between them to make a definitive assessment of the lenses used.

          • Aldo

            I suggest you download the photo then open it from the destination folder if you are viewing from smartphone… that will solve the focus question… as for not being able to tell which lens is which, it proves the point.

            • Tony Beach

              I viewed them on my computer and can see where the focus plane is and isn’t. On the left shot her dress is more in-focus in the front than in the back; on the right photo the horizon is in-focus and the subjects are at the edge of the focus plane (focus plane depending on viewing distance).

              These photos don’t prove which lens is better or worse. Now if you were to ask me which photo is sharper, I already said that, the right one is sharper — for whatever that’s worth (not much).

          • Aldo

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/550232ce63cf5268a1a17cc9a88ca2adcdbb4dab450f52b310c9b8c9cc785456.jpg this is a crop from the same file I posted… not the original which would have about 1.5 times more resolution.

            • Tony Beach

              Not sure why, but this crop has less resolution than the one you shared before. Not sure if this upload is any better or worse, but here goes:
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/437b27b7c6969164ccfead3d9219cc8755b09689608c79931fc46813517d4ec8.jpg

            • Aldo

              I cropped with the smart phone. That could be the reason… both photos were initially compressed and resized to 10mp each when first posted… making a 20mp file of about 2.5mb… both of them full body shots that have about 1/2 to 1/3 of the frame filled with sky/background. Both shot between f7-10 at 24mm… the DOF is generous. The crops you posted look sharp for what the original image I posted represents. Moreover, the purpose of this comparison was to evaluate the overall look of the images. Not to zoom in on their faces which cover less than 1mp of the file.

    • Thom Hogan

      I believe that you’re arguing that post-facto pixel changes are the same as optimal captured data. That is not the case, and if pros took that attitude, we’d not be able to differentiate our images from casual shooters.

      • Aldo

        Im going to assume these are pre coffee comments. There is nothing I said that could lead you to such conclusion. Simply take a look at the cooked images I posted and tell me which one is shot by the 24-70 2.8g and which one was shot by the 24-120mm f4?

  • OMG, how weird those aperture blades are positioned?

  • TurtleCat

    @Peter, did you see this? https://instagram.com/p/BZ_HTlZlCS5/

    • no, I have not… looks fake to me, let me do some research

      • TurtleCat

        It might be fake. At first it seemed real but the more I think it the more unreal it probably is. But it would be interesting if they did it although I’m not sure how they would position it against the D850.

    • Ok, this is 100% fake coming from a clickbait website which I will not mention here.

      • TurtleCat

        Ah. No problem. 🙂

    • It’s obviously a low-grade fake.
      (1) Nikon never ever used the letter X like this, nor on D2x nor on D3x, nor on promo stuff.
      (2) The letter X’s baseline is higher than the D5 letters everywhere, even on the body.
      (3) Font doesn’t match.
      (+1) I do not remember those color lines style on Nikon promo stuff, it’s simply not Nikon’s style.
      Maybe something like this at least? :))
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a60de794acca3f98b8edbd54768675b77789e054de41d57913c75923a0b2a677.jpg

  • Rollo Harte

    Since you asked…. I was not criticizing your voice. The tone and timbre is pleasing enough. I was criticizing a tendency to sometimes run your words together. It is intermittent, not continuous.

    • Scott

      I see. Yeah, I don’t disagree with you there.

  • Back to top