are macro lenses only for macro?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
I was looking at the canon 100mm 2.8L macro lens and I just wondered, are these lenses only really useful for doing macro photography, what do you lose when doing portrait for example with the same lens?

Just wondered how usable this lens would be or if it is only good for macro
 
joescrivens said:
I was looking at the canon 100mm 2.8L macro lens and I just wondered, are these lenses only really useful for doing macro photography, what do you lose when doing portrait for example with the same lens?

Just wondered how usable this lens would be or if it is only good for macro
Click to expand...

Its a wonderful lens that also does macro, I have the non L and base my views on that, at f2.8 it isnt the fastest prime, an 85 1.8 beats it there and its a bit heavier than the 85, other than that they are very close in ability and everyone knows the 85 is a very good lens.
So if you are looking for a med fast prime that does portraits and macro that one's your baby.
I have both.

Matt
 
hmmm, I have the 85mm 1.8, you are saying thats a macro lens too?
 
joescrivens said:
hmmm, I have the 85mm 1.8, you are saying thats a macro lens too?
Click to expand...


not unless you use 'tubes'.
Unless you are going to use the macro lens (or flog the 85) a lot then I'm not sure the cost is justified (only you can answer that).
I use both for both but then we have two photographers in our house and when my Mrs swipes the macro lens I use the 85 with tubes and its very good at that. The 2 lenses are very similar in their abilities.

Matt
 
cost aint an issue actually as i am likely to get work to buy this lens for me, i'm just wondering if i can use it for non macro stuff as well. If I'm taking a portrait and I had the choice of the 85mm 1.8 or the 100mm 2.8L and I was using an aperture of say 4 would the 100mm image have better IQ considering it is using L glass?
 
I have the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro, its a true macro and is also an excellent portrait lens equating to 96mm on my 50D. It has the advantage over my nifty fifty because its super sharp even wide open, whereas the nifty is a bit soft, albeit faster. The 60mm is also built like a tank!
 
No :) Well, you asked ;)

I bought the Nikon 105mm macro when I swapped over because I loved the 100mm Canon. It's a great portrait lens in it's own right especially on FF. It also covers for the 70-200mm in the event of a failure which is why I chose the longer local length as I really wanted the 85mm f1.4. I had to choose one and I chose the 105mm because it will give me macro for wedding ring shots, a good portrait lens and the necessary cover. Really versatile and much under rated. (Both Canon and Nikon variants)
 
i have a 150mm Sigma macro and makes a nice meduim telephoto. Focus is a little slow, but then you have a limter switch to help with that some what.
 
joescrivens said:
I was looking at the canon 100mm 2.8L macro lens and I just wondered, are these lenses only really useful for doing macro photography, what do you lose when doing portrait for example with the same lens?

Just wondered how usable this lens would be or if it is only good for macro
Click to expand...


To be honest, if you are unsure about how much use you will get from the above lens, you should seriously consider the non L equivalent - the Canon 100mm F2.8 USM macro lens at practically half the price.

I have owned the non L version for a long time (5 years) and the quality is probably not far off the L glass version except it does not have the IS of course - the non L version, surprisingly, is not much lighter than the L IS version.

They can be used for portraits and other things as well, they are more versatile than you would think - you just have to use your imagination.

In 2005 when I got my first digital slr I took a few pics on a day out using just that lens. The pics arent great as I was just learning the camera and the lens, but to give you an idea of its uses, here is a gallery I created at the time:
http://www.pbase.com/lindabuckell/scotney_castle

I now use it exclusively for macro and I also have the Canon 60mm macro which is also a very fine lens indeed and worth considering.

Hope the above is of some use to you.

Linda
 
LindaB said:
To be honest, if you are unsure about how much use you will get from the above lens, you should seriously consider the non L equivalent - the Canon 100mm F2.8 USM macro lens at practically half the price.

I have owned the non L version for a long time (5 years) and the quality is probably not far off the L glass version except it does not have the IS of course - the non L version, surprisingly, is not much lighter than the L IS version.

They can be used for portraits and other things as well, they are more versatile than you would think - you just have to use your imagination.

In 2005 when I got my first digital slr I took a few pics on a day out using just that lens. The pics arent great as I was just learning the camera and the lens, but to give you an idea of its uses, here is a gallery I created at the time:
http://www.pbase.com/lindabuckell/scotney_castle

I now use it exclusively for macro and I also have the Canon 60mm macro which is also a very fine lens indeed and worth considering.

Hope the above is of some use to you.

Linda
Click to expand...

thanks for the advice. So since I'm going to be getting work to buy this lens possibly I think i'll go for the L since it's not coming out of my pocket :-)
 
joescrivens said:
thanks for the advice. So since I'm going to be getting work to buy this lens possibly I think i'll go for the L since it's not coming out of my pocket :-)
Click to expand...

Yeah, why not :lol: go for it - I am sure you will love the lens and find plenty of other uses for it.

Linda
 
Not sure but a few others and me have give it a go ;)
 
haha might not even get it but it was worth a try :) at warehouse dispached soon it is saying at the moment ;)
 
I can't comment about this particular lens. But true Macro lenses do tend to have the optical sweet spot at close focus, as opposed to far away.
 
I have a Tamron SP90 and I find it great for portraits too due to the depth of field
 
i have the non L version of the 100mm macro.

it's a great lens, does lovely portraits and has nice colour rendition.

even the non-L is very sharp. if the L improves on this just a little it's going to be very sharp.

the background blur is very pleasing.

Here are a few pictures i've taken with the non-l variant of the lens.

IMG_5193 copy.png

3582.png

3733.png

3785.png

3823.png

baby5.png
 
and...

bigbaby1.png

IMG_0761 copy.png


IMG_5898 copy.png

babystand1.png
 
joescrivens said:
no i hadn't but the dubious thing there is that the description says the L but the image is of the non L

so which one are they actually selling?
Click to expand...

Looks like price and pic are the non L non IS, just the wrong description. Won`t gain anything, just the hastle of sending it back for a refund. £439 at WE, so not even a good price.
 
joescrivens said:
cost aint an issue actually as i am likely to get work to buy this lens for me, i'm just wondering if i can use it for non macro stuff as well. If I'm taking a portrait and I had the choice of the 85mm 1.8 or the 100mm 2.8L and I was using an aperture of say 4 would the 100mm image have better IQ considering it is using L glass?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Even if it did as a portrait lens your "clients" would probably kill you :)
Some faults just need to be softened.

I'm sure you will love it as I do both of mine. Although I dont use them a great deal both are my favourites, they just feel so "right" on the camera and in my hand and that's something very few test shots or reviews will tell you.

Matt
 
Shutterbox said:
Looks like price and pic are the non L non IS, just the wrong description. Won`t gain anything, just the hastle of sending it back for a refund. £439 at WE, so not even a good price.
Click to expand...

They have the non L up there for 469 as well...
 
MatBin said:
I doubt it. Even if it did as a portrait lens your "clients" would probably kill you :)
Some faults just need to be softened.

I'm sure you will love it as I do both of mine. Although I dont use them a great deal both are my favourites, they just feel so "right" on the camera and in my hand and that's something very few test shots or reviews will tell you.

Matt
Click to expand...

i dont have any clients and why would they kill me if i did?
 
joescrivens said:
i dont have any clients and why would they kill me if i did?
Click to expand...

I took some studio shots yesterday (first time) using my 50 and 85 both are wickedly sharp (when correctly focsed :) ) and the young lady was 17 and they caught every mark and blemish, something which an older and not by much, lady might not appreciate.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
I took some studio shots yesterday (first time) using my 50 and 85 both are wickedly sharp (when correctly focsed :) ) and the young lady was 17 and they caught every mark and blemish, something which an older and not by much, lady might not appreciate.

Matt
Click to expand...

ahh gotcha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top