Macro lens for portraits.

amtaylor

amtaylor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,782
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Having just upgraded to a 5D my ef-s 60mm macro is obviously not usable on this body so I would be looking at trading it for a 100mm but I also wanted an 85mm 1.8 for portraits. So I'm wondering if the 100 would be good as a portrait lens. I know there isn't quites such a wide aperture but I'm not that fussed with the difference. I am also considering the L with IS as the difference is basically what I would spend on the 85 but I get an L and the IS would be useful too.

Suggestions??
 
the 100mm is a great portrait lens but the 1.8 is better, more DOF and a faster focus, but do you really want the expense of two lenses

biggest reason to go for to is if you do a lot of low light indoor stuff - then the macro won't cut it alone
 
I've an 85/1.2L and the 100/2.8L macro. I cannot make my mind up whether the 85 is worth keeping as the 100Lis such a good portrait lens. One thing in the macro's favour is that you can get really close for detail. The minimum focus distance on the 85/1.2 is just too long for me (and I think the 1.8 version isn't mch different). I'm quite a sucker for Damien Lovegrove's portrait work and he has been singing the 100L's praises on his blog ever since getting it.

Then just when I'm settled on selling the 85, I'll take something with it that just sings and I end up keeping it.
 
I don't really do too much low light stuff so I wouldn't be using it for that and I don't see the difference in shutter speed would make that much difference to me anyway. It's really the IQ that's going to sell it for me. Basically if it's going to be as near as no matters to the 85, my decision is made. The reviews say the AF is pretty good so I'm not fussed about that either.
 
Hi Andy,

I got both the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.8L IS macro. I use the 85mm 1.8 the most because of its size, weight, and of course the faster 1.8 f/stop. But the 100mm is my 2nd favourite lens. As mentioned before, the closer focus distance is awesome. it can get you in nice and tight without having to shuffle back too far. The 2.8 f/stop isn't too shabby either and the IS is a bonus. It can also mean that you carry 1 lens that does 2 jobs. Example would be that I use 28mm 1.8 for my occasional wide angle, 100mm 2.8 for my macro and across the room head and shoulder candids. Outdoor candids I use my 70-200mm 4 IS.
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
Hi Andy,

I got both the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.8L IS macro. I use the 85mm 1.8 the most because of its size, weight, and of course the faster 1.8 f/stop. But the 100mm is my 2nd favourite lens. As mentioned before, the closer focus distance is awesome. it can get you in nice and tight without having to shuffle back too far. The 2.8 f/stop isn't too shabby either and the IS is a bonus. It can also mean that you carry 1 lens that does 2 jobs. Example would be that I use 28mm 1.8 for my occasional wide angle, 100mm 2.8 for my macro and across the room head and shoulder candids. Outdoor candids I use my 70-200mm 4 IS.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the info. I think I will go for the macro. I can always get the 85 at a later date if I feel like. Just have to find some more dollar and sell the 60 at some point.
 
The macro is amazing as a portrait lens. I had both and only recently sold the 100 2.8 L to fund a 24-70, kept the 85 because i could get more for the 100mm.

100mm 2.8 L

sharper than the 85
Has IS
also is a macro

85 mm

wider aperture
smaller

Either way you won't be disappointed, depends on what points are more important.

My fav shots with the 100mm

4489061809_4edc976987_z.jpg

4591510540_9901f4a0d8_z.jpg



and the 85mm

4607924151_f4de81d8f7_z.jpg

4956425239_e274a4c106_b.jpg
 
joescrivens said:
100mm 2.8 L

sharper than the 85
Has IS
also is a macro
Click to expand...

Is that really true? My non L macro is clearly outperformed at 2.8 by 85mm, which is pin sharp even wide open.

I am really interested how the L macro performs at f/2.8 and when focused towards the infinity. If it is as good as 70-200 2.8 IS then I am going to upgrade (or get the zoom).
 
daugirdas said:
Is that really true? My non L macro is clearly outperformed at 2.8 by 85mm, which is pin sharp even wide open.

I am really interested how the L macro performs at f/2.8 and when focused towards the infinity. If it is as good as 70-200 2.8 IS then I am going to upgrade (or get the zoom).
Click to expand...

oh yes. my L was the sharpest prime I ever had. at 2.8 it was definitely sharper that my 85mm. I even did some tests before I sold it. The results showe that it was certainly sharper but that the 85mm was plenty sharp enough to keep given that the macro would raise me more cash which I needed for the 24-70

100% crop with the 85
4358428195_7637ab596a_z.jpg


100% crop with the 100
4591509990_b88a9c1ba5_z.jpg


nothing wrong with the 85mm sharpness, it's great but the 100mm definitely has the edge
 
yup, the L macro is fantastically sharp throughout the range and even wide open. On two consecutive weekends I photographed my kids on a carousel - first with the 100L then with the 70-200/2.8 IS. When it hit the focus, the macro was sharper. Only problem was it is slower to track a moving target so it missed many more than the zoom. The naturally slower focus of the macro is the only downside I can see with it.
 
how about the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro (I bought Ian Marsh's used one). I think it is extremely sharp. The beauty of a macro lens for portraiture is that you can foot zoom all the way in, which makes it so versatile.

Also the saving could be put towards a 85mm 1.8 if you really wanted one.
 
hsuffyan said:
how about the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro (I bought Ian Marsh's used one). I think it is extremely sharp. The beauty of a macro lens for portraiture is that you can foot zoom all the way in, which makes it so versatile.

Also the saving could be put towards a 85mm 1.8 if you really wanted one.
Click to expand...

I think I would rather the gorgeous quality of the 100, the IS and having just one lens. I think my decision is made. Thanks all for your input
 
daugirdas said:
Do you (or anyone else) have any 100mm L pictures where the subject is 10m or futher away? This is where my non-L loses out wide open to 85mm, and it is not focus issue. Anything close looks super sharp.
Click to expand...

heres one I found that fits this reco:

IMG_2370.jpg


100% crop
IMG_2370_2.jpg
 
I had a 100mm macro, and it was amazing for portraits.

I'm not looking for a 100mm L to replace it as I miss it so much after selling.

: )
 
Check out the group on flickr...

I did and went and bought one :-)

Flickr Group
 
Just to add to the confusion, I think 85 is too short for head shots on full frame.

100L is very nice. And bear in mind that you've got less DoF on full frame anyway, so f/2.8 is equivalent to f/1.8 on crop format in terms of shallow DoF.

If you want big bokeh, which I certainly do for this kind of thing, then you need both low f/number and a longer focal length. Which is why God made the 135L 2 :love:
 
try the tamron 2.8 90mm it is a fantastic lens and would save you a pretty penny too.
 
100mm will prove to be far more versatile and I don't think you will have any image quality problems what so ever :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top