What's the best lens for producing portrait and close-up photographs?

J

JayEssKay

Suspended / Banned
Messages
76
Name
Joshua
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to make my first DSLR purchase and will probably go with a Canon EOS 50D, but I'm unsure of what lens to go for.

I'm looking to produce images like these (below), but will also will also like to use the camera for general everyday photography and to take to my sisters wedding.

VW.jpg
 
You need a macro lens which will focus to infinity.

I have the 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM macro which does just that. On a full frame camera 100mm is the sweet spot for portrait use, but on my 50D it is the equivalent of 160mm and therefore too long for weddings. On the 50D it works great for macros though!


Take a look at macro lenses of around 50 - 85mm and make sure they focus to infinity if you want to use it as a general purpose.

There are a few other (cheaper) methods of using a normal lens for macro work, one is to use a close-up lens on the end of your lens.
Another method is to fit your lens backwards with the use of an adapter.
Yet another method and probably the most popular is to purchase a set of kenko extension rings which fit between the lens and the body, these will allow your lens to focus really close. :)
 
Dont agree with a Macro lens for everyday stuff or weddings. I had a Tamron 90mm, widely thought of as a VERY good macro, almost as good as a Nikon/Canon equiv costing 2 times the amount. It was great for macro and closeup stuff, but very slow to AF for portraits.

Dont know your budget, but for Nikon I would go for the Tamron and a 50mm Nikon 1.8, costing less than £450 (or less than £350 SH), so Canon equiv would be similar.

As a walkabout the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 are both good and maybe worth getting instead of one of the above - depends how much macro you plan to do.
 
Nothing very tricky there at all. I would just use whatever standard kit zoom you get with the camera and add a simple close-up supplementary lens, at a rough guess a Hoya +2 diopters for £20 would be fine.
 
I'd be tempted to go for the ef-s 60, nice sharp lens, does macro and on a crop 50D will be good for portraits too.

Matt
 
An ex of mine makes a (very good) living selling stuff on the net, she has a couple of sites / internet businesses, and she uses a Canon 400D with a 17-85mm to take product shots of anything, furniture, clothing, electronics...whatever she's selling.

I suppose it depends how big you want the images to be and what you use them for but for internet images I'd imagine that like her you'd do fine with a (non macro) standard zoom which would also be useful as a general purpose lens. I don't know if the speed of the lens would be an issue as you may be using a tripod or flash for product shots or want a little more depth of field than you'd get at f2.8. F2.8 is pretty nice on a walkabout lens though.
 
MatBin said:
I'd be tempted to go for the ef-s 60, nice sharp lens, does macro and on a crop 50D will be good for portraits too.

Matt
Click to expand...

:plusone: I had this lens when i had my Canon gear and it's a wonderful lens.
 
If you want a pukka macro, Canon 60mm 2.8 is superb, and very good value.

But if you don't want to spend a lot of money, a cheap supplementary close-up lens will do that job perfectly well.
 
The 18-55mm kit lens is perfectly adequate for portraits, and you can get a set of cheap close up lenses on Ebay for about £12 (for 4 lenses) that will give the results you want for minimum expenditure.
 
petersmart said:
The 18-55mm kit lens is perfectly adequate for portraits, and you can get a set of cheap close up lenses on Ebay for about £12 (for 4 lenses) that will give the results you want for minimum expenditure.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Those ebay cheapies will do the job but I would recommend that, when you've found out exactly what diopter power you need, you buy a decent Hoya one. They're coated, and flare might be a problem with subjects like that.
 
HoppyUK said:
Absolutely. Those ebay cheapies will do the job but I would recommend that, when you've found out exactly what diopter power you need, you buy a decent Hoya one. They're coated, and flare might be a problem with subjects like that.
Click to expand...

Thats right. 50D will really work well with 18-55 (best the older non-IS breed) and an ebay non-coated magnifier on top. :cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

I can't wait for a 'soft faulty' 50D in classifieds.

100mm f/2.8 macro USM is the only sensible choice for what OP needs, given the quality of the body (the L version of the lens would be even nicer).
 
daugirdas said:
Thats right. 50D will really work well with 18-55 (best the older non-IS breed) and an ebay non-coated magnifier on top. :cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

I can't wait for a 'soft faulty' 50D in classifieds.

100mm f/2.8 macro USM is the only sensible choice for what OP needs, given the quality of the body (the L version of the lens would be even nicer).
Click to expand...

Apart from unhelpful sarcasm, there is nothing in the OP's requirements that needs to go anywhere near a full-on macro lens for that job - on-line product marketing. Standard range zoom, +2 diopter close-up supplementary, job done.

Recommending a £500 macro, and then a £1,000 version - neither of which will be much use on the weddings front, is also not very good advice. If the OP wants to spend more to get a better lens for general use on a 50D, then the 17-55 2.8 IS is an excellent all-rounder and will do the close-up job very well too.
 
HoppyUK said:
Apart from unhelpful sarcasm, there is nothing in the OP's requirements that needs to go anywhere near a full-on macro lens for that job - on-line product marketing. Standard range zoom, +2 diopter close-up supplementary, job done.

Recommending a £500 macro, and then a £1,000 version - neither of which will be much use on the weddings front, is also not very good advice. If the OP wants to spend more to get a better lens for general use on a 50D, then the 17-55 2.8 IS is an excellent all-rounder and will do the close-up job very well too.
Click to expand...

1) I don't think it is helpful to suggest buying complete rubbish either.
2) 100mm is nowhere near £500 and never was.
3) If anything 100mm can take half wedding photos, the other half being a decent fast wideangle
4) I don't think 17-55 will take 1:1 macros that OP has specifically mentioned with the illustrations. Otherwise it is a good lens, but far over those £500.
 
daugirdas said:
1) I don't think it is helpful to suggest buying complete rubbish either.
Click to expand...

Supplementary close-up lenses are not rubbish, providing they are of good quality and coated, and not too strong. The Hoya +2 I recommended is perfect for the very modest task in hand, and modestly priced.

2) 100mm is nowhere near £500 and never was.
Click to expand...

You're right, 100 2.8 macro is only £429 at Warehouse Express, and a mere £784 for the L version.

3) If anything 100mm can take half wedding photos, the other half being a decent fast wideangle
Click to expand...

Do you really beieve that a 100mm macro on a 50D is good idea for weddings, with or without a wide-angle? I beg to differ.

4) I don't think 17-55 will take 1:1 macros that OP has specifically mentioned with the illustrations. Otherwise it is a good lens, but far over those £500.
Click to expand...

I suggested this lens as a good all-round general partner for a 50D, which obviously needs good lenses to get the most from it. There is obviously cheaper/similar, but you could shoot an entire wedding with just that one zoom. And pop a +2 supplementary lens on it and the OP could do those close-ups too - they are not 1:1.
 
HoppyUK said:
Do you really beieve that a 100mm macro on a 50D is good idea for weddings, with or without a wide-angle? I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

100mm is arguably the best portrait lens for a crop camera. It is great for those close-ups of shoes, flowers, rings, applying make-up shots, headshots, most telephoto stuff etc. Some of that would be typically done with 70-200/2.8 IS but now we are talking over £1k. IQ-wise 100mm stands up really well against the big white monster.

I guess you have never used one then.
 
I still think the Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro is the best choice! :D
 
"100mm is arguably the best portrait lens for a crop camera..."

If you've got enough room. If not you'll get a lovely shot of someones nose. :)
 
daugirdas said:
100mm is arguably the best portrait lens for a crop camera. It is great for those close-ups of shoes, flowers, rings, applying make-up shots, headshots, most telephoto stuff etc. Some of that would be typically done with 70-200/2.8 IS but now we are talking over £1k. IQ-wise 100mm stands up really well against the big white monster.

I guess you have never used one then.
Click to expand...

Sold it a few months ago. Very nice macro. I know exactly what it is best for. Close up of rings, not much else.
 
woof woof said:
"100mm is arguably the best portrait lens for a crop camera..."
Click to expand...

So are you saying the best portrait lens for a full frame camera is 160mm?
 
Me? Hell no. I get a nose bleed if I go much past 24mm.

I do have a 150mm f2.8, flower shots only.
 
Pentax 77mm f1.8 Ltd but you went with canon, sorry.

Not helpful I know.
 
woof woof said:
Me? Hell no. I get a nose bleed if I go much past 24mm.

I do have a 150mm f2.8, flower shots only.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood! It wasn't your quote was it.
 
I'm really surprised that a Macro lens has been mentioned at all in this thread! Given the resolution of the 50D, I would have said something like the 24-105 would be perfect. With the resolution, a small crop of your image would easily provide the close ups you showed.

The 24-105 is also a fantastic lens to take to a wedding. Maxro lenses wilst very sharp are way too slow in focusing for use in a wedding situation - fine for the detail shots but that's about it!

The 100 is way too long also on a crop body for general use at a wedding. This is where the zoom excels.

If the 24-105 is too expensive, look at the Sogma 17-70 f2.8-4 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8

But I'd steer well clear of a Macro for the shots you posted. A macro lens is a specialist lens and whilst it can be used in other situations it excels in one area over others for it's intended use.
 
Thanks for the vast amount of help everyone :).

My budget is somewhat flexible and is around the £1200 mark including the camera which I will try to get a good deal on eBay ect..

I understand that there's a lens for every specific job, I just want a good allrounder to get me started off as I'll be photographing clothing both portrait and close-up style pics and I'll need the camera for my sisters wedding.

I'll be able to purchase a lens that will be more suited for weddings and group photography ect at a later date, so it's more important for the lens to be able to photograph clothing in both portrait and close-up style pics.
 
Just thought I should try and clarify things!

EOS_JD said:
I'm really surprised that a Macro lens has been mentioned at all in this thread!
Click to expand...

The clue is in the title of the thread.
What's the best lens for producing portrait and close-up photographs?
I think maybe most people would consider Macro lenses ideal for this type of work. Most Macro reviews say the lenses are ideal for portraits as well.

EOS_JD said:
Maxro lenses wilst very sharp are way too slow in focusing for use in a wedding situation - fine for the detail shots but that's about it!
.
Click to expand...

Most modern Macro lenses incorporate a focus limiting switch to increase focusing speed when Macro is not required. If Macro lenses are slow at autofocusing why do so many togs on here use the Sigma 70-200mm Macro for sport, including motor sport. I'm not sure which part of wedding requires faster autofocus than that.

EOS_JD said:
The 100 is way too long also on a crop body for general use at a wedding. This is where the zoom excels..
Click to expand...

A lot of wedding photographers say they take a 70-200mm for the candid shots although I do agree that a shorter focal length is also required. But the one off wedding is not the main reason the OP wants this lens.
 
Strangways said:
Just thought I should try and clarify things!
Click to expand...

Me too


Strangways said:
The clue is in the title of the thread.
What's the best lens for producing portrait and close-up photographs?
I think maybe most people would consider Macro lenses ideal for this type of work. Most Macro reviews say the lenses are ideal for portraits as well.
Click to expand...

The title is the start then in the first post he states

"I'm looking to produce images like these (below), but will also will also like to use the camera for general everyday photography and to take to my sisters wedding."

The images he showed are NOT necassarily macro images! they can be taken with most zooms. Why would you buy a macro for that?

Strangways said:
Most modern Macro lenses incorporate a focus limiting switch to increase focusing speed when Macro is not required. If Macro lenses are slow at autofocusing why do so many togs on here use the Sigma 70-200mm Macro for sport, including motor sport. I'm not sure which part of wedding requires faster autofocus than that.
Click to expand...

Feel free to use it at a wedding if you like - I have the 100mm Canon f2.8. Superb lens but compare it to the 24-105 and the AF on the zoom is miles faster. THe AF limiter does a reasobable job but Macro lenses whilst greatr for portraiture are not ideally suited to weddings where motion and low light put pressure on your AF stsnem. Lose focus and that AF will still roam around.

Strangways said:
A lot of wedding photographers say they take a 70-200mm for the candid shots although I do agree that a shorter focal length is also required. But the one off wedding is not the main reason the OP wants this lens.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the Macro lens is totally unsuitable for his uses. He wants a general purpose lens. Macro lenses are not general porpose. Yes great for close up, yes great for portraits (in the right setting) but not great as general porpose.
 
JayEssKay said:
Thanks for the vast amount of help everyone :).

My budget is somewhat flexible and is around the £1200 mark including the camera which I will try to get a good deal on eBay ect..

I understand that there's a lens for every specific job, I just want a good allrounder to get me started off as I'll be photographing clothing both portrait and close-up style pics and I'll need the camera for my sisters wedding.

I'll be able to purchase a lens that will be more suited for weddings and group photography ect at a later date, so it's more important for the lens to be able to photograph clothing in both portrait and close-up style pics.
Click to expand...

24-70L or 24-105L -= Both superb all rounders and under budget.
 
MatBin said:
I'd be tempted to go for the ef-s 60, nice sharp lens, does macro and on a crop 50D will be good for portraits too.

Matt
Click to expand...
I had one of these and it was superb! Great for crop sensor cameras!
 
All the macro lenses are superb - i don't know a bad one. but is this what the OP wants/needs?
 
Strangways said:
If Macro lenses are slow at autofocusing why do so many togs on here use the Sigma 70-200mm Macro for sport, including motor sport. I'm not sure which part of wedding requires faster autofocus than that.
Click to expand...

I didn't read that part of your post earlier. Let me start by saying the 70-200 is NOT a real macro lens. Macro lenses normally have 1:1 (lifezize) magnification although there are a couple with 1:2 (half lifesize).

The 70-200 has a magnification of 1:3.5 (0.28x) which is good for a lens like this but the lenses main function is not as a macro lens. It's pretty much similar to my Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS (although not as good) except in magnification (the Canon's is only 1:5.8 (0.17x))

Don't read Macro on a zoom the same as a dedicated Macro lens they are two very different beasts. And regards the OP's requirements, the 70-200 whilst a superb lens is maybe a tad long for the shots he wants but if given room would perform admirably.

THe 70-200 is also a wee but short for most sports. 300 or 400+ really makes a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top