Portrait and Macro

[ChrisNardone]

Can I have my cake and eat it too?

I have been surfing the archives of this forum for info for a new lens purchase. There have been good discussions on "The foreshortening effect." (I think I have suffered from this since birth.)
Anyways,
Can a 90-105 range macro also serve as a good portrait lens? Most of these macros have very high MTF scores. Does that pay off in the form of good portraits? Or should I buy a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8?

Does anyone own both a macro and the 85mm f/1.8 that can compare?
Thanks,
Chris

[Groundworxs]

Hi Chris, I have a Tamron 90mm macro lens and I used it to take some pictures for a friend at his wedding. The pics turned out better than the wedding photographer this was due to the range of my lens. I think he used 28-70.I find the 85-105 to be the most flattering for portraits. This range assuming the quality of the lens is good should serve you well.

Take good care
Tom

[iwatkins]

I bought the Sigma 105 Macro lens for doing macro work.

But it is also very good for portrait work as well. If fact, I use that instead of my 28-300 now. OK, I have to zoom with my feet, but no great shakes to get a better picture.

Cheers

Ian

[DaveG]

chrisnardone wrote:
Can I have my cake and eat it too?

I have been surfing the archives of this forum for info for a new lens purchase. There have been good discussions on "The foreshortening effect." (I think I have suffered from this since birth.)
Anyways,
Can a 90-105 range macro also serve as a good portrait lens? Most of these macros have very high MTF scores. Does that pay off in the form of good portraits? Or should I buy a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8?

Does anyone own both a macro and the 85mm f/1.8 that can compare?
Thanks,
Chris

The 100 macro is a little long for portraits - and so is the 85, at least when used on the 10D. Is the perspective better with those lenses than say a 50 (80)? Yes, and especially with the 100 (160). I used to do a lot of outside portrature for the newspaper I worked for with my Nikkor 180 for example.

But for normal type portraits like say a wedding do you have enough room to frame the subject?

For years I coudn't understand why Hasselblad made a 150 portrait lens. This was pretty much the equivalent of an 80 mm lens in 35 mm and a 50 on the 10D. Why not go to 180 mm - which they eventually did - that was more or less a 105?

Well I found out after I started to shoot weddings that you don't have enough space in a typical living room to get away with a lens that longer than 150 mm. You could photograph her left eye with the macro part of this lens but in general the client will want a bit more in the shot.

In any case for true 24X36 the 100 macro would be a good, but a tiny bit long choice. For the 10D it's be almost impossible to use in confined spaces.

[WestFalcon]

I agree with DaveG ...the 50 mm macro would be a great macro and portrait. I do a lot of weddings and like my 50 mm 1.4 for portraits. The 50 2.5 macro would work fine and is only a couple hundred bucks.

[maderito]

Chris - I take a lot of informal shots of people - mostly head or head/shoulder shots. For me, that's the setting when I say I want a portrait lens.

I have the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and the 28-135 zoom. The 50/1.4 works well for head/shoulders, the 85/1.8 for heads, depending of course on the distance from shooter to subject. I also have the 17-40L zoom which is unkind to noses and lips, but makes for interesting shots!

I like the zoom at the longer focal lengths to get the camera away from the subject's face. I have seen great "portrait" shots put up on this forum using very long lenses. They are really candid shots with the lens far removed from the unsuspecting subject. I love the effect - the intimacy created in part by a depth of field that isolates the subject from the background. See Scott Berger's gallery using the 100-400L IS:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/faces_in_the_park

I don't have a 90-105 macro lens - but have have considered one for macro work, not portrait shots. The 50 and 85 (both fast, sharp and lightweight) meet most of my needs for formal or informal portraiture.

I think your choice probably comes down to whether you really want to do macro work. If yes, the macro would be OK for portraits, but at longer than traditional working distances. If you're thinking mostly about formal portraiture - I would vote for the 50 or 85. For informal and candids of people -- it depends on your working style and taste.

[ChrisNardone]

I was going to reply with quotes, but with so many great answers I couldn't decide whom to quote. I have the Canon 50 f/1.8, and it's great. I was hoping to augment it with something close to the Canon 85mm. At the same time, I thought if I bought say the Tamron 90 macro, I could use it for both macro and portraits. I truly do mean portraits. I have a Savage background I set up in my Family room and I have enough room to back up and shoot at 90mm. I am looking to eliminate the foreshortening effect of the 50mm on individual portraits. I'm pretty much decided on the the Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro. BTW does anyone know what happened to the Tokina 90 f/2.5 macro?