Need help determining which one...

[ExPOSED]

Ok, going to purchase a new lens this week. I am looking for a good portrait lens. Here is my dilemma. I am deciding between the 50mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I've done a lot of reading in all the various lens threads. I know everyone says the 50mm is a great portrait lens, with great sharpness, and bokeh. If I were to get the 100mm for both portrait and macro use, will I still get the same amount of sharpness and bokeh with it when I do portraits. Portraits are my main goal, but I figured if I could get the same amount of sharpness and bokeh with the 100mm then I might as well go for that one. Can anyone give some pros/cons, and differences between the two lenses in regards to portraits. Thanks as always...

[JK]

You might want to consider the 50mm f/1.4 instead. Very good portrait lens, better image quality, bokeh and construction than the 1.8 though also more in the 100mm macro price range. I have one and you can get some amazing shallow depth-of-field photos at 1.4 with it!

[Andy_T]

That would very much depend on your shooting style ... especially on your distance to the subject.

Assuming you shoot a 1.6 crop body (10D, D60, 300D, 20D), then the 100 might be too long, unless you like very tight crops or to take the portraits from a distance (large studio or outside)

Some thoughts...
- at 75$, you might just buy the 50/1.8 in addition to the 100/2.8 macro
- There is also a 50/2.5 macro
- There are also a 85/1.8 and 100/2.0 to give you better creative possibilities (especially bokeh). But these are not macro lenses.

Best regards,
Andy

[tim]

I have both. . The 100mm macro is a much better lens, but like Andy said it might be a bit long for portraits, depending on your shooting style. For portraits I use the Tamron 28-75.

[HKFEVER]

85mm 1.8, 100mm Marco is good and shape but not really good for hand held.

[mdr]

Go for the 85mm f1.2 L. I have the 100mm macro although this is ideal on my EOS 3 for portraits, it's too long for portraits on my 20D. The 85mm f1.2 L is on my list and tops all you're considering.

And yes, I've got the L fever :eyes.

[HKFEVER]

8.5mm 1.2L cost more than 100 Marco + 85mm 1.8.

I have 2 dreams:
- 400MM 2.8L IS
- 85mm 1.2L ( but the AF is too slow, so this dream is only in B&W).

[Olegis]

Personally I find the 50mm too wide for close-up portraits, even on x1.6 crop digital body - the distance between the lens and the subject is too short when you want to fill the frame. This causes quite unpleasant facial features deformation. For closeup portraits I prefer longer lens - 75 or 100 mm, or even 200 mm (my 70-200 f/2.8L delivers superb images at 200mm f/2.8 ). The 50mm is fine for half-body / torso shots - you can see some examples in this gallery (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/katya&page=all), which was shot almost exclusively with the 50mm f/1.8 MkII (I also used the 70-200 f/2.8L here and there, see the EXIF info).

[ExPOSED]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for all the great info. I guess I really need to narrow down what type of portraits I'll be doing so that I make sure I get the right lens. The 70-200 L sounds great, but unfortunately out of my budget.

[Olegis]

The 70-200 L sounds great, but unfortunately out of my budget.

It was also out of MY budget, that's why I got mine second-hand for less than $800. But I didn't buy it for portraits, for which I already had my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

[ExPOSED]

Ok, well I've narrowed down my portrait lens to the EF50mm f/1.8II. I'm thinkin gof purchasing an all purpose lens to go along with it. I'm on a pretty tight budget, so the "heavens of L" is out of my reach. I was looking at three lenses, and was hoping you guys could give me some input.

Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XE IF
Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X 242AF
Canon 28-135mm IS USM
Canon 75-300 IS USM

The Tamron or Tokina looks very favorable, especially due to price(more in my budget) unless there are reasons I should pass them up. Am I gonna lose that much zoom between the 28-135 and the 24/28-200? Or bewteen the 24/28-200 and 75-300mm? All advise and opinions are appreciated.

[Andy_T]

Hi,

normally those 'hyperzooms' (very large zoom range like 10x) are not as sharp as 'normal' zooms. Of course, it's more convenient to carry a 28-200 lens instead of a 28-70 and a 70-200 lens, but the combination of the two lenses will give you better pictures.

That is because the larger the zoom range, the more difficult it is to construct a lens that handles well at all zoom steps.

Take a look at this review of the Canon 70-300 DO lens. It's in German, unfortunately. http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_304.shtml
the interesting thing is that they also compare the Tamron 28-300 lens to it ... take a look at the 100% crops at various apertures and zoom settings. You'll realize that the Tamron does not do so well, especially wide open. But that's the price that has to be paid for convenience.

Notable exceptions to this rule (hyperzooms that give good images) are the Canon 35-350 L, 28-300 L and Sigma 50-500. However, all these are > 1000 $ (the Sigma is a little below, actually)

Best regards,
Andy