EF 85/1,8 vs Tamron 90/2,8 SF Di

[Tomasz Dziechciarz]

Dear All

I have quite a lot of stuff (lenses) but I have no real macro lens.
I am considering to buy TAMRON 90/2,8 or Canon 100/2,8 but I think I have to sell EF 85/1,8 because of limited budget

I have a problem cos I need macro lens and good portrait lens.
Are these macro lenses are good enough for portraits?


Any comments, suggestions????? Please

[pturton]

Good morning Tomasz.

Before parting with your 85mm f/1.8 which is a great lens, why not consider buying a set of Kenko extension tubes (about $100 USD I think.) while you save for that Canon 100 f/2.8 macro? These tubes will give you almost 1:1 with the 85. Extension tubes and diopter lenses can turn your 85mm into an exceptable macro lens and the tubes can be used on any lens to reduce the focus distance.

The 100mm f/2.8 USM macro worked for me as a portrait lens but since getting the 85mm f/1.8, I use that instead for candids and portraits. Another alternative for portraits is the 50mm f/1.8 which is reported to be sharp and have good bokeh.

And yes, macro lenses are fine for portraits although maybe too sharp for some female subjects :)

Paul
www.iaw.com/~pturton/

[gasrocks]

I agree. And, that Tamron 28-75 you have does focus close. Add some tubes to it for some decent macro. Maybe even a good close-up lens, as well. Yes, the Canon 100 2.8USM macro is a great lens - but you mentiioned $, and not wanting too much overlap.

[chtgrubbs]

The macro lenses are absolutely good enough for portraits. Macro lenses are usually the sharpest, best corrected lenses in a manufacturers line. In fact, I generally consider them too sharp for portraits and almost always used some sort of softening filter.