Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 19 Jul 2014 (Saturday) 14:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

portraits on 100mm macro 2.8 / Or Not such a good idea ?

 
Nissanfairladyz32
Senior Member
Avatar
440 posts
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Allen
     
Jul 19, 2014 14:49 |  #1

I'm looking to get some kind of macro lens for close focus and would love something that doubled as a good portrait lens, i have heard good things about the 100mm macro ( non L) and was seeing if anyone had some samples of portraits they had done with it.

Ive looked at the lens samples on here and flicker but its mostly macro bug shots, i see those are wonderful I'm just trying to see how it looks with people.

Id really love to just buy the 135L for portraits or at least an 85 1.8 since all i have are zooms at the moment. but if the 100mm macro can swing both pretty well i may get that.

That or it looks like the 40mm 2.8 focus's pretty close, i know its not true macro but maybe it will work for stuff like wedding ring shots and stuff i'm just looking to get close up and show detail.


www.jamesmcguirephotog​raphy.com (external link)
5DIII / 24-70 2.8 ISL / 70-200 F2.8 IsII L / Flash = YN-560 III / YN-565

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nightcat
Goldmember
4,533 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jul 19, 2014 15:18 |  #2

I've taken a handful of portraits with my 100mm 2.8 macro and they're quite good. Not as outstanding as the 135mm f2 or the 100mm f2, but these lenses cannot do macro. I think you'll be pleased with the 100mm 2.8 macro to do both jobs. Also, the 100mm 2.8 L and the non L version have the same exact IQ. If you don't require the IS, the non L version is great.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,827 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 4485
Joined Oct 2012
Location: GA Mountains
     
Jul 19, 2014 16:24 |  #3

100/2.8 should work pretty well for portraits, but if portraits are your main concern I'd for sure go for the 100/2 or 135L over it. Remember that you can always get a set of extension tubes to use any 100mm for macro if you wish.

Or, get the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar, that'd be the best of both worlds :cool:


Fuji X-T3 // Fuji X-Pro2 (Full Spectrum) // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nissanfairladyz32
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
440 posts
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Allen
     
Jul 19, 2014 17:24 |  #4

Will the 100 2.0 put the back ground out of focus more then the 85 1.8 ? i understand the 100 has more compression but lacks the 1.8 so are they pretty much even ? or does the extra 15mm of focal length out weigh the .2 aperture difference ?

All i have is the 24-105 and 70-200 both f4's so i need something fast for portraits, something tells me if i get the 135L id never use the 70-200.


www.jamesmcguirephotog​raphy.com (external link)
5DIII / 24-70 2.8 ISL / 70-200 F2.8 IsII L / Flash = YN-560 III / YN-565

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,827 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 4485
Joined Oct 2012
Location: GA Mountains
     
Jul 19, 2014 17:51 |  #5

Nissanfairladyz32 wrote in post #17042418 (external link)
Will the 100 2.0 put the back ground out of focus more then the 85 1.8 ? i understand the 100 has more compression but lacks the 1.8 so are they pretty much even ? or does the extra 15mm of focal length out weigh the .2 aperture difference ?

All i have is the 24-105 and 70-200 both f4's so i need something fast for portraits, something tells me if i get the 135L id never use the 70-200.

They're more or less the same, I think the rendering of the 100/2 is better. You're talking about 1/3 a stop, it really wouldn't make any discernible difference even if they were both 85mm's... even the 1 stop difference between f1.4-2 isn't that huge imo.

The 100mm has less CA and I find it a better FL for portraiture, if it had been on sale when I bought my 85mm I'd probably have gotten it, but my 85mm was almost half the cost so I went with that. I also highly recommend the Rokinon 85mm if you don't mind learning to use MF (it's really not hard imo, I shoot fully MF with my 6D now).


Fuji X-T3 // Fuji X-Pro2 (Full Spectrum) // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 19, 2014 22:39 as a reply to  @ EverydayGetaway's post |  #6

If you think you are going to want the macro one day, I'd go 85mm over the 100mm f/2. To me the 85, 100, then possibly the 135 make more sense than the 100 f/2, 100 macro, and possibly the 135.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jul 19, 2014 22:49 |  #7

While I have seen several people use the 100mm Macro (esp the L) for portraits, if Macro is not the primary purpose of the lens then I think tubes are a better option.

Pick the focal length you want out of 85, 100, or 135, and then use extension tubes.

I think the only advantage of a dedicated macro lens is the extra long focus for more accuracy by sacrificing speed.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaomul
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 66
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Cork, Ireland
     
Jul 20, 2014 05:25 |  #8

100mm macro will put the background plenty out of focus on a 6d. It would be my vote as an alrounder. The 85mm and the 100mm do of course give shallower dof and allow in more light, but if you look at an awful lot of portraits taken at this focal length, f2.8-3.2 ish is often used as f1.8 is just to narrow a dof (of course not always). Look at the 100mm macro lens section and there are portrits there to give you an indication of the results you might expect


flickr (external link)
Olympus EM5,Nikon d7200,
Olympus 12-50mm, 40-150mm,17mm f2.8,Nikon 50mm F1.8, Tamron 90mm vc, 18-105mmVR, Sigma 18-35 f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,887 posts
Likes: 151
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 20, 2014 08:13 |  #9

nightcat wrote in post #17042158 (external link)
I've taken a handful of portraits with my 100mm 2.8 macro and they're quite good. Not as outstanding as the 135mm f2 or the 100mm f2, but these lenses cannot do macro. I think you'll be pleased with the 100mm 2.8 macro to do both jobs. Also, the 100mm 2.8 L and the non L version have the same exact IQ. If you don't require the IS, the non L version is great.

Both the 135L and the 100 F/2 can do macro, provided you use an extension tube, or several.

Especially the 135L does extremely well in macro, IMO it renders much nicer in macro than the 100 macro lenses. But then, that's my opinion and preference :).

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,887 posts
Likes: 151
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 20, 2014 08:44 |  #10

Nissanfairladyz32 wrote in post #17042121 (external link)
I'm looking to get some kind of macro lens for close focus and would love something that doubled as a good portrait lens, i have heard good things about the 100mm macro ( non L) and was seeing if anyone had some samples of portraits they had done with it.

Ive looked at the lens samples on here and flicker but its mostly macro bug shots, i see those are wonderful I'm just trying to see how it looks with people.

Id really love to just buy the 135L for portraits or at least an 85 1.8 since all i have are zooms at the moment. but if the 100mm macro can swing both pretty well i may get that.

That or it looks like the 40mm 2.8 focus's pretty close, i know its not true macro but maybe it will work for stuff like wedding ring shots and stuff i'm just looking to get close up and show detail.

100 mm macros are generally great for portraits. They may just be a little too sharp, but that is easily taken care of in PP if so required.

The 100 mm FL, on FF that is, has been a traditional FL for portraiture, as it provides an AoV which is equivalent to the field in focus when one person looks at the face of another, generally speaking, and therefore presents a very natural perspective for portraits.

With the Canon macros, for portraiture I would choose the 100L myself, basically because the bokeh of the 100L is very nice, while that of the non-L versions is a bit harsh. That is not so much noticeable when shooting macros, but it is when shooting general stuff and doing portraiture.

If you do not shoot macro very often, you could consider a 135L with one or more extension tubes. Despite the large aperture, it renders very well at macro distances, and is still very sharp nearby, and whatever you shoot, the bokeh of the 135L is just magical. I find that for portraiture it occasionally is a little long when there is very little room to manoeuvre, but that wouldn't stop me from using it regardless. A head shot filling the entire frame would require approximately a meter and a half of distance (5 feet).

As to the 85 F/1.8: I have shot several of these, and neither could really enamour me at all. Which is why I eventually got an 85L. However, that is typically a lens I do not use for macro, as this lens is not good at macro at all. For anything else it is a gem, of course :).

Since you have a 40 F/2.8, I guess it could be quite good at macro with a narrow extension tube (11 or 12 mm) - haven't tried that one yet, should give it a go I guess.

BTW, I use the 50L extensively for macro too, despite it being an F/1.2 lens. It just renders beautifully in macro mode.
I had the 50L for a while, and then got a 135L. Between these two, I completely stopped using the 100 macro, as I personally found the shots from the 50L and 135L in macro mode (with extension tubes) to be much more pleasant to my eyes that those taken with the 100 macro. I eventually sold the 100 macro. I did test a 100L macro as well, but was not happy about its performance in low light conditions, IQ-wise. I also own a 185L macro, and that IMO is in a different league to the 100 macro lenses, but it is, of course, a much different FL, and generally a little long for portraiture.

Do note, BTW, that all of the IF macro lenses change FL drastically when focusing closer. F.e., at 1:1, the EF-S 60 is a 50 mm lens, and the 100 F/2.8 and 100L become 70 mm lenses at 1:1.

HTH, kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jul 20, 2014 09:06 |  #11

The 100 f/2.8 is a great portrait lens. It's not as nice as the 135L or the 85L, but it's also a hell of a lot less money and is a stunningly good macro lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nissanfairladyz32
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
440 posts
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Allen
     
Jul 20, 2014 16:55 |  #12

Thinking about what lens to get gives me a headache. There are way to many that do different things better.


www.jamesmcguirephotog​raphy.com (external link)
5DIII / 24-70 2.8 ISL / 70-200 F2.8 IsII L / Flash = YN-560 III / YN-565

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LeeRatters
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,976 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5937
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Jul 20, 2014 17:27 |  #13

With regard to DOF & blur [not quality of] amounts would there be much difference between 100mm at f/2.8 & 135L at f/2 taking into account the closer camera subject distance of the 100mm to get the same framing?


>> Flickr << (external link)


>> Instagram<< (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,533 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jul 20, 2014 17:36 |  #14

Nissanfairladyz32 wrote in post #17042418 (external link)
Will the 100 2.0 put the back ground out of focus more then the 85 1.8 ? i understand the 100 has more compression but lacks the 1.8 so are they pretty much even ? or does the extra 15mm of focal length out weigh the .2 aperture difference ?

All i have is the 24-105 and 70-200 both f4's so i need something fast for portraits, something tells me if i get the 135L id never use the 70-200.

Years ago I had the 85mm 1.8. I switched to the 100mm f2 because of several things. The 100mm had smoother bokeh (the out of focal background you refer to), I liked the additional 15mm of focal length, and the 100mm f2 had less CA wide open. But again, if you really want macro, then the non IS version of the 100mm 2.8 will give you a nice portrait lens, and you'll have macro to boot.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jul 20, 2014 19:32 |  #15

LeeRatters wrote in post #17044468 (external link)
With regard to DOF & blur [not quality of] amounts would there be much difference between 100mm at f/2.8 & 135L at f/2 taking into account the closer camera subject distance of the 100mm to get the same framing?

It's not a simple answer, however the complete answer is here:

http://howmuchblur.com …m-f2-on-a-3m-wide-subject (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,685 views & 5 likes for this thread
portraits on 100mm macro 2.8 / Or Not such a good idea ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Pzaloumis
912 guests, 232 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.