Nissanfairladyz32 wrote in post #17042121
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