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 16 Feb 2010 (Tuesday) 00:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100mm 2.8L Macro as portrait lens?

 
Woolburr
Rest in peace old friend.
Avatar
66,487 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 140
Joined Sep 2005
Location: The Tupperware capitol of eastern Oregon...Leicester, NC!
     
Feb 16, 2010 06:54 |  #16

smorter wrote in post #9618881 (external link)
Why are you so hysterical?

I don't believe anyone is hysterical....but your example shows absolutely nothing about the quality of bokeh produced by either lens....and if you think you can compare bokeh at f/22...you are very confused as to what bokeh even is. At f/22 almost everything in the image would be in focus....therefore there would be no bokeh to even assess. Bokeh is a term that applies to the subjective quality of the out of focus areas of an image. Period. Best bokeh is produced when a lens is shot wide open.


People that know me call me Dan
You'll never be a legitimate photographer until you have an award winning duck in your portfolio!
Crayons,Coloring Book, (external link) Refrigerator Art (external link) and What I Really Think About (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Dragos ­ Jianu
Goldmember
1,768 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Sep 2005
     
Feb 16, 2010 07:12 |  #17

It's a great portrait lens unless you want very shallow DoF. Not my favorite, as I'm DoF crazed, but it certainly work. Sample of the 100Macro Classic on APSC wide open.

If you're going to use flash for portraits, you might as well save a lot of cash by buying the equally sharp Classic rather then the L.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 16, 2010 07:19 |  #18

Woolburr wrote in post #9618905 (external link)
I don't believe anyone is hysterical....but your example shows absolutely nothing about the quality of bokeh produced by either lens....and if you think you can compare bokeh at f/22...you are very confused as to what bokeh even is. At f/22 almost everything in the image would be in focus....therefore there would be no bokeh to even assess. Bokeh is a term that applies to the subjective quality of the out of focus areas of an image. Period. Best bokeh is produced when a lens is shot wide open.

On one hand you (correctly) quote that bokeh is about the quality of the OOF regions...yet on the other hand you claim this quality is best when the amount of OOF region is maximised (when lens is used wide open)

I think although you correctly define bokeh you subconsciously still haven't got it clearly distinguished from narrow DOF

If I was comparing bokeh between a 85 and 100mm macro, I would certainly not be doing it at f/1.2 and f/2.8 respectively...I would be doing it at equal apertures and equal framing


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woolburr
Rest in peace old friend.
Avatar
66,487 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 140
Joined Sep 2005
Location: The Tupperware capitol of eastern Oregon...Leicester, NC!
     
Feb 16, 2010 07:56 |  #19

smorter wrote in post #9618989 (external link)
On one hand you (correctly) quote that bokeh is about the quality of the OOF regions...yet on the other hand you claim this quality is best when the amount of OOF region is maximised (when lens is used wide open)

I think although you correctly define bokeh you subconsciously still haven't got it clearly distinguished from narrow DOF

If I was comparing bokeh between a 85 and 100mm macro, I would certainly not be doing it at f/1.2 and f/2.8 respectively...I would be doing it at equal apertures and equal framing

You are totally confused. Narrow depth of field comes in to play....but not in the manner you seem to imply. The narrow DOF is simply a by-product of a lens being shot wide open.

While the actual quality of bokeh in any photo is strictly subjective, most viewers agree that there are some key factors that go a long way towards making it appealing. The number one factor is the ability of a lens to maximize the defocus of the image....i.e. the areas of the image not in focus are literally blurred beyond recognition....produci​ng a relatively smooth, "creamy" area of defocus. As you stop a lens down, you bring more and more of the image into focus. As the range of focus or DOF increases, the more angular and defined the bokeh becomes. The more angular.....the less appealing to the eye.

So, can you have appealing bokeh with a lens that is stopped down? The answer is yes, it is possible. However, the reality is that most lenses produce their most appealing bokeh when shot wide open....this isn't a new concept. Your shots with the lens stopped down show bokeh produced by the lens at that aperture and at that particular point of focus. What is does not show is the best ability of the lens to produce that quality defocus that everyone seeks. Showing an image at f/4 or f/16 does not showcase any lenses ability to produce pleasing bokeh unless that happens to be the minimum aperture of the given lens.

Your assertion that the 100 is incapable of producing pleasing bokeh is not validated by your images or your methodology.


People that know me call me Dan
You'll never be a legitimate photographer until you have an award winning duck in your portfolio!
Crayons,Coloring Book, (external link) Refrigerator Art (external link) and What I Really Think About (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,567 posts
Likes: 162
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Feb 16, 2010 08:05 |  #20

The 100L's bokeh is significantly more round at portrait distances and f/2.8 than the 85L's is at f/2.8...at least, the 85L mark I.

I don't know how you can view the 100L's bokeh as harsh. I've owned a LOT of lenses (over 45), and the 100L's bokeh is near the top, only being surpassed by the Sigma 50 f/1.4, Rokinon 85/1.4 and 135 f/2L. That's about it. It's more or less on par with the 85L, IMO.

100L bokeh at FAR from infinity (shooting another bokeh cream machine). Yes, you can see a little of the aperture closing you're talking about, but it's not a harsh edge at all...very smooth:

IMAGE: http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/rok85.jpg

Jordan Steele - http://www.jsteelephot​os.com (external link) | https://www.admiringli​ght.com (external link)
---------------
Canon EOS R5 | R6 | TTArtisan 11mm Fisheye | Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 | RF 24-105mm f/4L IS | Tamron 35mm f/1.4 | RF 35mm f/1.8 | RF 50mm f/1.8 | RF 85mm f/2 | RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | Sigma 135mm f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 16, 2010 08:19 |  #21

Clearly we are not going to convince each other, so I will stop trying. We clearly have different opinions on bokeh. All I can say is that I evaluate bokeh clear of the confounding factors such as DOF and telephoto compression. That's why I regard lenses such as 35 f/1.4 as having nice bokeh but lenses like the 200 f/2L IS as having harsh bokeh (I have both and have compared extensively)

Woolburr wrote in post #9619121 (external link)
You are totally confused.

I :lol: at this even though it was directed at me. So blunt.


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Feb 16, 2010 08:33 |  #22

aaxxii wrote in post #9618009 (external link)
How well does one work for taking outdoor portraits?

IMO it's too long for a 1.6 crop camera.

Woolburr wrote in post #9618905 (external link)
but your example shows absolutely nothing about the quality of bokeh produced by either lens....

Of course it does... :rolleyes:

Woolburr wrote in post #9618905 (external link)
Bokeh is a term that applies to the subjective quality of the out of focus areas of an image. Period.

Yup.

Woolburr wrote in post #9618905 (external link)
Best bokeh is produced when a lens is shot wide open.

Depends on the lens. If a lens is good, it will give pleasing bokeh also when stopped down...
No sense in buying a 85/1.2 if you couldn't stop it down when needed.

On a side note: There's more to bokeh than a round diaphragm...


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woolburr
Rest in peace old friend.
Avatar
66,487 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 140
Joined Sep 2005
Location: The Tupperware capitol of eastern Oregon...Leicester, NC!
     
Feb 16, 2010 08:49 |  #23

smorter wrote in post #9619193 (external link)
Clearly we are not going to convince each other, so I will stop trying. We clearly have different opinions on bokeh. All I can say is that I evaluate bokeh clear of the confounding factors such as DOF and telephoto compression. That's why I regard lenses such as 35 f/1.4 as having nice bokeh but lenses like the 200 f/2L IS as having harsh bokeh (I have both and have compared extensively)


I :lol: at this even though it was directed at me. So blunt.

The rest of us are laughing too. :rolleyes:


People that know me call me Dan
You'll never be a legitimate photographer until you have an award winning duck in your portfolio!
Crayons,Coloring Book, (external link) Refrigerator Art (external link) and What I Really Think About (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woolburr
Rest in peace old friend.
Avatar
66,487 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 140
Joined Sep 2005
Location: The Tupperware capitol of eastern Oregon...Leicester, NC!
     
Feb 16, 2010 08:57 |  #24

René Damkot wrote in post #9619264 (external link)
IMO it's too long for a 1.6 crop camera.


Of course it does... :rolleyes:


Yup.

Depends on the lens. If a lens is good, it will give pleasing bokeh also when stopped down...
No sense in buying a 85/1.2 if you couldn't stop it down when needed.


On a side note: There's more to bokeh than a round diaphragm...

The thing you missed was one key word....best....Certai​nly, the 85 f/1.2 can produce appealing bokeh at f/3.2, but is it as good as it is at f/1.2? And of course, we all know that this is subject to the subjectivity of the subject. ;)


People that know me call me Dan
You'll never be a legitimate photographer until you have an award winning duck in your portfolio!
Crayons,Coloring Book, (external link) Refrigerator Art (external link) and What I Really Think About (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
liupublic
Goldmember
1,114 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Tempe AZ
     
Feb 16, 2010 09:51 |  #25

I was at Desert Botanical Garden taking macro shot with 100mm Macro (not L). Wife wanted a shot with the kids. I turned around to frame all 3 of them and started to back up immediately. I ended up about 15ft away to get all of them in the frame. This was with a 50D.

IMO, 100mm almost perfect for head shot or half body shots outdoor but not so much for the full body. So it depends on what you like. Also it might be a tad too sharp for older folks according to my wife. Not really flaterring. PP helps of course.


Still learning
Nikon D750, Sigma 24-105OS, 105mm 2.8g micro VR, Tamron 70-300VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pinoyed
Senior Member
Avatar
532 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Feb 16, 2010 10:14 as a reply to  @ liupublic's post |  #26

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

flickr (external link)
1DIII | 17-40L | Σ50 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JWright
Planes, trains and ham radio...
Avatar
18,399 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2004
     
Feb 16, 2010 13:11 as a reply to  @ pinoyed's post |  #27

reng2009 wrote in post #9618886 (external link)
The OP has a cropped sensor body. 100mm is therefore way too long for a portrait lens, unless you're doing your portrait work outdoors.

That's my feeling as well.

Traditionally, a good focal length for portraits is around 70-80mm on 35mm (or full frame). Given that the OP has a cropped camera a 50mm lens would give the right proportions for portraits.

Using too wide a lens for portraits has a tendency to distort the features closest to the lens and using too long a lens for portraits has a tendency to flatten the features. In wither case an unflattering image is produced, more so with the wide angle lens.


John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dragos ­ Jianu
Goldmember
1,768 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Sep 2005
     
Feb 16, 2010 14:28 |  #28

On a cropper, I would suggest the much more cheaper EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro. The 100mm is way too long indoors.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pinoyed
Senior Member
Avatar
532 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Feb 16, 2010 14:37 |  #29

aaxxii wrote in post #9618009 (external link)
How well does one work for taking outdoor portraits?
I want to get it as my first macro lens; at a local store there is a -$200 sale right now- only 200 more then the regular 100 2.8 Macro

I want to use it for Portraits too though, that should be fine right? I heard of some Macros not being able to focus that far



OP clearly states outdoor portraits...so 100mm a good focal length


flickr (external link)
1DIII | 17-40L | Σ50 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Feb 16, 2010 14:58 |  #30

pinoyed wrote in post #9621567 (external link)
OP clearly states outdoor portraits...so 100mm a good focal length

Yeah, it's a nice FL for a specific type of shot.

For a "standard" portrait, something in the 50-60mm range would be better (head and shoulders) or 85mm (tight headshot). Wider for an "environmental portrait" (If I remember the term correctly)

100mm is too long. (Unless you want a long shooting distance for a "flat" perspective)


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

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

28,245 views & 1 like for this thread
100mm 2.8L Macro as portrait lens?
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 Land Scorpion
318 guests, 228 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.