100mm 2.8L Macro as portrait lens?

smorter wrote in post #9618881
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.

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

Woolburr wrote in post #9618905
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

smorter wrote in post #9618989
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.

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:

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
You are totally confused.

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

aaxxii wrote in post #9618009
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
but your example shows absolutely nothing about the quality of bokeh produced by either lens....

Of course it does...

Woolburr wrote in post #9618905
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
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...

smorter wrote in post #9619193
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 at this even though it was directed at me. So blunt.

The rest of us are laughing too.

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


Of course it does...


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.

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.

reng2009 wrote in post #9618886
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.

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

aaxxii wrote in post #9618009
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

pinoyed wrote in post #9621567
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)