180L for portraits?

Having hunted through the archives, I see that there are a few people who can make decent comparisons between the 100 and 180L macro, pros and cons for each. Except if I buy a macro I'll be buying it so if any product work comes up I have the macro option, but mainly as I'm a huge fan of VERY tight crops into model's faces in portraiture. There's loads about the 100 being an excellent portrait lens which is good as it's obviously much cheaper. But my concern and wonder is that for shooting such portraits the extra working distance will be a good thing for the models, as it isn't the easiest thing for them to do when posing with my current 24-70 at closest focal length (just too far way in terms of image crop).

So my questions is has anyone used a 180L macro for portraits? If so what's the verdict? And can anyone offer other options. Moppie on here suggested a pseudo macro zoom, but I think that may be as bad if not worse on the working range from subject....

Cheers for any thoughts.

I have used it for tight face shots on FF. It is tight and you do have a bit of space but are still in close proximity to the person. But you probably know all that. Its a heavy lens so consider that I suppose. Do you have something in the 100 and 180 length. You could move in to get the framing right even if it cannot focus that close and have an idea of how close you will be. Your 70 will at least tell you if the 100 is going to be too short.


Here is an example I found I would have been just under a metre here. BTW this shot was actually done with the 2X TC on but I check the distance to frame the shot without the TC and that is under a metre.

What's Moppie know.

So what's the problem? Being too close? While it's not the 180, I use my 70-200 for a lot of portraits and there are quite a few at the longer end from 150 to 200. I see it could be very useful, but I like that I can zoom back. Now, I'm not saying get the 70-200 macro, but I was thinking something shorter but still long, Sig 150 Macro.

Useful guys thanks...

I've got the 70-200 and it basically doesn't focus anywhere near close enough. The 24-70 nearly does but is literally on top of the subject. So I was wondering if a 100 macro would do that job well, and then my mind followed the tangent that if the 100 would work, would the 180 do the same but allow me to be further away from the subject...

And then I realised I saw very little if no mention of using the 180 as a portrait lens, so thought I'd ask for further opinion?

manipula wrote in post #4062880
Useful guys thanks...

I've got the 70-200 and it basically doesn't focus anywhere near close enough. The 24-70 nearly does but is literally on top of the subject. So I was wondering if a 100 macro would do that job well, and then my mind followed the tangent that if the 100 would work, would the 180 do the same but allow me to be further away from the subject...

And then I realised I saw very little if no mention of using the 180 as a portrait lens, so thought I'd ask for further opinion?

Maybe you can slap on a 12mm tube and see if it helps. That way you can get a shorter working distance and see if the FL works well for you.

That's a very good point, I'd not thought of that. I don't have any extension tubes at all either but it might be worth hunting out.

The 180L works great for portraits. Also a decent sports lens too. Really, a superb lens all around. I have used it for a lot of various topics. It's one of if not THE sharpest lens canon makes, perhaps exceeded only by the 300 2.8 IS and 400 2.8 IS. It's head and shoulders above the 100 macro, the only thing better (for macro) might be the MPE-65 but that's a very specialty lens.

The only other option to consder might be the 135 f/2L. This is a stunning lens, fast, light, focuses very close (not macro though) and superb color/contrast. Combine it with a 1.4X tele for a nice 189 f/2.8. Add a 12mm tube for near-macro capabilities. All for about the same price as the 180L but with more versatility. I have both, they are both excellent in their own right. 135 is easier to hand-hold but 180 not that bad.

FWIW
-Ed

Exactly what I was after, thanks Ed. You know the close focal distance of the 135L at all? And do you have any samples you're able or willing to share?

For your 5D it should be fine if you have enough space. I use my 135L (on a crop), which is a bit longer than a 180 on your 5D, and it's excellent for tight portraits indoors (but better outdoors for me). The 180 should be about the same there, and we all know the 180's image quality is excellent. For general portraiture on the 5D, the 135L would be hard to beat...some of the best IQ in the Canon lineup.

The MFD for the 135L is 3 feet (from the sensor plane, of course).

manipula wrote in post #4059000
Having hunted through the archives, I see that there are a few people who can make decent comparisons between the 100 and 180L macro, pros and cons for each. Except if I buy a macro I'll be buying it so if any product work comes up I have the macro option, but mainly as I'm a huge fan of VERY tight crops into model's faces in portraiture. There's loads about the 100 being an excellent portrait lens which is good as it's obviously much cheaper. But my concern and wonder is that for shooting such portraits the extra working distance will be a good thing for the models, as it isn't the easiest thing for them to do when posing with my current 24-70 at closest focal length (just too far way in terms of image crop).

So my questions is has anyone used a 180L macro for portraits? If so what's the verdict? And can anyone offer other options. Moppie on here suggested a pseudo macro zoom, but I think that may be as bad if not worse on the working range from subject....

Cheers for any thoughts.

Just a thought, I have heard of people using the 200/2.8L for this, I am sure you get similar results although the slightly faster aperture gives more DOF control.

Cheers for the input guys. I think if I was gonna buy a non macro prime in this range it would be the 135 over the 200 but if it's an option I'll never discount it.

Just to add ,the gaussian optics on this lens are second to none which gives incredible bokeh, as is its sharpness. I recomend the lens.

ashdavid wrote in post #4080055
Just to add ,the gaussian optics on this lens are second to none which gives incredible bokeh, as is its sharpness. I recomend the lens.

Are you referring to the 180L? That doesn't have a Gaussian construction if you ask me. Of all the Canon macro lenses, AFAIK, only the 50 Compact macro and MP-E 65 have a (modified) Gaussian construction: Gaussian with a bunch of elements at the back to keep IQ at high magnifications high, I assume. All the others (EF-S 60, EF-100 and 180L) seem to be derived from double achromats/apochromats, where the 180L has the most difficult to distinguish design of all, as it looks like a non-symmetrical double achromat/apochromat in a totally non-symmetrical design format, with a complicated tele-construction and with both elements at the front and at the back to keep IQ high at larger magnifications.

AFAIK, the shortest (modified) Gaussian design in the Canon lens line-up is any of the 50 mm lenses, and the longest is the TS-E 90.

Kind regards, Wim

EdSawyer wrote in post #4063761
The 180L works great for portraits. Also a decent sports lens too. Really, a superb lens all around. I have used it for a lot of various topics. It's one of if not THE sharpest lens canon makes, perhaps exceeded only by the 300 2.8 IS and 400 2.8 IS. It's head and shoulders above the 100 macro, the only thing better (for macro) might be the MPE-65 but that's a very specialty lens.
FWIW
-Ed

Not wishing to be contentious here but I find it difficult to agree with everything above.
I am a little suprised that a f/3.5 lens would be considered "great" for portrait photography....not that I ever do any but I would assume a faster lens to be more desireable here.
I've tried mine as a general 180mm lens for wildlife etc and find it to be outside its design criteria...it's okay but it loses its L qualities...certainly only on a par with the 70-200/2.8 zoom and not close to the quality of the 300/4 or even the 400/5.6 for IQ.

As a 1:1 or close to 1:1 it is peerless (IMO) although I'm sure Sigma owners would disagree. I have the 100/2.8 and there are very definate advantages over the 180 for hand holding but that is about the only item it wins. The 180 on a full frame body has the ability to be stunning although I haven't yet been able to fully do it justice....but practice is everything.

Again, sorry to disagree...but debate is healthy, yes?

Bob

Canon Bob wrote in post #4082606
Not wishing to be contentious here but I find it difficult to agree with everything above.
I am a little suprised that a f/3.5 lens would be considered "great" for portrait photography....not that I ever do any but I would assume a faster lens to be more desireable here.
I've tried mine as a general 180mm lens for wildlife etc and find it to be outside its design criteria...it's okay but it loses its L qualities...certainly only on a par with the 70-200/2.8 zoom and not close to the quality of the 300/4 or even the 400/5.6 for IQ.

As a 1:1 or close to 1:1 it is peerless (IMO) although I'm sure Sigma owners would disagree. I have the 100/2.8 and there are very definate advantages over the 180 for hand holding but that is about the only item it wins. The 180 on a full frame body has the ability to be stunning although I haven't yet been able to fully do it justice....but practice is everything.

Again, sorry to disagree...but debate is healthy, yes?

Bob

Bob, from your above comments I get the impression you find the 180 less able at infinity or very low magnification compared to it's closeup performance - am I reading you right?