180L for portraits?

Lester Wareham wrote in post #4087918
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?

Lester,

Yes, that is how I see it....at least that's what I see from my copy and I haven't had the opportunity to try others. When I first got it I thought it may well double as a good prime....one step down from the 300/4. Having shot a few tame birds around the garden I can see that it doesn't compete in this area (that was one a 400D at the time). The nearest comparison I have is the 70-200/2.8 and it is debatable which is the best around 180mm f5.6.

As a macro, I find it to be stunning at 1:1 and even with a 1.4x and tubes on.
I have to confess that I'm struggling to get the hang of the ring flash with it but that's simply lack of practice and not least a little bit of frustration.

I've only had it about 5 months and it does take practice but the change to a 5D has instantly "upped the anti"....the two things were made for each other.

As I stated in the original post.....this is only an opinion based on my gear and my limited use but those early shots mean it doesn't come out for the long stuff. I guess others may have a better copy or more user skills than I have and define their 180L as "one of if not THE sharpest lens canon makes"...I'm not trying to belittle this statement, it's just that mine cannot be described thus.

Bob

Thanks Bob. I notice from low magnification measurements like photozone the lens often does not do as well as may be expected; but the one comparative test I have seen at life size the 180 was second only to the MP-E 65mm including some of the Sigma and Tamron options.

I have heard it said elsewhere that the lens is better close-in the at long distances so I wonder if this, and the fact the optical performance and aberration can be distance dependent, explains the apparent contradiction. Of course part-to-part variation may be at work also.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #4089000
Thanks Bob. I notice from low magnification measurements like photozone the lens often does not do as well as may be expected; but the one comparative test I have seen at life size the 180 was second only to the MP-E 65mm including some of the Sigma and Tamron options.

I have heard it said elsewhere that the lens is better close-in the at long distances so I wonder if this, and the fact the optical performance and aberration can be distance dependent, explains the apparent contradiction. Of course part-to-part variation may be at work also.

I wonder whether the negatively curved front lens element has anything to do with this. It is the only slr lens I know with such a front lens element. I reckon this lens may well be designed for near focus work first and foremost.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #4092836
I wonder whether the negatively curved front lens element has anything to do with this. It is the only slr lens I know with such a front lens element. I reckon this lens may well be designed for near focus work first and foremost.

Kind regards, Wim

Interesting, I have never heard of that before either, might also be a manifestation of a design feature for improving the working distance possibly.

Well,

I can say that my Sigma 180 has done well for portraits when I chose to use it. Also it doesn't have an issue of close focus being better than near infinity focus (i don't know that the Canon counterpart does either because I don't own one). This has been proven to me with my hummingbirds in flight shots that I've been doing for three years now.

Here's a protrait taken with the 180 from about 6 feet (20D):

Since no one's mentioned the flattened perspective such a long focal length creates, and how that distorts the subject's features...it should be said, so consider it said...

kitacanon wrote in post #4095243
Since no one's mentioned the flattened perspective such a long focal length creates, and how that distorts the subject's features...it should be said, so consider it said...

Are you sure that a long focal length distorts features? I don't think so. In fact, I've often heard of photogs using the longest lens they can for head shots. I think you've got it backwards, but I could be wrong here. Someone else wanna weigh in?

It is a "distortion" if you consider it from the "standard lens" AoV, but I agree with twoshaddows that one normally wants to flatten the perspective as much as possible with portraits as this tends to be more flattering for the subject, it adds intimacy if tightly cropped IMHO also.

Clearly a wide angle also introduces distortion, this tends to be objectionable with people as the subject.

Of course neither is distortion in the aberration sense, just different from the human eye view.

AFAIK the only normal objection to longer than medium tele in portrait work is it causes too much distance between the photog and the subject spoiling rapport. How much of an issue this is depends on what you are doing, but if you are after natural relaxed shots showing the sitters personality it is a significant factor. That assuming you have enough personality yourself to establish a rapport in the first place.

twoshadows wrote in post #4095496
Are you sure that a long focal length distorts features? I don't think so. In fact, I've often heard of photogs using the longest lens they can for head shots. I think you've got it backwards, but I could be wrong here. Someone else wanna weigh in?

Shoot a headshot with an UW lens and you'll see the opposite much more obvious distortion of perspective...long teles, longer than 80mm on a 1.6x ff, begin to flatten the forground-to-background, (as an UW extends the relationship of forground to background), just less obvious than with the UW.
Also, based on the posts I've seen on the web, most non-professional portraitists don't care, so you don't have to, and few will care to bring it to your attention in any case.

I'm in agreement with the last few bits, if the perspective of a longer lens is a distortion, it's a distortion I want. I was taking some portraits with a friends 300 f/2.8 a while back and it was lovely.

Going back to the original question then and with some of these comments in mind, has anyone any head shots done with the 135L at it's close focus point?

Here's a quick shot of my face at min focus distance for reference. Taken with the 1DmkIIn:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Hmmm, not as close as I was originally wanting.

This is one I took with the 24-70L hovering over it's close focus distance, and I'm wanting closer.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Nice shot, manipula. Beautiful lighting. I would definitely go for the 180 then. May I suggest the Sigma? I love mine and the HSM is a big seller for me. I use it for hummingbirds in flight even with the (Sigma) 1.4xTC! Also, Photozone tests show the Sigma is sharper. I've had mine for three plus years with no problems.

Hummingbirds:
http://www.pbase.com …hy/hummingbirds​_in_flight

Best of luck with your decision,

Ian