Canon 100 f/2 or 100 Macro for Outside Portraits

For members that have, or have tried both....I need your help with this one

Canon 100 f/2 or Canon 100 macro.
This lens will be used mostly for outside portraits.

Which one has better bokeh? Color & contrast? Can you post examples?
How is the weight difference for handholding?

I definately want the 100mm length, so the 85 1.8 is not an option for me.

I realize that a macro is a macro, but if it is workable I could get 2 uses from it.

I currently use my 24-70 on a 40D for all my portrait sessions, inside and outside. Now I want to add a little longer reach. ($500.00 is the max!)

Thanks, Kath

Well are you going to use the macro for any macro work as well? If not I would day use the 85mm 1.8 if you're doing portraits.

The 85 1.8 and the 100 Macro are both on my list...

I would love to do macro again, but my main priority is for portraiture.

As I stated above, I want the length of the 100 and can only get one lens.

Never used the 100 f/2 but the 100 macro is an amazing lens. Works very very well for portraits. Ultra sharp images, fantastic colors and contrast. I loved it while I had it. AF is fast enough. Two things that didn't work so well for me: 1. Was a little long for portraits - okay for headshots but anything than that, it gets uncomfortable and 2. Doesn't work so well for anything that is farther than 25 feet (gets soft at longer distances). But all in all, killer lens. The images from it just scream "high quality".

sunnybeach wrote in post #7503416
For members that have, or have tried both....I need your help with this one

Canon 100 f/2 or Canon 100 macro.
This lens will be used mostly for outside portraits.

Which one has better bokeh? Color & contrast? Can you post examples?
How is the weight difference for handholding?

I definately want the 100mm length, so the 85 1.8 is not an option for me.

I realize that a macro is a macro, but if it is workable I could get 2 uses from it.

I currently use my 24-70 on a 40D for all my portrait sessions, inside and outside. Now I want to add a little longer reach. ($500.00 is the max!)

Thanks, Kath

f2 is better than f2.8 for what you want to do, imo.

If it's as good at f2 or better than the 85 is at 1.8...... go for it.

I'd only buy the 100 macro if macro was very important to how the lens would be used.

"Head" & "Head and Shoulder" shots are what I would be using this length for.

With the 24-70 at 70 it makes some people "nervous" being so close to them. The 100mm would allow me to be a little further from them.

The 100/2 will do a better job at portraits and with some ext. tubes, can do some decent macro as well.

I actually think the 100 macro would be the better choice since you want the two-in-one. It's not a bad portrait lens.

Since I own and love the 100 / 2, and shoot it mainly at f/2:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/100gallery

and most of my pics are candid portraits:

Canon 5D + 100mm / 2 @ f / 2, 1/1250, ISO 400

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/image/66293556

Thanks for the pics. I have looked at your site quite a few times in the last few weeks. Wonderful shots with the 100.

I was thinking the macro would be a better choice for the "dual purpose", But each time I look at your photo's, I lean towards the 100 f/2.

Tough decision.

sunnybeach wrote in post #7504792
Thanks for the pics. I have looked at your site quite a few times in the last few weeks. Wonderful shots with the 100.

I was thinking the macro would be a better choice for the "dual purpose", But each time I look at your photo's, I lean towards the 100 f/2.

Tough decision.

Absolutely the 100 / 2.8 macro will serve as dual purpose. But in this case, for me and my photography, the purposes are enough different to have two different lenses. That's why I had the 150 / 2.8 macro in addition to the 100 / 2, which I also used for portraits, and doubled as a telephoto:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/150macrogallery

However, I've found that I wanted more specialization still, and have replaced the 150 / 2.8 macro with the 70 / 2.8 macro:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/70macrogallery

and 200 / 2.8L:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/200l5dgallery

I think it's important to note that I use *all* my lenses (including the 15 / 2.8 FE) for portraits.

So, you can be more "frugal" than I and get it all done with one lens, the 100 / 2.8 macro. It totally depends on the person. I merely offer my opinions, experiences, and pictures to aid in your decision.

I love my 100 f/2. It is blazingly sharp (compares very will to the 135L...I owned both, and kept the 100.)

I'm getting a 1Ds II tomorrow, and as a result, the 85L is probably going to go away, and the 100 f/2 is staying (I like the 100mm focal length better on FF). I might miss f/1.2 from time to time, but the rest of it? Not really. The 85L is a smidge sharper at f/2, but not much, but while the 85L has the extra stop + of aperture, the AF on the 100 f/2 blows the 85L out of the water. I shot some theater with my 1DII this past week, and the 85L struggled to keep up with the pace of some of the servo shots, resulting in a fair amount of OOF images on moving subjects...the 100 f/2 nailed it every time, and the images are SHARP. Bokeh is also beautiful with the 100 f/2...easily as good as any of the other Canon primes in that range. It's a great lens.

Recent shot of my daughter with the 100 f/2 at f/2 on my 1D II:

Thanks Jordan for another great shot with the 100.

Hey Joe,
I have also really thought about 2 seperate lenses. That's my dilemma. I don't want to subsitute portrait quality (bokeh, fast focus, weight) just to get by with one lens. (if I go with the macro)

So I'm thinkin' that I should stick with my original thought of buying the 100 f/2 for portraits, and then later on I could get the macro and maybe go a little longer and try the Sigma 150, which would then also give me more reach for candids as well as macro. I have seem some amazing shots with this lens too.

Does the Sigma 150 have any sharpness issues if used more than 25 feet away as some members mentioned having with the 100 macro?

This is what happens when you need to save for a new lens. The longer it takes, the more I keep thinking about if my choice is the best one

Sounds like the right choice, to me, buying the 100/f2, first and, maybe down the road, a dedicated macro lens.

I have both of the 100mm lenses. As far as portraits go, the 100mm 2.0 is definetly better than the macro. In my estimation the 100mm 2.0 at 2.0 is the best portraits lens for a crop camera. Now the 100mm 2.8 macro lens takes very good portraits, but the bokeh doesn't compare with the 2.0. The macro is also quite a bit heavier.

I really like the examples that jman13 and joe mama supplied.