Canon 100 f/2 or 100 Macro for Outside Portraits

I was somewhat worried about the weight of the macro. I like to do my sessions handheld so that I can shoot more freely.

Bokeh is one of my main priorities.

Nightcat, do you have a site where I can see some of your work with the 100 f/2?

Thanks again everybody, Kath

sunnybeach wrote in post #7505520
Does the Sigma 150 have any sharpness issues if used more than 25 feet away as some members mentioned having with the 100 macro?

Never had a problem with it. I have both these pics printed at 20 x 30 inches:

Canon 5D + Sigma 150 / 2.8 macro @ f/5.6, 1/8000, ISO 100

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/image/99094199

Joe, your images are stunning. Love the hummingbird.

That lens is wickedly sharp!!

I'm pretty much decided on the 100 f/2 for my portrait work. I also am leaning toward the Sigma for my macro. It looks to me to do much more than macro "very well"

I have no problem handholding my 24-70 and the macro is not that different in length and weight. Now to save more money.

Thanks alot for all the images. Kath

sunnybeach wrote in post #7506652
Joe, your images are stunning. Love the hummingbird.

Thanks for the kind words! Everyone likes hummers. : )

That it is. I regret getting rid of it to fund my 200 / 2.8L, but, as I said, I'm currently enjoying the Sigma 70 / 2.8 macro:

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

You may wish to give this a read:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=652935

I have no problem handholding my 24-70 and the macro is not that different in length and weight. Now to save more money.

I never found the 150 / 2.8 macro too heavy, but one of the reasons I decided to try the Sigma 70 / 2.8 macro was to have a macro that would fit in my small camera bag when attached to the camera. The only question is if 70mm were not too short, and, so far, it has not been, although I do sometimes miss the longer perspective, and am considering a 500D closeup filter for the 200 / 2.8L to that end.

Glad to help. Just not a lot to dislike about that lens. : )

+1 for the 100/2.
The macro would actually work, but if you plan to shoot candids the AF of the 100/2 is a big advantage. And at f/2 you will get more background blur.

I have found my Sigma 150 to lose a bit of sharpness at longer distances and f/2.8, but it sharpens right back up to glass cutting by f/4. Not that it's bad at f/2.8 and longer distances...just that it's not as sharp as it is from 15 feet and closer. The Sigma 150 has absolutely BEAUTIFUL bokeh too, and it's about as sharp as a lens can get. It's excellent wide open, but at f/4 and smaller it might be as sharp a lens as I've ever used. I'm actually pretty excited for my 1Ds II to get here, as my Sigma 150 will then really be useful for long portrait work.

The 100 f2 is a spectacular lens for portraits and can also work well for sports and macro with extension tubes as mentioned above. Its on par with the 135 in terms of IQ. The 100 macro is also a great lens in its own right but the extra 2/3 would sway me back to the f2 every time.

namasste wrote in post #7518013
The 100 f2 is a spectacular lens for portraits and can also work well for sports and macro with extension tubes as mentioned above. Its on par with the 135 in terms of IQ. The 100 macro is also a great lens in its own right but the extra 2/3 would sway me back to the f2 every time.

Just FYI: f/2 is one full stop faster than f/2.8, not 2/3:

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=7461469&po​stcount=16

The 100mm f2 is outstanding for portraits, but you do need to stand back a bit on a crop body with a FOV at 160.

That is what I am looking to do. I want a little more reach than my 24-70 can give me. I'm 100% sure this is the right choice for me.

The Sigma 150 macro is next on my list. In fact, I am tempted to buy that one first. It looks like I can get some great portrait shots with that as well, although from a greater distance.

Sooner or later I will have both.

Thanks everyone!!

joe mama wrote in post #7518272
Just FYI: f/2 is one full stop faster than f/2.8, not 2/3:

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=7461469&po​stcount=16

holy cr@p, you are totally correct on that. I haven't had that lens in a while and forgot about f2.2. Makes an even stronger case for me.

I've enjoyed the 100mm length for a long time, I own and use the F2 lens for sports and outdoor portraits.
I do feel that 100mm is too long for the aps size cameras.
Like a previous poster stated, it keeps you a little far away from the subject and requires a larger shooting area for indoor portraits.

If I were to buy a lens for head and shoulder style portraits today, I'd look seriously at the 85mm.
My 2 sense

The images posted in this thread are FREAKIN OFF THE HOOK! I may have to get a 100f2...