What Macro Lens to Get?

RiKaN HaVoK wrote in post #8921346
good for you .. next time read before you ask then ..

No need. Seeing the identity of the poster will suffice.

plasticmotif wrote in post #8922032
reread your own question, dipstick.


visible details = sharpness


Anyway. Why get a macro, get the 100 f/2

lol .. so basically more details = sharpness? OK .. if you say so dipstick

xarqi wrote in post #8922419
No need. Seeing the identity of the poster will suffice.

lol .. so basically since I have a goofy avatar now you seen my identity ... lol .. love it how simple minded you are ...

The long and short of it is that all macro lenses are optically excellent. It’s quite difficult to get a bad one. In the 100mm range, for macro shooting, really, any lens will work just fine. If you want to hand hold a lot, it may be worth shelling out the extra $$ for the 100L because of its excellent IS.

In the longer range, the Sigma 150 is absolutely outstanding. Quick AF, very sharp, and good handling. If you want ~100mm range for dual duty...i.e, macro and portraiture, which it sounds like you do, the canon 100mm lenses are the way to go, as they have much faster AF than the Tamron 90 or the very slow Sigma 105mm.

I have the 100L, and it’s simply phenomenal...perhaps the best lens I’ve ever used optically, and with the focus limiter (0.5m to infinity), it's as fast as most any non-macro lens...very quick AF (and 0.5m is very close). I’ve previously owned the Sigma 105mm (dreadful AF, but very good image quality), and I have the Sigma 150, that will be sold since I just got the 100L. the Sigma 150 is also a great portrait lens, though harder to hand hold than the 100L due to the lack of IS.

So, to sum up: for portraits and macro, in the 100 range, go for either of the Canons, with the 100L if you want IS. For a longer lens, go for the Sigma 150 f/2.8. If you are going to be using it almost entirely for macro, any of the following lenses will be great: Tamron 90, Tokina 100, Sigma 105, Canon 100, Canon 100L IS, Sigma 150, Sigma 180, Canon 180L.

Jman thanks for the reply man ..

I will be doing a few weddings and I want to use it for wedding ring shoots and other small significant things ...

Thanks ..

I was just considering selling my Canon 100mm macro, to maybe get the L, but prices have gone down a bit (supply and demand - etc).

Now seems to be a really good time to buy a used Canon 100mm 2.8 macro.

Community wisdom would suggest the Canon 100mm:
https://photography-on-the.net …do=showresults&​pollid=636
I however have used the Sigma 150 for its working distance. I can say that It is very sharp, well built, decent AF beyond macro range, and comes with a tripod mount. That being said, I agree with Jman that you really can't go wrong. There are relatively few bad macro lenses. If you stick to the list he provided you will be happy.
-Trevor

RiKaN HaVoK wrote in post #8921133
I never stated anything about sharpness .. please re-read my question ...

If I want to get a crazy IRIS shot or some detail makeup the 135L can't get close enough neither is that detail hence the question ..

If I was to go with a Macro which one and if not and I go with another lens which one .. 70-200 or 200? Or should I just buy tubes and use the 135L ... I'm trying to weight all my options ..

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a fantastic lens but, its strength is not neccessarily in the most close up shots. Mine does quite well but, there have been many post regarding this lens having a shortfall in the MFD area.

I like my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF SP macro for portraiture. The bokeh is fantastic and of course, it is designed for close-up work.

RiKaN HaVoK wrote in post #8919631
For portrait and Weddings?

Or what Macro lens 100mm and up do you prefer?

BTW, I just want to do tighter headshoot with more visible details ...

I have the 85L II and 135L and Im thinking about getting the 70-200 IS either 4 or 2.8

For portrait & wedding, i usually use 85 & 135L (i do candid wedding only).
about macro lens (100 2.8L, i never use it for portrait in wedding).

plasticmotif wrote in post #8922032
reread your own question, dipstick.

visible details = sharpness

Anyway. Why get a macro, get the 100 f/2

Not to get off topic about semantics, but I would say sharpness is NOT the same as visible detail.

Sharpness is concerned with edge contrast of adjacent pixels or elements in the image.

Visible detail is to do with resolution or resolving power (be it from the lens or the sensor).

You can have low resolution images that are sharp, for example. Sharpness can be affected by viewing distance also. They're obviously related, but I don't think they're exclusive of each other.

Then again, "visible detail" as mentioned in the first post, may not be referring to absolute resolving power of a lens, but to visible sharpness. I dunno - just throwing it out there.

I think most people think of sharpness as resolution. To play semantics correctly, what you are referring to, when you talk about sharpness, is actually acutance.

Getting back to the original question... And risking being called a dipstick...

I'm not really sure why you would want a macro lens for portraits and wedding? One would be okay for masculine portraits, but the ladies will likely hate you. The last thing they want is for your lens to bring out all the little "details" they're trying to cover up.

Plus you already have two of the best portrait lenses ever made: 85L and 135L.

Get or rent the 70-200/2.8L, preferably the IS, and see how that works out. It can focus pretty close, but if you need a still tighter shot than it can manage on its own, just pop an extension tube or two behind it.

You also could use extension tubes with your current 135, for that matter. And the 135 works pretty well with a 1.4X, too.

If you really feel you need a macro, your options are fairly limited since it sounds as if you are looking for a lens that's longer than your current 135mm. That leaves the Sigma 150/2.8 (which many like), either a Canon 180/3.5 or Sigma 180/3.5. I can't speak for the Sigma 180, but the Canon focuses pretty slowly. I dunno if it's slower than your 85 II though, so it might be okay. Personally I don't find the 180 Canon much of a "dual purpose" lens. It's a fine macro, but not great for non-macro shooting.

Jman13 wrote in post #8930461
I think most people think of sharpness as resolution. To play semantics correctly, what you are referring to, when you talk about sharpness, is actually acutance.

Wow, awesome, thanks for that! Learning is great.

I guess I consider sharpness = acutance then, separate from resolving detail. What would you say "sharpness" is?

edit:

Just noticed this at teh bottom of that wiki entry :