Thinking of buying a macro/portrait lens

I have the funds for a Canon 100mm IS and I am impressed with the results people get from it. Is that the best lens to get?

Planning to use it for macro shots and for portraits of people.

I was told the 60mm Macro fits both purposes of portrait and macro, by you saying that it has IS, I think you are looking at the wrong lens for usage in macro photography

400dabuser wrote in post #10220138
I was told the 60mm Macro fits both purposes of portrait and macro, by you saying that it has IS, I think you are looking at the wrong lens for usage in macro photography

Sorry I didn't give the full description, there are 2 100mm macro lenses, one has IS and that is the one I am looking at. This one

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=760368

I have the non IS version and can testify that it is a wonderful lens for both macro and portrait work and great fun to use. That said every account I have come across of the new IS has been very positive. If you can afford it, why not?

Let us know if you get it

Cheers

Ooops, that maybe a mistake on the website I am looking on, can you show me a link for that lens, please?

I believe you mean this one:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

...it is simply great.

magwai wrote in post #10220126
I have the funds for a Canon 100mm IS and I am impressed with the results people get from it. Is that the best lens to get?

Planning to use it for macro shots and for portraits of people.

It's a very good lens and you are unlikely to be disappointed with it.

As for it being the best lens to get... well, it depends on how you define "best". If you refer to image quality then no - the Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro Planar ZE is by all accounts the best 100mm lens ever made. However it's more than two times the price of a Canon 100L, has no AF, no IS, is not weather sealed and not a true 1:1.

If the features it lacks are more important to you then yes, the 100L is the best lens to get.

is the IS lens a significant improvement over the non-IS or the sigma/tamron offerings. i don't mind paying extra if it is noticeably better.

400dabuser wrote in post #10220138
I was told the 60mm Macro fits both purposes of portrait and macro, by you saying that it has IS, I think you are looking at the wrong lens for usage in macro photography

Why would a SHORTER lens without IS be better for macro (and portraits) ?

I think the 100L would be the perfect lens for doing double-duty with portaits and macro.

I had the 100L that I mostly used for portraits. The IS was very handy for that and saved a lot of shots. But I sold it to get the new 70-200mm II. It was justified, because I didn't take alot of macroshots.

So +1 on the 100L. It's a great lens for doing macro and portraits!

The 100L is great, so is the none L. I had the none IS but now have the IS model just because I wanted IS. It just depends on what you want, IS or none IS. You won't go wrong with either one.

Crop or full frame camera? On a crop, I think 100 is a bit too long. On full frame, it would be great.
On a full frame, an 85 or a 100 would be perfect.
On my crop cameras, the 85 is as long as I would go.

magwai wrote in post #10220674
is the IS lens a significant improvement over the non-IS or the sigma/tamron offerings. i don't mind paying extra if it is noticeably better.

Yes for portraits/general use not so much for macro. With macro shots you have an extremely thin depth of field and have to stop down the lens significantly to extend it. So you'll need to use a flash anyway.

for macro, i actually feel my 100L is too short on FF. a bit better on crop.

for portrait, depends if you have crop or FF. on crop you should practice the focal length if you have a telephoto zoom.