Suggestions: Best prime lens for Portrait & Macro

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/09/2007 12:03:02 PM · #1

I was thinking about adding to my lens collection with a nice prime lens to use for Portraiture and macro shots. I have looked at many canon lenses but the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens seems to be the best buy. Is this lens good for portrait and macro? Or do you suggest another lens.

Thanks in advance for you opinions
SDW

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/09/2007 12:11:41 PM · #2

its a fantastic macro lens.

It might be a bit long for portraits, depending on your style and locations, particularly on a 1.6x crop camera - you'll be in very tight.

Can certainly be used for portraits though, I use it quite a bit for that. In some cases it is actually too sharp though - you'll find that with most macro lenses when you use them for portraits. People don't like seeing that level of detail in their face/ skin :) It can also be a bit slower to focus which doesn't always help for portrait shooting.

Message edited by author 2007-10-09 12:12:13.

fotomann_forever

10/09/2007 12:14:10 PM · #3

Some reviews of that lens say it is too critically sharp for portraiture. :-)But, that can always be cured in post.

I actually debated between the 100 macro and the 85mm 1.8 for a headshot portrait lens. Eventually going with the 85 for it's 1.8 aperture which would serve me best at weddings. The 100 is still on the to get list.

JenniferDavidGA

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

10/09/2007 12:18:12 PM · #4

I think the 100mm would be to long for portraits if you are going to be doing them inside in a studio. (Unless it is a large studio). I have the 50mm 1.4 and I find that to be too long at times. The 50 is a great lens though. I don't think it would be good for macro work.

Sorry that I am not much of a help. :)

10/09/2007 12:20:18 PM · #5

100mm macro, probably f2.8 I wouldn't be surprised if I was using it wide open, so not the sharpest it can be. Handheld, window/bar light.

resized, unsharpened

100% crop, unsharpened

real small amount of sharpening after resize

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/09/2007 12:30:33 PM · #6

Originally posted by Gordon:

Nice examples. Thanks everyone for your input. I need a good 1.1 macro lens and a good portrait lens. I was hoping to find one lens for both purposes but if I have to I would go with 2 lenses.

As far as studio size, I don't have one yet. But when I do I expect it to be the size of a one car garage (built in). So it will not be very big.

rodneyg

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

10/09/2007 12:35:07 PM · #7

Don't discount the EF-S 60 mm lense from Canon. It does 1:1 macro and a pretty good job on portraits.

Message edited by author 2007-10-09 12:36:20.

10/09/2007 12:40:33 PM · #8

What he said: 60mm macro is a great lens, and a perfect length for portraiture on the 1.6 crop sensor. In the 35mm days, 105mm was considered an excellent portrait length, and that's about what the 60mm is on the APS-C sensor. The lens is every bit as sharp as the 100mm macro, and it's a lot smaller and lighter so easier to hand-hold for macros or just to carry around all day.

R.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/09/2007 12:52:10 PM · #9

Thanks, Let me check that lens out. Sounds like it may be what I'm looking for. Hey Robert - you about ready to let go of you 10-22mm? I would love to have that lens as well. :)

Is this the lens you were referring too? Canon Normal EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro

Message edited by author 2007-10-09 12:55:49.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/09/2007 12:56:33 PM · #10

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The lens is every bit as sharp as the 100mm macro, and it's a lot smaller and lighter so easier to hand-hold for macros or just to carry around all day.

Depends a lot on the sort of macro work you want to do. I liked the 100mm for the increased subject <-> camera working distance I could get with it for equivalent magnification. Worked well for not frightening away insects.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

10/09/2007 01:06:47 PM · #11

Originally posted by Gordon:

In some cases it is actually too sharp though - you'll find that with most macro lenses when you use them for portraits. People don't like seeing that level of detail in their face/ skin :)

Okay.....I don't mean to hijack this thread, but what exactly can be done about this?

I have a new lens, a 28-300 Tamron, which in theory shouldn't be all that great with detail, yet it is, and I have found that photographing young(er) people, I get way too much detail of their skin.

What does one do to take good portraits and have decent clarity but not so much facial detail?

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6400

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

10/09/2007 01:08:49 PM · #12

I had really good results from my Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro. It's $50 less than the Canon and it does not have the USM. In regards to the 60mm macro, it's probably a good lens too, but for macro work, you don't have the working distance that you will with the 100 or 105mm lenses. You should decide which you will be doing more of and lean that way.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6400

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

10/09/2007 01:11:02 PM · #13

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What does one do to take good portraits and have decent clarity but not so much facial detail?

You can always add a semi-transparent gaussian blur layer to the image to take care of that. It's like adding soft focus, but you can control the amount of it with the opacity slider in photoshop.

Good control of your light can also help...

Message edited by author 2007-10-09 13:11:29.

10/09/2007 01:39:57 PM · #14

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The lens is every bit as sharp as the 100mm macro, and it's a lot smaller and lighter so easier to hand-hold for macros or just to carry around all day.

Depends a lot on the sort of macro work you want to do. I liked the 100mm for the increased subject <-> camera working distance I could get with it for equivalent magnification. Worked well for not frightening away insects.

While the difference in working distance subject-focal plane is noticeable, the difference in practical working distance (front of lens to subject) is not that great, because the 100mm lens is a couple inches longer than the 60mm lens.

R.

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/09/2007 01:52:46 PM · #15

shameless plug....

you can rent the 100 2.8 macro and/or the 50 1.4 and decide for yourself. I really like the 35 1.4L.

//www.rentphotostuff.com

10/09/2007 03:04:13 PM · #16

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

it ends up being pretty significant, for the same subject size.

Message edited by author 2007-10-09 15:05:08.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/09/2007 03:48:51 PM · #17

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:

shameless plug....

you can rent the 100 2.8 macro and/or the 50 1.4 and decide for yourself. I really like the 35 1.4L.

//www.rentphotostuff.com

Nice looking website. I see you have recently opened it up for the public. Wish you well on you new business.

Thanks for all the input. A lot to consider. I have a local store here that I can try out a couple of the lens. They don't have them all but a few that have been suggested.

NVPhoto

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/09/2007 03:58:39 PM · #18

my absolute favorite portrait lens is the 85mm, I have the 1.2 to rent and have not used it much. I do use the 1.8 often. The reach is a bit much sometimes, but the sharpness and bokeh are incredible. I used it for a wedding this weekend and loved it.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

10/09/2007 03:58:41 PM · #19

To opine on a couple points previously posted:
- Of the third-party macros, the Tamrom 90mm seems to be optically the best. None of the third-party macros, AFAIK, are internal-focus (non-extending), which is a plus for the Canon 100mm. The Canon 100mm is also built like a tank, and has USM.
- The Canon 100mm is EF, and so is compatible with all Canon cameras, whereas the 60mm is EF-S. May not make any difference, depending on your future path, but something to consider.
- Except for studio size limitations, longer lenses work fabulously for portraits. Don't worry about what is a "traditional" portrait focal length.
- There is no such thing as "too sharp." I'd much rather have too much detail and smooth it out in post than not have enough. My M.O. is to smooth out skin detail while retaining full detail in hair, eyes, lips, and some clothing. If you don't capture the detail, you can't choose to keep it.

10/09/2007 04:02:10 PM · #20

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
While the difference in working distance subject-focal plane is noticeable, the difference in practical working distance (front of lens to subject) is not that great, because the 100mm lens is a couple inches longer than the 60mm lens.

R.

it ends up being pretty significant, for the same subject size.

At 1:1, it's a matter of an inch and a half, Gordon.

R.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/09/2007 10:10:52 PM · #21

Originally posted by kirbic:

All very good points. I did NOT think about the EF-S issue until you brought it to my attention. As it stands now, if I upgrade it would be the 40D which the EF-S IS compatible. But with the rapid improvements in DSLR's and the 5D upgrade looming in the near future, a non-compatible lens is a concern. Cameras may come and go but the lenses that choose, due to price, will determine one's upgrade ability in the future.