To go for macro or portrait?

Hi! I started on photography this year. I own a 16-35mm f/2.8L for

street and landscape photography, a 50mm f/1.4 for verylow light

situations (I like museums when travelling) and my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

for my sporting events. Those are what I have. I don't have anything

between 35-70mm and not sure I need it yet but beyond 70mm, the

telephoto zoom I have is simply to big to carry around. I've never

tried macro or portraits. Not sure which will be more useful at this

learning stage. The question is: what should I try next? The 85mm

f/1.2 or 100mm f/2.8 macro? Thanks for any advice - Nora

Are you shooting digital or film?

 

If digital, your 50mm is the perfect portrait lens, so you should get the 100mm for macros.

 

But the bigger question is, which would you rather shoot? Do you find people/pets more interesting than insects, flowers, and small things? Both require different skills; it's you who should decide which way to go.

That's quite a rig for a "learning stage" :)

 

Have you considered the 24-70 f/2.8L? It would cover your "missing" range, be a great ALL-AROUND lens and it does have a pseudo-MACRO capability. I use that lens most often than any other lens I own.

<i>"I don't have anything between 35-70mm"</i><br/>

<br/>

Yes you do. Your 50mm fits right in the middle. Don't feel like you need to cover every millimeter of focal length. You need not buy anything more to try portraits. Experiment with the lenses you have. (Rhetorical question: What's a portrait? Doesn't your PN gallery shot, "The Bride", count?)<br/>

<br/>

 

I'm far from the first to say this: Read Shaw's "Closeups" before buying macro gear. Maybe a 500D would suffice? Do you have a tripod and cable release or a flash and bracket?

Here is one way to have both and save money at the same time. If you buy a Tamron 1.4X TC and a Canon 77mm 500D,

 

Put both (1.4X TC and 500D)on your 70-200 f2.8 IS and you have a macro set-up that rock.

 

Put the Tamron/Kenko 1.4X TC on the 50mm/1.4 and you have one fine 70mm/f2.5 for portriat. Note: Canon TC won't work.

 

You can do this all for around $200 I think.

Someone else already touched on this, but you don't need a 85/1.2 to take portraits. You have plenty of gear capable of taking good portraits. Any lens can take a portrait, just depends on your preferences regarding perspective and working distance. In my opinion, both the 50/1.4 and 70-200/2.8 make fine portrait lenses.

 

And if you're still debating between these 2 lenses, remember that the 100/2.8 macro takes more than just macro photos. It too is a great portrait lens. Good length, pretty fast, close focusing ability to isolate details from your subjects faces perhaps. Very sharp, as I own one myself. Best of luck.

I tottaly agree with everyone.and hoenstly do not think that you need the 85 1.2 .

 

since I notice that money is not an issue why not get the ones I think you would love to have (no need)

are the:

 

The fastest 135mm telephoto lens in its class. Ideal for indoor sports and portraits with background blur. Two UD-glass elements correct secondary spectrum for outstanding sharpness and color. Compatible with Extender EF 1.4x II and 2x II

 

65 mm macro A unique manual-focus lens designed exclusively for macro shooting, between life-size (1x) and 5x life-size - at its maximum magnification, you can fill a 35mm frame with a grain of rice. Compatible with the Macro Ring Lites and Macro Twin Lite, it eliminates the need for awkward bellows accessories for many macro shooters. The optical system uses a floating system to preserve optical quality at different focusing distances, and features a UD-glass element.

 

 

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM AutoFocus Telephoto Lens Another telephoto macro lens with a maximum magnification of 1x. Life-size close-ups can be taken from a farther distance without disturbing the subject (insects, etc.). The internal floating system minimizes fluctuations in aberrations caused by changes in the focusing distance. Optical performance is outstanding from 1x to infinity

 

I think that for your needs the 135mm wouold be the best.

 

I also happen to own the 85mm 1.8 and I can't tell yuo enough these lenses are better than my zooms lenses I got.(it would beat the hell out of yur 16-35[quality ways])

 

maybe the 85mm 1.8 and some nice dedicated macros.

 

the lens you got right now are some of the most desirable lens and the best for portraits. Although I use the 17-40 most of the time for portraits. since the 85mm is more of a one person or a head and shoulders kind of lens.

 

I bet you alredy know this but there are two kinds of portraits the enviromental and the nonenviroment one the enviroment one involbes backgrounds and the other ones isssoletes them . for enviromental ones my favorite would be the 24mm .14 (becuse of my cameras 1.6 crop factor other wasy I woild get the 35mm 1.4)

 

 

mmm I going to shutup now.

 

be well

Thanks for all your advice. Maybe even with all my gear I feel my pictures have not been as interesting as those I've seen on this website! I have a film camera - does that matter? Also a tripod and Kenko pro 2x teleconverter. I thought about macro because I've tried to take pics close up with my 50mm and they get kind of soft. Not sure if a macro lens would improve that.

probably just need to go to the library and check out the work of some famous Photogrphers such as (my favorite)Sebastian Salgados,Ansel Adams...etc

 

Practis,practis,practis...I am in the same boat.But las semester I took a class of photography .then I checked my pictures form 1 year ago and they are way better.

 

I feel so lucky to have the help of such a great Professional Photographers such as Marc Williams,Jeff Ascough...and many more.

 

check out Jeff Ascough's article.He uses film

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/040205.htm

Get the 100mm f/2.8 macro it is an excellent lens for macro and portraits!