70-200mm f/4 L IS USM vs. EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro for portraiture

<p>I have not considered the 85 f/1.8 because it does not have IS. For some folks, IS does not make sense. But I love what it enables me to do and I consider it a "must" for this particular purchase.<br /><br /> I <strong><em>either</em></strong> want the versatility of a good zoom or the ability to shoot macro. I will eventually have both. For now, the 100 f/2.8 appeals to me because it's a good general purpose telephoto that would enable me to do macro. <br /><br /><br />I'm torn because I agree with many of the posts here that a zoom gives you much more versatility in working with subjects when shooting portraits. <br /><br /><br />For flash, I use a 430 EX with an umbrella and a reflector on the other side. I consider this a "high quality" speedlight. </p>

<p>The 70-200mm lens makes quite a good portrait lens. The 100mm lens makes a terrible 70-99mm and 101mm-200mm zoom. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Michael, I might rethink your need for IS. While it is handy as all get-out on longer lenses, I find that it makes bokeh just slightly harsher. Normally that wouldn't bug me much, but since you said that this is specifically for portraits, it would probably be a big deal for you.</p>

<p>If you're only worried about portrait performance, I wouldn't bother with either of those lenses. I'd buy a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 in Canon mount. An adapted Nikon 85mm f/1.4D would give you better bokeh, but the Zeiss is nearly as good (and better than anything Canon offers at that price, IMO), and will be able to embed metadata information to the camera, which the Nikon will not.</p>

<p>It costs a bit more than the other lenses you've mentioned, and lacks autofocus, but I think you'll find that the improvement in image quality is very much worth it for a portrait lens.</p>

<p>Remember, you can turn IS off if it every gives you a problem.</p>

<p>Also, MF lenses are ok at smaller apertures and when the subject is static, like for landscapes, but the IQ is not enough better to justify the bother. Anyone concerned with IQ will be shooting in Raw and applying Digital Lens Optimization in Raw conversion. Most of us are not shooting film anymore, so you can't evaluate IQ until processing is complete.</p>

<p>Zack: I'll keep my EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM and deal with the lower contrast at f/1.2 and f1.4.</p>

<p>

<p>funniest thing I've heard all week, calling the 70-200 f4 "terrible".</p>

<p>I use the non-Is version, but I do prefer my 85 1.8 or 135 f2 for head or head/shoulders portrait. If i'm shooting with studio lights, less of a difference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5657447">Zack Zoll</a> , Dec 21, 2012; 09:03 p.m.<br>

I'd buy a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 in Canon mount. An adapted Nikon 85mm f/1.4D would give you better bokeh, but the Zeiss is nearly as good (and better than anything Canon offers at that price, IMO)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3945206">Peter J</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 21, 2012; 09:45 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Zack: I'll keep my EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM and deal with the lower contrast at f/1.2 and f1.4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that at almost two grand, the Canon is something like 160% the price of the Zeiss. My point still stands.</p>

 

<p>Zack: My manual focus days are over. Plus, Canon decided not the have the 5D3 with interchangeable screens. </p>

<p>If you can't afford IS and/or AF, then there is a great alternative suggested. If you can afford it, I'd suggest getting IS and AF. Today's cameras' viewfinders are not designed with MF in mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also should mention that when I say I care about bokeh, I'm referring to the <strong><em>quality</em></strong> of out-of-focus areas as opposed to the degree of defocus. I like the ability to make my backgrounds look nice and soft regardless of the focused distance. The 100 mm f/2 does excel in this respect. I'm not sure that the 70/200 would come close since I've never used one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my experience, the bokeh of the 100/2.0 and the 70-200/4 IS are similar, and from what I've seen of OOF specular highlight samples on Flickr, both are similar to the 100/2.8 macro (which is what I would expect). The 70-200 might be a bit edgier. These lenses (and really most good lenses nowadays) have what I would call a neutral bokeh, with well defined cutoffs at the blur edges, but without the bright edge rings that cause "bad" or "busy" bokeh.</p>

<p>If you want to shop for bokeh, go to Flickr, and search for the lens type and the word "bokeh" (e.g. Canon 100mm f/2.0 bokeh), and you will find a lot of representative images. Pay special attention to the ones with isolated OOF specular highlights, as those will tell you the most about the bokeh pattern.</p>

<p>If you want a creamier bokeh, the lens has to either undercorrect or, in the case of foreground bokeh, overcorrect for spherical aberration. The "creamy background bokeh" (and harsh foreground bokeh) lenses are generally undercorrected for spherical aberration, and the "creamy foreground bokeh" (and harsh background bokeh) lenses are generally overcorrected for SA. If you are a true bokeholic, you might be interested in a soft focus lens, which lets you vary the amount of correction for SA.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a true <em>bokeholic</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for that one, Sarah.</p>

<p>Michael, I only used my 100mm f/2.8 IS for very informal portraiture, but I had a lot of fun doing it:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=964690"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a><br /> <br /> It is sharper than the usual portrait lens, but one could always blur the images a bit in post, I suppose, if excessive sharpness were seen to be a problem. I never shot it with the last concern for bokeh. I am now shooting the <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105mm-f2-dc.htm"><strong>Nikon 105 f/2 DC</strong> </a>lens. I am ont sure if Canon has a similar kind of lens, one which allows for deliberate manipulation of the foreground and background spherical aberration.<br /><br /> <br /> --Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I find the 70-200mm a charm for portraits as well! The photo below is a crop from a distance shot of a group, and even then it is a good portrait under natural outdoor conditions!</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3945206">Peter J</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 21, 2012; 11:16 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Zack: My manual focus days are over. Plus, Canon decided not the have the 5D3 with interchangeable screens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can respect that Peter. But that still doesn't change the fact that Michael asked for the best portrait lens in the $1000 range, and doesn't currently own a 5D3. Mine was a little over, but at least it was kind of close :)</p>

<p>The fact is that if you're buying new, pretty much every other autofocus option at or below that range has been mentioned and shot down. I think you'll have to make some decisions Michael, as the lenses that you've narrowed it down to, while very good quality, are absolutely not the lenses that would show up on anyone's 'top portrait lenses' list. Mostly this is because of the IS. Yes, you can switch it off for portraits ... but if the lens is going to be used mostly for portraits, then IS will almost always be off .... so why even get a lens that has it?</p>

<p>I am only aware of a small amount of photographers to whom money is no issue using macro lenses for professional portraiture. I clarify 'for whom money is no issue,' because macro lenses do a pretty good job, and it's a no-brainer when you can only afford a couple lenses, and you want to cover as much ground as possible. More often than not, you see that sort of lens selection in-studio, where there is a background of some sort. With a physical background, the quality of the bokeh is nearly irrelevant, as your images won't have enough depth to produce extremely defocused areas. On top of that, the current trend in studio photography (at least in the fashion mags I read) is to shoot at a smaller aperture, like f/8-f/16 or so, in order to get the entire subject in focus.</p>

<p>In that case, the extra sharpness over an 85 f/1.2 or such is a great benefit, and there is no essentially no drawback. But of course if you're not working this way, then there is a drawback.</p>

<p>There are plenty of entries on the average 'best portrait lenses ever' list that can be had even below your budget, provided you're willing to give up IS, and maybe even focus manually. It's really not that hard when your subject is standing still; my eyes are pretty bad, and using Live View I only tend to botch it when using my 135mm wide open.</p>

<p>If you're not willing to give up the IS, then that really only gives you three choices for the 'best portrait lens.' There's your macro, which is a star in the studio, and good outside. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the 200 f/2 IS. That's kind of about it. Everything else is going to be a compromise of some sort, and you have to decide what you're willing to give up. We can keep this thread going and keep arguing, but it's still going to come down to the fact that you're going to need to give something up.</p>

 

<p>I have the non-IS 100 USM macro. It is a great portrait lens as well as macro. Something to note though, the focusing is slow and often hunts when the focus limiter is off (when it can go the full focus range). With the focus limiter on (about 1/3rd life size to infinity), it focuses much faster and more accurately... in one shot AF mode. It can't keep up with action. The IS version may be improved but it too has a focus limiter and that's a feature to keep in mind. </p>

<p>With really good ISO handling, I don't really need IS. I can keep the shutter speeds up and still get good quality portraits with just window light indoors. Since you plan to get a 6D, that's something to keep in mind. </p>

<p>Neither lens on your list is a bad choice. Do you want the versatility of the zoom or the macro more first? If you can't decide, flip a coin.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>We can keep this thread going and keep arguing, but it's still going to come down to the fact that you're going to need to give something up.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true... and I have found this thread very helpful. This brings me back to the reason I posted: I am trying to choose between two lenses that each have some versatility but are not "best in class" for any one purpose. Suitability for occasional portraiture is my tie-breaker, not my sole intended use. <br /><br />From the many helpful posts here, it sounds like either lens will do a respectable job for portraits. I am leaning towards the 100 f/2.8 L, only because I enjoy macro and it costs about $200 less than the tele zoom. I'll eventually end up with both, so it's a question of which will be more useful to me in the next year.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>If the secondary use is nature photography, then get the macro lens.</p>

<p>I have not used the 100mm f/2. I do own the 85mm f/1.8, the 135mm f/2, and the IS and non-IS (its a long story) versions of the 70-200mm f/4. </p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that you can produce a photograph with lovely bokeh using any of these fine lenses. (I have to go on what I've see and read regarding the 100mm f/2, but the evidence is easily found.) Sometimes folks get just a bit too wrapped up in the notion that they must find <em>the</em> lens with the absolute highest resolution (center and edges), the highest possible contrast, the least possible distortion, the perfect focal length, greatest imaginable flexibility, and... well, you get the picture. </p>

<p>No such lens exists. There is no "best lens," much less a "perfect lens." Every lens does some things better and some things worse that certain other lenses. Worrying about which of these might, in the right most-marginal circumstances, produce a .5% better version of parameter X is pretty much completely missing the point. It also often leads people into awful circular logic arguments with themselves (and occasionally others) about decisions.</p>

<p>Step back from any single issue - bokeh, resolution, etc - and think about the functional pluses and minuses of the options for your own work. If one will shoot only at 100mm all the time and likes to do macro work, the decision becomes a lot easier. If one will shoot only at 100mm but doesn't really do macro, the decision also becomes clearer. If you know which specific focal length you prefer, other options are off the table. If you don't know, the zoom option looks awfully good.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Zack said"</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can respect that Peter. But that still doesn't change the fact that Michael asked for the best portrait lens in the $1000 range...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I'm going blind Zack, but I can't find where Michael said that.</p>

<p>Some people chose to forego AF and IS, but those not experienced with using a MF lens on cameras not designed for MF, need to research that and try using one before making the leap. Michael has also told us that he'll eventually end up with a macro and a 70-200mm of some ilk, because he has uses for both beyond portraiture.</p>

<p>If the secondary use is nature, then get the zoom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5331729">David Stephens</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 22, 2012; 01:03 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Zack said"<br>

I can respect that Peter. But that still doesn't change the fact that Michael asked for the best portrait lens in the $1000 range...<br>

Maybe I'm going blind Zack, but I can't find where Michael said that.<br>

Some people chose to forego AF and IS, but those not experienced with using a MF lens on cameras not designed for MF, need to research that and try using one before making the leap. Michael has also told us that he'll eventually end up with a macro and a 70-200mm of some ilk, because he has uses for both beyond portraiture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He asked which of two lens choices in the $1,000 range would be the best <strong>when used for portraits</strong>. Emphasis in original post.</p>

<p>The statement that portraits were 'only a tiebreaker' came later, and I clearly missed it.<br /><br /><br>

The camera design has very little to do with how well MF works. It is easy to think that, because AF lenses are generally much poorer at manually focusing, and most 'reasonably priced' DSLRs have a prism and focusing screen that is both smaller and lower quality than your average 35mm camera. MF lenses tend to have a longer focusing scale, as in more physical rotation between, say, ten and twenty feet. This means that if your focus is slightly off, you're more likely to have a usable image when manually focusing with an MF lens than with an AF lens.</p>

<p>But all of that is academic, as Michael has clarified that he's only looking at those two lenses.</p>

 

<p>Michael never says anything about a $1,000 budget, in fact, he says that he'll buy both that he mentioned eventually.</p>

<p>Camera design has a ton to do with ease of MF. The prism and focusing screen are critical and most modern cameras, particularly dslr types, assume that the user will be using AF. Michael is talking about using bokeh, if so, he's going to have shallow DOF and focus will be critical. With AF you can put the AF point on the closest eye and be almost certain of good focus, even if the subject moves a bit between shots. Yes, someone that wants to can deal with MF, but why?</p>

<p>In my opinion the 70-200 F4 IS is perfect for portrait work. When shooting in studio strobes I'm at f8 or smaller anyway so the difference between a 100 and 70-200 is so small. However, when shooting portraits a zoom is way more flexible especially at 200 mm. I prefer the Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 IS for portrait work. This lens is as sharp as my 85 1.2L At F8 or smaller and the IS makes it so sharp.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The camera design has very little to do with how well MF works. [Zack Zoll]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>False. Especially the 1D series bodies are designed for interchangeable focusing screens. Therefore, the camera design has alot to do with how well manual focus works.</p>

<p>Canon has a guide on selecting focusing screens typical for manual focusing:</p>

<p>http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_FocusingScreens_QuickGuide.pdf</p>

<p>Not false.</p>

<p>Peter, you're grasping at straws to support an extremely weak arguement. First you argue that he wants an inexpensive lens and now your solution is a really expensive camera. Cameras that he's likely to use, like the 5D MkIII or 7D, don't allow for interchangeable focus screens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...now your solution is a really expensive camera. [David Stephens]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where did I say I wanted the OP to buy into an expensive camera? Read my comment again.</p>