Portraits and Macros

[citizensmith]

I just sold my 100 f/2. The reason being, while I loved it on my Elan

7e I find it a bit long now I'm using a RebelD. I also would like

some kind of Macro capability. I'm thinking of getting either the 85

f/1.8 and something like extension tubes, or the 100 f/2.8 USM Macro.

 

My problem with the first combination is its probably not the best way

to get macro. My problem with the second is effective 160 f/2.8 isn't

exactly my ideal for a portrait lens. I guess what I'm after is an 85

f/1.8 Macro. The lens will be 80% portrait, 20% macro use. I also

have a 70-200 f/4 in the range.

 

Any thoughts please on a good solution.

[jon_austin]

I have a 10D, and I bought the EF 100 f/2.8 macro about a year ago, hoping it would serve this portrait/macro dual purpose. While excellent for macro, I, too, found it too long for portrait use.

 

I replaced it with the EF 50 f/2.5 compact macro, and just recently added the EF 85 f/1.8. This combination is $190 more expensive than your 100 f/2, and $110 more than the 100 f/2.8 macro, but it's a very sharp and powerful combo.

[johnb]

I use the Canon 100mm f/2.8 & a Canon 50mm 1.4 for my portraits<BR> and love it . However if only one lens, then go for a Canon 50mm<BR>

f/2.5 macro it should satisfy both.<BR>

The 50mm will be like a 80mm when you figure the 1.6 ratio<BR>

[yakim_peled1]

I'm with John. However, for 20% macro shots I think that extension rings or close-up filters (500D or 5T) will do quite nicely. Less convenient, yes but much cheaper. BTW, through in the 50/1.8 while we are getting cheap.... :-))))

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[eos 10 fan]

I shoot film. I have recently been using a 50/1.4 + Kenko tubes (12, 20 & 36mm) for shooting close-ups/macro. I like the tubes as they can be used on my other lenses as well and I get a fair degree of flexibility on how close I get to the subject - the downside is that changing/adding tubes in the field is a slowish process that can let dust into the body if not done carefully.

 

I would suggest that you consider a 50mm other than the 50/Macro for two reasons: [1] f/2.5 may give too much DOF for portraits. [2] To get 1:1 you will have to buy the Life Size convertor, diopter or tubes anyway - the 50/2.5 only goes to 1:2 (half life size) on its own.

 

A 50mm lens will give a 80mm FF field of view on a 1.6x crop body.

 

--

[jon_austin]

Since the EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro has a field of view equivalent to 80mm on a 1.6x crop body, and since the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro has an effective focal length of 70mm when used as a macro lens, wouldn't a subject fill more of the frame when using the 50mm macro at maximum magnification than it would with the 100mm macro on a full-frame body?

 

Has anyone actually done the measurements?

[citizensmith1664875108]

Thanks for the advice. Think I'll get an 85 for now. I'm also selling my 50 f/1.8 as I was planning on getting the f/1.4 version. I'll instead go for the f/2.5 Macro version as it sounds like a useful little lens. What's nice is the 100 f/2 went on ebay for just a little over the cost of the 85 with a hood, new.

[pbizarro]

For macro, you can use a high quality diopter on your 70-200.

[michael_peters1]

since the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro has an effective focal length of 70mm when used as a macro lens

 

??

[michael_peters1]

Nevermind - I found the answer -

<br> <br>

<i>this is because IF lenses shorten focal length to focus closer rather than move the entire lens group forward (as in the pre-USM 100 Macro).</i> from <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=45&sort=7&thecat=2">fredmiranda</a>

<br> <br>

That makes sense. But no - I don't think that means it fills the frame any less - 1:1 is a ratio of real size:on film, so the size of the subject in the frame won't be any different because of the focusing method. It's still 1:1 (actual size of subject)

<br> <br>

Now you've made me want to go out and rent a 100/2.8 Macro USM - I have the non USM version, and I'm curious how the perspective of the newer version at 1:1 compares to my lens.

[citizensmith1664875108]

The Canon 500D only seems to come in 58mm and 72mm, and the 70-200 f/4 takes a 67mm. Any suggestions for a decent quality diopter that might be available at 67mm. Or, is it a case of get the 72mm, a step down ring, and loose the lens hood?

 

Thanks

[jon_austin]

"I don't think that means it fills the frame any less - 1:1 is a ratio of real size:on film, so the size of the subject in the frame won't be any different because of the focusing method. It's still 1:1 (actual size of subject)"

 

That wasn't what I was asking. My question is: does a subject that fills the frame on a 1.6x crop factor digital and the 50mm f/2.5 macro at maximum magnification (due to the 80mm-equivalent field of view) fill less of the frame of a full-frame camera and the 100mm f/2.8 macro at maximum magnification (which is 70mm focal length)?

[michael_peters1]

If the maximum ratio of a 50/2.5 is 1:2 then the only way it would fill the frame is if the sensor was half the size (each dimension) of a full frame - which would be 12x18 sensor.

 

The 300D/10D sensor is 15.1 x 22.7 - so no, I don't think so.

[k_kujo_hurt]

For Macro, you could use a 62mm Nikon 5T (+1.5 diopter) or 6T (+3 diopter) with a step down ring on the 70-200/4 and still be able to use the hood on the lens. Both of these diopters are excellent quality. Check the posts here on the 70-200/4 and you will find mention of it as well as photo samples.