Potrait shooters--what's your take on the new 100F2.8 IS L lens?

[fast_primes]

<p>For portrait shooters (especially those who use the 100F2.0 or 85F1.8 lenses), what do you think of the IS capability of the new 100F2.8 L lens? Is it worth the loss of an f-stop--ignoring the macro and doubling of the size, weight and price?</p>

<p>And for 135F2.0 L shooters--would you swap?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>FP</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I'm really interested in the responses to this question myself. I've been looking at the Canon 100 f/2.8 and f/2.8L IS, as well as the Sigma 150 f/2.8. Price is a factor for the L, and the Sigma has more working distance and background blur. But the Sigma also seems long for portrait use, and the new Canon is, well...top of the line in build, quality, and IS.</p>

<p>I keep thinking to myself that if I went with the Sigma I could also afford an 85 f/1.8 for nearly the same cost as just the Canon L. That's a tempting option. But I also wonder if I'm over analyzing and if the L could be just as useful, or even the much cheaper non-L, as those two lenses combined.</p>

<p>I'm looking for some clarity on these thoughts, particularly the usefulness of IS and the background blur of a 100 f/2.8 for both portraits and macros.</p>

[glenn_wright]

<p>Well, I DID swop my 135L for the 100mm Macro IS L and I haven't regretted it for a minute. The 100 is sharper wide open than the 135 IMHO (well, it is one stop slower) and the IS is a bonus. The bokeh is excellent and when used for portraits the loss of a stop is minimal. It's excellent as a medium telephoto as well macro. Beware though when using for portraiture, it is so sharp that any blemish on the subjects skin will be visible! For me it's the PERFECT all round medium telephoto.</p>

[sbp]

<p>Interesting, Glenn. I use the 135/2L on a 1Ds3 body, and am considering the 100/2.8L for use on 1D3, to give approximately the same focal length but stabilized. any sample shots you can share...?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'm getting one in a few weeks. There are thousands of images here (well a few hundred including some portraits)

[scott_ferris]

<p>This link works better and has more portraits.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/1256519@N21/pool/</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>If you don't mind a Nikon user's opinion (hey, we have essentially identical lenses: a 105mm stabilized macro, classic "portrait" 105mm f2 and 135mm f2, and an 85mm f1.8 and 1.4. We're more like than unlike)...</p>

<p>There are generally three things that affect the desirability of macros lenses for portraits.</p>

<ul>

<li>The focusing action is too quick. The same motion on a macro lens's focus ring changes focus 3-4x as much as that motion on a "portrait" lens's focus ring. Manual focus is hard to nail, and even AF overshoots and misses more often on macro lenses at portrait distances.</li>

<li>They're too slow, at least for me. My 135mm f2.0 and 85mm f1.4 spend a surprising amount of time wide open.</li>

<li>The bokeh typically sucks (to use the technical term).</li>

</ul>

<p>The Canon 100mm f2.8 IS and the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR represent the "new breed", they both have better bokeh than one typically expects in a macro lens, but they don't address the focus or speed issues.</p>

<p>That aside, I've always considered a 135mm to be a "classic" portrait length. In the 70s (at least in the Nikon community) the 105mm "short port" became "in" because the Nikon 105mm f2.5 combined low cost with a more pleasing bokeh and better sharpness than more expensive lenses, three powerful incentives to go to shorter lengths. The current "small studio" movement is keeping the 100mm or 105mm "short port" alive today.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I haven't seen the MTF charts on the new lens, however, if history is any guage, the combination of the IS plus the L series glass make it a way better lens and produce better images that the 2.0 lens.</p>

<p>The IS lens in general will give you at least 2 stops. That more than makes up for the 1 stop loss of the 2.8 lens.</p>

<p>I'd say go for the f/2.8 L lens. No doubt</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>Wide open, the 135/2 will give you almost 2x (actually 1.89x) the blurring of distant backgrounds compared to the 100/2.8. At the same magnification it will also give you less Depth of Field (the two effects are realted, but not the same and not necessarily proportional).</p>

<p>If DOF and background blur are important to you , then the choice is obvious.</p>

[sbp]

<p>@Bob.... So, if I mount the 100/2.8 on a 1D3 body, giving an effective focal length of 130mm at 2.8 - and understanding that I still am a full stop down from the 135/2 - what happens to bokeh? Is it a factor of aperture alone or aperture and focal length combined?</p>

[matthijs]

@Joseph: focus speed on the new L macro is pretty impressive and the bokeh too.

 

@Bob: I take that your 1.89 is at f2, not at say f5.6 or f8 which are also used in the studio.

 

Anyway, I reveal myself as an owner and a fan of course. (that's better than a fan based solely on reviews.)

Alas I cannot compare to the 135/2 so for that you must go with other replies.

 

My portrait use of the L macro has been outdoor and using studio flashes. Just a few sessions, not professinally.

 

I do think it beats my EF 50/1.4 and my 70-200/4 IS in terms of image quality which is an impressive feat!

[bobatkins]

<p>Well, Bokeh and blur aren't quite the same thing (<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html</a>).</p>

<p>Background blur at infinity when focused well inside the hyperfocal distance) is proportional to the physical aperture (focal length divided by f-stop). Depth of field depends on aperture, focal length, subject distance and format size. You can feed your numbers into this calculator - <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html</a> - if you want numerical answers.</p>

<p>Matthijs - yes, I was assuming f2. There's no (well, little) point in buying and f2 lens if you don't shoot it at f2. If you don't care about background blur, you may as well use a 135/2.8 as shoot a 135/2 at f2.8 (there may be some small differences visible to pixel peepers).</p>

<p>Bottom line. A 135/2 on a full frame camera at f2 will give you a smaller DOF and more background blur than any shorter focal length lens f2 or slower lens used on a smaller format camera, assuming both shoot the same subject with the same magnification.</p>

<p> </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I'll take the 135mm 2.0 over the 100mm 2.8 (either version) as a portrait lens anyday. Also, I'll contend that the 100mm 2.0 is a finer portrait lens than either 100mm 2.8 macro.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I have the 135mm f2 and the original 100mm f2.8 Macro. I use them for very different things, the 135mm is amazing for portraits and I love the shallow depth of field and the quality of the bokeh. The 100mm is a great macro len and I pretty much use it exclusively for tight stuff. The IQ of the original 100mm f2.8 macro is actually so astonishingly good that I can't imagine wanting to replace it - it's not an L lens, but it seems solid and well made - plus I use it 90% of the time on the tripod so I have no need for IS.</p>

<p>I guess I'm saying... Why would people need, or want, to swap their 135mm f2 lenses for the new 100mm f2.8 IS L? They aren't THAT interchangeable and I can certainly see a place for both.</p>

[glenn_wright]

<p><em>......Why would people need, or want, to swap their 135mm f2 lenses for the new 100mm f2.8 IS L? They aren't THAT interchangeable and I can certainly see a place for both.</em></p>

<p>I'll answer that for you<em>. </em> As much as I loved the 135L, I found it sat in my bag a bit too much as I found the focal length a touch too long for my tastes when I used it for portraits and not really long enough for my other interest, widlife/nature. </p>

<p>Having dabbled with macro in the past and quite enjoyed that aspect of photography as well , the release of the 100L, was for me, a no brainer. A slighter shorter FL which I prefer for portraits and with the macro capability for close up wildlife/nature shots. As I mentioned previously, it is a great <em>all round </em> lens with the added bonus of IS for MY type of photography. YMMV however.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>For those who are interested in background blur differences, Castleman has an online, portrait style blur/bokeh comparison of the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, and 135 f/2L at: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm</p>

<p>I realize the 100 f/2 is not the same as either Canon macro lens. Still, you can see the approximate difference in blur between an 85 @ f/2 or a 135 @ f/2 and what you might expect from a 100 macro @ f/2.8.</p>

[sbp]

<p>@Bob... Thanks. I think I'll stick with the 135/2 on 1Ds3. Will also spend more time at your site...</p>