Sharpest macro

[shadowcatcher]

I have a 135mm f2 L prime and I think it's an absolutely fabulous lens for portraits but sometimes it doesn't let me get close enough (the

minimum focusing length is about 4-6 feet I think). By this I mean I like to take close up portraits, particularly of older people, that show

every pore and wrinkle. I am guessing I need a macro for this so if any of you gurus out there could recommend an ultra sharp prime for

this purpose I would be most obliged. I own a canon 5d mk I and II.

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Does close-up portraits have to be taken from close up to the subject? I think there is some flawed thinking here. If you would feel more comfortable shooting someone from closer up, than lots of general lenses (with a shorter focal length) should work well for you ~ and not necessarily a macro lens. If primes are your thing, I'd suggest something lke a 85mm.<br>

<br /> Sharpness can be achieved on most lenses by simply using smaller apertures!</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Minimum focus distance on the 135/2 is 3 ft. Much closer, and you're going to start being inside people's comfort zones.<br>

Look at the 180/3.5 macro and see if that will do the trick for you. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

[shadowcatcher]

Mine is certainly not 3 feet. Obviously if I'm asking about macros I know I'll be close up, I don't mind being close up

and I do know the concept of aperture.

 

I guess what I should say is what's the sharpest lens from centre to edge to take pictures 2-3 feet away without distortion, is there one even!

 

Cheers,

 

KM

[jean_yves_mead]

Are extension tubes an option with your 135mm?

[eric merrill]

<p>Hmmm. I just put my copy on the camera to verify, and it seems like 3 ft. The smallest distance shown in the distance info on the lens is 3 ft/ 0.9 m. That's subject to sensor distance, so there's only really a little over 2 ft of working space if I have the hood on.</p>

<p>I don't think anybody meant offense, Kevin. Just trying to be helpful.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Do you have the 1.6m - infinity switch selected? If so, it wouldn't autofocus closer than 1.6m...or about 5 ft.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Kevin,<br>

I don't have the current 135 F2 but I have owned it's predecessor the FD 135 F2 for many years and that is a very sharp lens. The 100 F2.8 L IS Macro is a very sharp lens - especially on the 7D and it great for portraits. That said I doubt you will see any noticible improvement over the 135 - except it will focus down to 0.3 feet. It has a very good IS system which can help for handheld use.</p>

[shadowcatcher]

Top man Philip, very helpful indeed, I owe you a beer!

[ds_meador]

<p>If you don't mind manual focus, you could try the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 Apo Lanthar SL II macro. This will keep you pretty close to the 135 FoV. Here's the review at photozone.de.<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/267-voigtlander-sl-125mm-f25-apo-lanthar-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/267-voigtlander-sl-125mm-f25-apo-lanthar-test-report--review</a><br>

DS Meador</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>The 180/3.5 macro will let you get in close enough and will render a nice, flattening perspective for portraits. Contrast is extremely high--sharpness won't be an issue. Focus on lighting technique to get all those pores. You'll need a tripod with the 180.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dr Kevin,</p>

<p>The 180 and both 100 macros will get you closer and give you more resolution. However the 135 is more than capable of rendering every pore and wrinkle. If you just want closer choose your macro focal length, the 180 will be much closer to you 135 than the 100 due to the focal length decrease at minimum focus.</p>

<p>But, I think the reason for your occasional dissatisfaction at the 135 and the apparent lack of detail is almost certainly due to light, lighting plays a huge part in how apparent detail is, strong small light sources appear to give you much more detail. Look at the lighting of your favourite shots and compare it to the disappointing ones, I'll bet the shadows are much softer in the second group.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Kevin in my initial post I suggested the 7D - in actual fact I mainly use the 100 F2.8 LIS macro on my 5DII - where the results are much better (the 5DII produces higher image quality than the 7D). I also meant to add this link, which can show the difference in resolution between the 100 Macro and the 135 F2<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2<br>

The Photozone reviews have the max 135 F2 resolution on full frame as 3488, 3308 and 3306 Lines per picture height on full frame - measured for Center, off center and edge. The 100 F2.8 LIS Macro shows a high point in resolution of 3511, 2968 and 2824 at F5.6. thus the 135 F2 is marginally sharper but not by a lot.</p>

<p>the photozone reviews can be found at http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff and are very reliable in my experience.<br>

Another lens you may like (if you do not have it) is the bargain 85 F1.8 which is a great performer but close focuses at about the same distance as the 135 F2. Photozone gives this lens 3392, 3297 and 3295 at F5.6 (compared to the F1.2 at 3537, 2994, 2998)</p>

[markonestudios]

Dr Mills, they don't come much sharper than the 135 f/2L. However, i have a query: do you shoot it wide open? I think that affects how much of the face will be in focus and thus how much wrinkle and pore detail you can capture. To get nice background separation while retaining detail, you may well need to stop down and then also position your subject farther from your background.

<p>PS Judging by your PN portfolio and your <a href='http://www.photo.net/photo/11352773'>portrait shots with this lens</a>, you already know and exploit the capabilities of this lens. Not sure you'll get much sharper than that with a macro...:)

[jack_nordine]

<p>Wouldn't the simple use of extension tubes solve this problem?</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess what I should say is what's the sharpest lens from centre to edge to take pictures 2-3 feet away without distortion, is there one even!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the Canon stable only:</p>

<p>The <strong>EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro</strong> would go very close to achieving this. I have seen the results of this lens, but not used the lens for Portraiture.</p>

<p>The 100/2.8 Macro is very sharp for Portraiture - I have it and also the 135L - I think the 135L wins that contest, FYI two random examples – (way different lighting though).</p>

<p>135L: <a href="../photo/10442919&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442919&size=lg</a><br>

100/2.8M: <a href="../photo/10738709&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10738709&size=lg</a></p>

<p>The <strong>180L M</strong> is reported to be very sharp for portraiture – I have not used this lens.</p>

<p>The <strong>TS-E 90 and the TS-E 45</strong> are both apparently extraordinary for Portraiture and I am attempting to use the 90mm for myself having seen some results (on line – and it appears better than the 45) – you should not discount this (or these) in you quest.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Even on a 35-mm sensor camera, I think a 180mm is too long unless your subjects have huge noses and faces that really need flattening. Of course <em>any</em> lens <em>can</em> be used for portraits, but different lenses have different purposes and will usually perform better doing what they were designed for.<br>

If you really want every pore and blemish, a macro lens may be just what you want, but a 90 to 100mm one will do the job wonderfully. The TS-E lenses are overkill unless you are doing something like product photography as well. They are specialized tools, but not really for portraiture work.<br>

There is one Canon lens made especially for portraiture, the EF 135mm f/2.8 with soft focus. The soft focus is there when you don't want every pore, and it can be turned off for sharp work (as Canon puts it on their page: "Telephoto lens with a softfocus feature. It can give razor-sharp snapshots as well as softfocus shots that do not look blurry. You have a choice of two softfocus settings. Even for softfocus shots, focusing with AF is quick and accurate."</p>

[dillan k]

<p>My 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro is pretty good for those purposes. I have read that the 135mm f/2 is sharper, but I do not have experience with that lens, so I cannot say. All I know is that my mother won't let me take photos of her with "that lens!" I too like to capture all the detail and character that I can, but I have learned to be a little gentler with the ladies.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I have never been one to look at a situation and think "this is what this lens was made for, so therefore it cannot be used for any other purpose as that would be overkill" . . . but rather I would like to think I look at all the possibilities as to how I might address any given situation.<br />Others might have different, perhaps a more narrow minded approach to the craft . . . but:</p>

<p>The TS-E lenses (the 90 and 45 particularly) are used for Bridal & Wedding Portraiture - though there might be a niche group of photographers using these lenses for Portraiture those who do use these lenses, use them well and use them often.</p>

<p>The OP asks about sharp lenses for Portraiture, using a 135 format camera. <br />Within the Canon Stable the TS-E 45 and TS-E 90: are tack sharp.<br />45 and 90 are reasonable FL for portraiture using a 5D<br />At the moment - at least where I live the 45 and the 90 have dropped in price.<br />Obviously the TS-E series are specialty lenses, but given the frame of the question and the facts above, both lenses are worth consideration by the Kevin - anything less would be a narrow minded and completely unscientific approach to the question he posed.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>At risk of sounding naive, what do TS-E lenses add to portraiture that "portrait" lenses such as the 85/1.2 L and the 135/2 L do not? I have always thought that the main purposes of TS-E lenses were to increase DOF and to correct vertical linear distortion, neither of which is particularly important for portraiture.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Imagine your f1.2 wide open, you have such a small DOF that only one eye can be in focus with the face anything off straight at you, now do that with a TS lens at f4, both eyes, whatever the angle of the face to the camera, are in focus, but the DOF is actually narrower.</p>

<p>It is an amazing thing, skilled TS lens users are masters of stuff we didn't even know could be done.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>They are, I believe, excessively sharp edge to edge and flat - two criteria the OP mentioned and I quoted the part of his question I specifically was answering:<br /><em>"I guess what I should say is what's the sharpest lens from centre to edge to take pictures 2-3 feet away without distortion, is there one even!"</em><br /><br />Regarding this thread:<br />I was not suggesting the TS-E lenses added anything particular to portraiture or that I (or anyone) should choose these lenses, over the 85/1.2 or the 135/2, but I was just answering the question, which was asked.</p>

<p>OTOH, as you ask about what other dimension the TS-E can add to Portraiture - they can be used to isolate a particular element in a plane (for example the face) and keep it in focus whilst putting other elements out of focus. This is one technique which some Wedding Portraiture Photographers are using.</p>

<p>It creates a different image to the PP OoF Techniques and is totally different to Shallow DoF technique using a prime lens like the 85 or 135.</p>

<p>If you are interested further, I suggest you look at the Portrait work of Jeff Newsome and / or Neil Cowley, for examples.</p>

<p>There are quite a few Photo.net Wedding Photographers, using these techniques also – they should not be too difficult to find – and there are some Wedding & Portrait Photographers who think it is all a fad, also. . .</p>

<p>Nonetheless the TS-E 90 especially, is very sharp I understand, and also flat and that’s what was being asked originally - it has to be up there in the sharpness stakes with the 135/2, so I am not saying Kevin doesn’t have a job on his plate looking for something sharper than the 135/2, I am just offering lenses which are up there with it – And flat edge to edge, also.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Ahh Scott . . . whilst I was futzing around making nice sentences you got in before me!<br>

Scott - 1 . . . Bill - 0</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>WW,</p>

<p>Only if we had started at 0-0, in truth I believe you are way ahead of me :-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>Think further back instead of closer, i've had razor sharp results using a 150mm telephoto with a mamiya 645, you can see a sample of Model Shirley at <a href="http://charleseagan.deviantart.com/">http://charleseagan.deviantart.com/</a>. </p>