Choosing between portrait lenses and Macro lenses

[sathish_rao]

Hi,

Based on a lot of input from this group, I have decided to buy some

prime lenses for my Rebel X canon body. I was planning on getting a

24mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.0 or 100mm f/2.8 macro or the

85mm f/1.8 USM lens. Here is my confusion. I read a lot of articles

debating on which lens was better for portraiture - 85mm or 100mm. I

would also like to take some photographs of my roses and some plant

life around my garden. Hence I would probably need a macro lens to

do these closeups. I was considering the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens for

this purpose. But if I get this, can I use this lens in leiu of the

100mm or 85mm lenses. Instead of getting a 85mm lens and a 100mm

lens and a 100mm macro lens what is my alternative to be able to do

protraits and macros. Please help. Also, can anyone explain to be

the 1:1 feature on the macros. I understand the 50mm macro does not

have it while the 100mm lens has it. Whats does one mean by saying it

is 1:1 capable ??

[carlos_nazareth]

As you are interested in doing Macro mode I would go with the macro lens. It is also a good potrait lens. You could buy the 85mm later if required.

 

The 1:1 is a one inch object takes the whole 1 inch length of the negative.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 85 vs. 100 issue comes up fairly frequently, and it's more a personal choice than anything else. 100 gives a slightly flatter look than 85. 100 requires a bit more working distance. If you look at the reviews of these two lenses, and the comments that people have left on those two pages, I'm guessing you'll probably find that some people prefer one, some prefer the other, but they're both fine lenses.</p>

 

<p>The issue of whether the 100/2.8 macro lens makes a good portrait lens comes up fairly frequently, and the usual answer is that it does. The macro lens does a great job of macro photography and a good job of portrait photography; the portrait lenses do a great job of portrait photography and a poor job of macro photography. So if you are serious about both types, you should get both lenses, but if you want one lens for both applications, the macro lens is the one.</p>

 

<p>1:1 means it can record an image on the film that's the same size as the subject. If you take a picture of a coin, for example, and then hold the coin side-by-side with the developed film, the image of the coin on the film is the same size as the coin itself. For this, and a whole pile more info on macro photography, see the <a href="http://www.photo.net/macro/primer">photo.net macro primer</a>.</p>

[fr_d_ric_gaudill_re]

Hi Sathish

The 1:1 feature means the lens can shoot 'lifesize'. Imagine a 1 cm subject (like an insect). At 1:1 ratio, you'll get a 1-cm insect on your 24x36cm negative. For a 3.6cm subject, you'll get a full-width subject on the negative, assuming it's 24x36. This can be obtained on non-macro lenses by adding adaptators but the sharpness usually decreases.

As a 100mm 2.8 macro USM owner, I recommend it : very sharp, 1:1, USM focussing (useless for macro but great for portrait).

Take a look in my portfolios. The few pictures I uploaded are all shot with the 100mm. I can mail you tons of others if you want.

(I apologize for my bad english).

[bill_goldman]

There is nothing prohibiting the 100mm macro lens being used as a portrait lens or general purpose short telephoto as well as a macro lens.

 

A macro lens focuses closer than other lenses to achieve more magnification of the subject. A macro lens that focuses to 1:1 means that an object, say 1 inch long, can be captured on film at the same 1 inch long. A lens that focuses to a maximum of 1:2 can only capture the object up to half its actual size. True macro lenses are also corrected for flat field and minimum distortion as well as sharpness at close distances. Some consider a macro lens TOO sharp for portraits as it reveals wrinkles and skin flaws. Of course you can always add a soft focus filter.

 

If the choice of a lens for portraits is between an 85mm or 100mm, there is little difference as either will provide a pleasant perspective and other considerations may be in order such as cost, size, weight, camera to subject distance or personal preference.

 

And you don't absolutely need a macro lens to photograph flowers and other 3-dimensional objects as long as your lens focuses close enough or you use extension tubes or closeup lenses.

[corey_gardner1]

If you are interested in macro then get the 100 macro lens. It will perform wonderfully as a portrait lens as well, which is how I use mine usually. The difference between 85 and 100 is all a matter of preference, not really one better than the other, and it depends on the kind of portraits you are interested in taking. The 100 will allow you to get slightly closer so it is better for very tight head shots or close ups of, say, a baby's foot or hand. The 85 is probably a little better for small rooms as it has a little wider perspective. Either are fine, but in your case since you want the macro, I would get the 100 macro.

 

A few other differences in these lenses is size and manual focusing. The 100 macro is heavier and bulkier than the other two lenses. Also, manual focusing on macro lenses outside of the macro range can be a little tricky. Not impossible, but any turning of the ring changes the focus quite a bit. Still usable though.

 

1:1 means that the lens can render small subjects the same size on film as they are in real life. For instance, if you take a picture of a bug and it measures 2cm in real life, then it will measure 2cm on film. Non-macro lenses can't do this as they can't focus close enough so that 2cm bug will be maybe 1cm or smaller on film.

 

Hope this helps and good luck.

[randy_samos]

Sathish -

<p>

I have both the 85/1.8 & the 100/2.8 macro. I use them both for portraiture, but tend to use the 85 more. The main reason for me though, is that I have the 100/2.8 EF, not USM. The other, is that I just kind of like the perspective a bit more. The 85 get's plenty close enough for frame filling head shots, but it allows me a bit more working space if I want more. (if I want even more, the 50 comes into play).

<p>

I've also done macro with both of them, and like them both for that. But - the 100 is <i>much</i> easier to use as you don't need to stop and change tubes if you want a different magnification. And - it's really a bit sharper. That it's an EF has no affect on macro, as one uses manual focusing for that anyway.

<p>

Given the current 100 macro is a USM, I'd say it's a far more versatile lens than the 85 if it's one or the other. If you get the macro though, you might want to consider a softening filter of some sort. It can be a bit brutal in the details. :)

<p>

The lens list you have is great, and (imho) you're picking the right two to waffle about. The 24 and 50 are pretty nice lenses to have in your bag.

<p>

Actually, I'd suggest that you save up to get the 85 later anyway. That's actually the lens that lives on my EOS 3. As I said - I like the perspective.

<p>

/randy

[melissa_eiselein]

<i>"I was considering the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens for this purpose. But if I get this, can I use this lens in leiu of the 100mm or 85mm lenses."</i>

<p>Sure you can. I don't have the 100mm f/2.8 macro, but I've done a little reading on it. It has a macro switch that you can turn on for macro use and off for portrait use.</p>

 

<p>You are looking at a nice, yet affordable set of lenses. I have the 24 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8. Both are nice lenses. I recently purchased a used 85 f/1.8 but haven't had a chance to use it. I chose it over the 100mm because those few times that I've to do portraits, I've worked in limited space. Also, I have close-up lenses that I could use for those rare times when I want a close-up shot of something, but I find them to be a bit of a hassle. If you plan to do a lot of macro work, then I believe the 100mm f/2.8 would be a better choice.</p>

 

<p>By the way, once you get the above set, your next step will be into the big-buck arena. I'd love to have a fast 200, 300, or 400mm lens... but I can't afford one just yet.</p>

[carl smith]

I own this lens. In short yes you can. It has a focus limiter that keeps the AF from wandering in to the macro zone, just read the manual. If you try to AF and you've manually swung it in to the macro region while the AF is limited, it'll just sit there.

 

Now, a word about real use of the lens. The normal focusing range on this s a pretty quick throw of the focusing ring, as it's geared to have fine control over macro focusing. So it take a little getting used to. Additionally, of all the systems I've used from 35mm to large format, this is one of the sharped lenses I've experienced. It may be sharper than you'd like for portraiture. It works fine, but sometimes you may need to tone your prints down i find when using it for portraiture. There really can be such a thing as too sharp.

 

If you're a bokeh freak, this lens is pretty good IMO, better than some similar macro lenses, so it should render pleasing backgrounds behind your viciously sharp subject. :)

 

All told, I enjoy having this lens and carry it quite a bit. In fact I probably use it more than my banged up old 50 1.4 Nikkor on my FM, which has been everywhere with me.

[alex_p._schorsch]

Get the Macro lens. During your portrait sessions you may want to get in a bit closer and the macro gives you this freedom.I myself couldn't live without a macro lens (it's so much fun taking picture of insects and flowers) and don't want to tote two lenses with similar angles of view so I've opted for the 100 macro instead of the 85 f/1.8. It serves me quite well. FWIW.Cheers, Alex