what lens?

[tania_fernandez]

Hi everybody... I got a few EOS lenses: 50mm/1.4; 24mm/2.8; 28-

105/3.5-4.5. I was thinking of adding a 100mm for portraits and

other uses and saw that there is a 100 Macro and a 100 regular so I

was hoping someone could tell me if the 100 Macro would be good to do

portraits as well as macro work? I know the macro is a bit more

expensive so before buying it I want to know if it will do the job...

Also if there is another lens beside the 100mm that anyone thinks

might be a good purshase for portraits and street work please let me

know...

 

Thanks

[borge_doskeland]

100 f2 and 85 1.8 are both very good lenses and maybe better than the 100 macro for portraits as it is only f2.8. It is also physically larger and heavier and much more expensive. You may want to look at the Tamron 90 macro, but be aware that the Canon lenses have much better AF.

[vassil_mihov]

I concurr with Borge. 85mm is excellent, and 135 may be even better. I personally have the 100mm macro, it's very sharp and fast enough for me.

 

An alternative (I can't believe I am advising this, being a prime fan) is to buy a 70-200 as a telephoto and use it for portraiture as well, that way you can save some bucks. It will not be as good as the primes, but may be good enough, depending on your needs. ("good" is very relative when we are talking about excellent lenses). Having said that, I have both the 100 macro and the 70-200.

[aljaz_.]

To Vassil: In what exact manner would buying the 70-200mm (I suppose you mean the f/2.8 version to be used for portraits) instead of one of the 100mm ones save the money?

 

To Tania: If macro is not a major interest of yours I'd recommend the 85mm or 100mm f/2 lens, just like Borge. They are just right. One is a bit faster, the other has slightly longer reach for the candid moments. The 135mm f/2 is twice the price, length and weigth, although highly esteemed around here.

[vassil_mihov]

Aljaz,

 

in the manner of adding a telephoto that tania's current line up does not appear to include, and that is likely to be added down the road.

[zave_shapiro]

In prime lenses for 35mm we think of the classic head-and-shoulders lens as an 85 or so. 1:1 macro lenses are usually found as 100mm's or so. There are a few significant differences. A macro lens has to deal with limited DOF and close focussing so they are optimized for best performance at f11-22 and at closer distances. A portrait lens is one we consider working best with limited DOF - sweet out-of-focus area and sympathetic skin tones (that is, on the scale of smooth vs analytical). Although the focal length of a macro lens and a portrait lens are similar the design imperatives for those different tasks will demand differences in design goals. If you're buying a prime in the 80-100 range you're going to get a terrific lens in any case so the real question, IMHO, is deciding for which purpose you want the lens optimized.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> If you want both macro and portrait lens then the 100/2.8 macro USM your best bet. It is the only one which offers you IF (for better balance) and USM (when you use it as a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#macroportrait">portrait lens</a>). </P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>