Need a Macro as well as a Portrait lens for DReb!

[nabeeko]

I currently have the 17-40mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, and the 80-200mm

f/2.8L. I am very interested

in working with macro but still want a lens that can produce

portraits as good as the 85mm USM f/1.8.

Is the 100mm USM f/2.8 a good alternative? As a portrait lens, as

sharp as the 85mm USM f/1.8?

The 80-200mm is too heavy to take around so I'm looking for

alternatives.

Thanks.

[michael_villarmia]

It looks like the 50mm 2.5 Macro would make for a better "portrait" lens at 80mm, and a great macro lens with the life size adapter. You may find the 100mm to be too long on your DSLR (160mm) for portraiture.

[digitmstr]

While a MACRO lens could be used for portraits the sharpness is too much for that type of work. I don't know about you but, people I work with don't want to be able to count their skin pores :)

 

You already have great portrait lenses (the 50 and 80-200) what more do you want?

[beauh44]

Hi Steve, I second the 50mm macro. With all due respect to Giampiero, some of the best portrait lenses are quite sharp and I agree no one wants to see nose hairs and skin pores. But that's easily fixed either by using a soft-focus or diffusion filter and/or a touch of gaussian blur in Photoshop. It's much easier to make a sharp lens soft than the other way around. I've used my 50mm 2.5 macro for portraits with my 10D quite a bit - sometimes with a "real" filter, and sometimes "straight-up" with a little softness added later. It's no problem and IMHO this lens is amazing. Maybe not the best build in Canon's lineup, but easily as sharp as most of their much more expensive "L" glass. It's small and light and packs well too! Good luck!

[eos 10 fan]

Nobody complains about the sharpness of either lens, but the 85/1.8 is said to AF noticeably quicker than the 100/Macro USM. It will depend on the types of portraits you plan on doing as to whether or not the AF speed is an issue.

 

Have you considered using extention tubes and/or a diopter lens for macro work on an 85/1.8? Tubes can be used on all of your lenses and a 58mm diopter could be used on your 50/1.8 with a 52mm to 58mm step-up ring.

 

--

[nabeeko]

Dan,

 

Would getting a extension tube and closeup filter get the same effect?

Would getting a tube for the 80-200mm be better?

 

Steve

[jon_austin]

I bought the 100mm f/2.8 macro for exactly this dual purpose on my 10D, and -- although its quality is excellent -- I returned it because I found it was too long for portraits on the 10D (same crop as dRebel).

 

I replaced it with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro, and I love it! It has an AFD motor rather than USM, so it's "buzzy" rather than silent, but it doesn't bother me a bit.

 

The quality is outstanding, and I disagree with the post that suggests you need the Life Size Converter to do macro work. That same 1.6 crop factor applies to macro work as it does to everything else with the smaller sensor. You can always buy the LSC later, if you want it.

[nabeeko]

Does anyboby have samples images taken with extension tubes with the mentioned lens?

[michael_peters1]

<i>I disagree with the post that suggests you need the Life Size Converter to do macro work. That same 1.6 crop factor applies to macro work as it does to everything else with the smaller sensor.</i>

<br> <br>

The crop factor does not change magnification - it crops. There may be times when a lifesize converter or extension tubes or diopter lens is needed in addition to the macro lens to get the magnification you want. For that pretty flower in the garden, probably not - for the black widow spider eating her mate, even with the crop factor I suspect the spider is going to be smaller than the available frame - and the ability to go 1:1 or larger may be desired.

<br> <br>-=-=-<br> <br>

Use your 50/1.8 as a portrait lens. Use kenko extension tubes with the 50/1.8 for macro work. If you find that unsatisfactory - THEN buy a real macro lens - and then you will know wether you want the 50/2.5 or 100/2.8 - as you will already have some experience with macro at the 50 focal length - and the extension tubes will always come in handy even when you DO own a macro lens (as they can be used to further increase magnification, and with your other lenses)

[jon_austin]

"The crop factor does not change magnification - it crops."

 

I know. That's why I called it "crop factor" and not "magnification factor." Surely you understand that, depth of field issues aside, both magnification and cropping increase the size of the subject in the frame?

 

"There may be times when a lifesize converter or extension tubes or diopter lens is needed in addition to the macro lens to get the magnification you want."

 

Which is why I also wrote "You can always buy the LSC later, if you want it," even though you chose to ignore that part of my post in your response...

[michael_villarmia]

It all boils down to how often you think you're going to be shooting macro. For portraits, you already have an excellent lens in the 50mm. If you want more length, but don't think you'll be shooting macro often, get the 85mm. If you want to shoot macro, buy the extension tubes.

[eos 10 fan]

<i>Would getting a extension tube and closeup filter get the same effect? Would getting a tube for the 80-200mm be better? </i> <p>

 

Tubes vs. diopters is one of those debates with no one true answer - different strokes for different folks. <p>

 

I do not have any diopters yet (on the wish list), but I do have a Kenko's Auto Extension Tube Set (12, 20 & 36mm - about the same cost as a single 77mm dual element diopter). I went for the tube set because it offered me more versatility with my different sized lens' front threads (58 & 77mm); diopters will follow when budget and priorities collide <b>;)</b> <p>

 

I have used my tubes on my three zooms (17-35/L, 28-105/USM & Tokina 80-200/2.8) plus my 50/1.4 lens. <p>

 

<a href="http://members.rogers.com/jul.loke/">Julian's Lens Calculator</a> is a great little tool for seeing how tubes and diopters compare (make sure you know each lenses closest focussing distance).<p> --

[yakim_peled1]

I'd get the 100/2.8 macro USM to serve as a macro lens (first and foremost) and as an outdoor portrait lens (second). For indoor portrait work you already have the 50/1.8. For outdoor portrait work you already have the 80-200/2.8. Thus I see the use of the 100/2.8 macro USM primarily for macro and for times you want to travel light (and leave the heavy 80-200/2.8 at home).

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[psoriano]

"Julian's Lens Calculator" is very interesting. Thanks for the link!

 

Using teleconverters in macro photography seems an interesting element, as they didn't

change the focus distance, an combined with extension tubes and a sharp lens (50 or 85

f/1.8) may allow good results and magnifications greater than 1:1. Any experience?

[michael_peters1]

<i>Tubes vs. diopters is one of those debates with no one true answer - different strokes for different folks.</i>

<br> <br>

In favor of tubes - the image is only limited by the optics of the lens. Diopters, at least the good ones, are designed with specific focal length range in mind and are not going to be as good as they can be when used with other focal lengths.

<br> <br>

Of course the cheaper diopters are simply not going to be as good at ANY focal length - but maybe good enough.

[psoriano]

As you can see playing with "Julian's Lens Calculator", extension tubes are more effective

with short focal lenses as diopters are more effective in the tele range.

[patricks]

the 100/2.8 USM macro makes a wonderful macro and a very respectable portrait lens. love it on my eos 3.

 

on a 1.6x crop factor it becomes a 160, which is OK for outdoor portraits and larger spaces, but a bit too long IMO for indoor portrait photography.

 

So it all comes down to your working style and preferences. I'm sure the 50 macro would be OK, but I never tried it. Keep in mind the working distance is much shorter w/ the 50/2.5 so it allows for less light between you and the subject.