Maybe. I have been using the 100mm f/2.8 for portraits. Some of them look good, and some just look too sharp, clinical almost. It is a great lens for general short-telephoto use, not just macros. When I got my full-frame camera, I did use it for portraits. I don't shoot a lot of them, and thought I'd be OK with it doubling in that niche. Recently Canon had the 85mm f/1.8 refurb on sale, so I bought one. (I had been using the 50mm f/1.4 on my Rebel for portraits before I got the FF.)Of course, using the full aperture would not be mandatory in macro, but let's not forget that the EF 100mm f/2.8 is a great portrait lens. Wouldn't the RF 100mm f/1.2 also be?
Agreed, although I'd lean toward the DS. The DS has a T-stop penalty but for portraiture with strobes this isn't much of an issue and you gain smoother and rounder bokeh (from Canon's sample images). I see this as an ultimate portrait lens. An example that they gave for someone who would favor the non-DS is someone who shoots available light in dim venues (i.e. concerts), which wouldn't be amongst my primary use cases. I tend to favor the shorter fast primes for indoor available light stuff, so this really would be a more formal portrait lens.The choice between the RF 85 and RF 85 DS would be a hard one for me. I've never used a lens with that feature so this might be the one time I decide to rent before buying.
A 100mm f/1.2 would probably be a good portrait lens, but in practical photography, shooting at f/1.2 is a tricky item with an 85mm lens, and the extra focal length would make it a bit harder. I don't mean just obtaining focus, but getting things all "just so" to make the image look pleasing and not out of focus due to the total lack of depth of field.....let's not forget that the EF 100mm f/2.8 is a great portrait lens.....
I've used the 100 Macro for portraits too (not a portrait photographer per se, but when the occasional opportunity comes up)...the sharpness is in fact one of my favorite features of that lens! It's a personal thing though. The 85 1.4 IS is decent too.Maybe. I have been using the 100mm f/2.8 for portraits. Some of them look good, and some just look too sharp, clinical almost. It is a great lens for general short-telephoto use, not just macros. When I got my full-frame camera, I did use it for portraits. I don't shoot a lot of them, and thought I'd be OK with it doubling in that niche.
I think that rule is still good today, from my own experience. Although at 85mm I prefer using f/4 - good compromise of strong background separation and all major facial features in sharp focus. For half or 3/4 body shot I like f/2.8, sometimes picking f/2 if the background is busy.Then again when I took a year of formal photography training, it was 1975, and we were taught to shoot at f/5.6 for a head shot, and focus on the eyes.
That’s why I got an R...if you just hold the R, Z6/7 and A7R, that’s the exact order of how ergonomically well designed they are IMO...the R just feels a lot better in the hand.I just got tired enough of my Sony a7r3 and ordered an R/24-105/adapter kit from B&H.. (Tried to buy locally but the store with stock doesn't take PayPal.).. For the Sony, I have the 24-105 and 70-200 F4/G zooms and Canon TS-Es in 24mm (gen.2) and 50mm (gen.3).. Will be keeping the TS-Es and the RF 24-105.. Won't be buying a tele for a while.
The R felt VERY good in my hands...MUCH better than the too-small Sony.