If you go R/RF?

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,012
150
Davidson, NC
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?
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.)

But I still have trouble imagining the usefulness of a 100mm f/1.2 macro. It surely would be large, heavy, and expensive. It wouldn't be any more useful for shooting macros than slower lenses. And someone who can afford it is not likely be someone who is content to make do. Probably it would be cheaper just to buy a lens to shoot portraits and another one for macro work, with each lens likely better suited to its job.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,246
140
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.
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.
 
Feb 27, 2019
51
15
....let's not forget that the EF 100mm f/2.8 is a great portrait lens.....
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.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,012
150
Davidson, NC
There are folks who post here who like to have one eye in focus and one out, it seems from what they say. Sometimes it is left; sometimes right.
 
Feb 27, 2019
51
15
And the ears and nose are still oof on most of those. And, what works if not well, then at least ok for female subject matter, does not work all that well for male.

The online calculators say 1.4 inches total DoF at 6.5 feet with an 85mm lens, at f/1.2 covering a 24x36 format. Seems smaller than that. You'd need f/5.6 to get nose and ears in focus. And.... you don't really want that porous bulb of a proboscis all that sharp to begin with, so you're probably better off with f/4 or f/4.5.

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.
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
952
68
I'm pretty content with my 5D4 as my main camera at this point. With the R system I would want a smaller package in exchange for the lack of speed. I'd be looking for compactness - how about an RP-size FF camera with compact 35, 85 and 24-70 lenses.


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'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.

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.
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.
 
Reactions: stevelee
Oct 22, 2015
2
0
75
Phoenix, Arizona USA
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.
 

jeanluc

EOS 80D
Oct 29, 2012
145
32
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.
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.