100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

[skitron]

All other arguments aside, I've soured on the 100L for the reason that the "soft focus" issue cannot be repaired by Canon. I sent mine in with a short explanation how to test it. $208.93 later it is exactly the same as before. And Canon USA says they need my 5D3 body in order to fix it despite me telling them I tried another 100L on my 5D3 and it does not have the issue and I also tried the bad 100L on another body and it still has the issue...

And Canon refuses to refund for a "repair" job that did nothing.

The sad part is, the lens is 14 months old, I've now spent another $208.93 and it stil has the same issue. Meanwhile my 14 month old Sigma 50 had issues, I sent it in, they fixed for free and it actually works correctly now.

 

[skitron]

All other arguments aside, I've soured on the 100L for the reason that the "soft focus" issue cannot be repaired by Canon. I sent mine in with a short explanation how to test it. $208.93 later it is exactly the same as before. And Canon USA says they need my 5D3 body in order to fix it despite me telling them I tried another 100L on my 5D3 and it does not have the issue and I also tried the bad 100L on another body and it still has the issue...

And Canon refuses to refund for a "repair" job that did nothing.

The sad part is, the lens is 14 months old, I've now spent another $208.93 and it stil has issues. Meanwhile my 16 month old Sigma 50 had issues, I sent it in and they fixed for free and it actually works correctly now.

The trick with Canon service dissatisfaction is to send it back, they won't give you your money back but there is a 6 month warranty on the repair, if it still behaves badly then send it back, say the repair is unsatisfactory. Don't stop at the second or third person you talk to either. Both my 16-35 and 24-70 have been in three times, it is hassle and costs postage one way, but it does get sorted in the end, well mine always have been.

I'm just going to contest the charge on my card. I'm not wasting any more time on it and I'm darn sure not sending those idiots my 5D3 body.

 

[RLPhoto]

Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture.

Might be more valid if they were samples of the same area! It is not difficult to make the 135 look pretty bad in the background too, just see the image I posted earlier for an example, even RLP said there was no way that was his precious 135........

As far as I know, your portfolio/photos are too precious for anyone to see. :

 

[comsense]

Although its utterly useless to get into this discussion, since both sides have dug their heels deep. However,
1) Technically, any lens could be used as a portrait lens, even 8 mm. It's between art and artist; rest is irrelevant. So comparing 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS vs 135 mm f/2 L for portraits is irrelevant and comparing apples and oranges.
2) That said, 85 mm f/1.2 L and 135 mm f/2 L are generally considered best portrait lenses in canon lineup.
3) Its foolish to undermine extra light gathering ability of lens even 1/2 a stop. Photography is about manipulating light; and mostly its limiting. More currency gives you better options.
4) From what I have seen (I looked at all photos posted), RL photo is better photographer than privatebydesign. Of course s/he may have hidden masterpieces and its my personal opinion.
I hope it brings peace here.

 

[Rocky]

In the old film days, Leica designate the 90mm lenses as portrait lens and designate the 135 mm lenses as telephoto lens. Canon does not make any 90mm lenses. Therefore Canon designate the 100mm lens as portrait lens and 135mm lenses as telephoto lens. The reason: 90mm give us the "proper perspective" while 135mm tends to compact the facial feature at portrait (head and upper body) composition.

 

[comsense]

Clearly, you love argumentation. I am not taking any side here. I have already said I know people who take portraits with super wide angles lenses and make them pleasing. Photography is not about real life reproduction; robotic system can do that well. 135 f/2 does provide more z compression and thinner DOF. You can't change that fact. Your idea of blind test is also not wise. The fact that Ferrari can't go faster than cheap Hyundai in LA traffic jams does not negate its technical superiority (and I do not mean any of the lens is superior, just different). I am not going to be drawn into argument with you but I will wrap up with this advice. Passion is a good thing. Channel it into something good rather than penchant for arguments that borders irrelevant. You like 100 mm portraits - great!!!. And indeed it's a great lens. Just let someone else like the compression of 300 or creative angles of 16 mm.

 

[RLPhoto]

Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture.

Might be more valid if they were samples of the same area! It is not difficult to make the 135 look pretty bad in the background too, just see the image I posted earlier for an example, even RLP said there was no way that was his precious 135........

As far as I know, your portfolio/photos are too precious for anyone to see. :

Is that the best you have got? Don't forget Radiating didn't shoot those images so you should say they don't count! Pathetic.........

Lol your the pathetic one here with no photos. So called photographer in his own mind.

 

[Plamen]

[...] you'd think the 135 lovers could just post some images with unequivocal image characteristics that demonstrated this "unique look".

I did.

The differences in perspective and dof on a same framed portrait between a 135 @ f2 and a 100 @ f2.8 are so slight that nobody can reliably tell which lens was used.

The photographer can tell which lens could do the job. And just because the 135L has the unique look, does not mean that every photo must have that look.

 

[skitron]

I just gotta laugh at all of this "proper perspective" stuff...especially all of this stuff about how there are miles of difference between what a 100 does to somebody's face vs a 135.

One shot below is with a 50 and cropped and the other with a 200 and cropped. Which is which (without looking at the EXIF)? The batteries are in a straight line, equally space, and about a 45 degree angle from the focal plane. Nothing was changed between shots. I FX'd them so you can't cheat by going off other possible clues since the question is about only perspective and compression.

That said, I do recognize that there is value in playing games with perspctive and framing (i.e. with focal length) to get a more commercial result. But my point is if you think there is this massive difference between a 100 and a 135 then I sure hope you dont shoot head/shoulders and full bust with the same lens... Or for that matter a kid and adult with the same lens...

 

[skitron]

That is too easy, and I promise I didn't cheat.

The top one is from further away.

Dead wrong.

I'll reveal more after others have had a chance to opine.

I suppose I should ask folks to explain their reasons since they have a 50/50 chance in guessing, LOL.

A hint is that if you measure the batteries in shot 1, they are the same size as in shot 2. Same with the spacings.

 

[Plamen]

"I did" Not really, you posted four shots and RPL guessed one right, I posted four and the only one he actually guessed on he guessed wrong. RPL posted four shots in a trick question and I got two right, so far nobody has beaten the law of averages, untrained monkeys should be right 50% of the time, you'd think our collective skills and experience could beat that wouldn't you?

This only means that not everybody can tell that look. I did demonstrate that look because those images cannot be taken with any other Canon lens. To know that for sure, you have to be behind the camera, and have experience. I own both lenses, and I have good reasons to own them both.

"The photographer can tell" That is entirely my point, they can't, [...]

I meant - the photographer behind the camera, not the one staring at the computer screen. Give me a black box with an FF body and one of those lenses inside and give me 5 minutes. I will tell you which lens was in the box within 60 seconds after I download the images to a computer (well, the staring phase is unavoidable ).

Look, the macro can shoot many more "unique" images than the 135, [...]

Of course, it can shoot macro, and it can be better in low light.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

One shot below is with a 50 and cropped and the other with a 200 and cropped.

If I had to guess, the camera was on a tripod and the one with the 50 is much more cropped than the one with a 200. As such, if you also stopped the 200 down a lot more than the 50 (say, f/2 with the 50 and f/8 with the 200), the only difference between the two images would be resolution (and either motion blur if you compensated with shutter speed or noise if you compensated with ISO). And, scaled down for the Web, neither is going to be apparent.

If I'm right, then a coin toss is going to be as good as anything at determining which is which, so I won't even bother.

More interesting for this discussion would be full-frame, uncropped comparisons "zoomed with the feet" to simulate the actual reason one would choose the one lens over the other.

Cheers,

b&

 

[skitron]

One shot below is with a 50 and cropped and the other with a 200 and cropped.

If I had to guess, the camera was on a tripod and the one with the 50 is much more cropped than the one with a 200. As such, if you also stopped the 200 down a lot more than the 50 (say, f/2 with the 50 and f/8 with the 200), the only difference between the two images would be resolution (and either motion blur if you compensated with shutter speed or noise if you compensated with ISO). And, scaled down for the Web, neither is going to be apparent.

If I'm right, then a coin toss is going to be as good as anything at determining which is which, so I won't even bother.

More interesting for this discussion would be full-frame, uncropped comparisons "zoomed with the feet" to simulate the actual reason one would choose the one lens over the other.

Cheers,

b&

You have the correct technical answer. They were shot at an identical distance (and the 200 was f/8 and the 50 f/2.2, FX added to mask resolution and other differences - you really know your stuff!).

The point was to illustrate the fact that even routine cropping and framing differences with a particular lens will in fact fairly drastically alter the so called "proper perspective". And if we define what "proper perspective" actually constitutes and then express it in terms of focal length - which has been going on for ten pages now - my point is that it is a complete ruse. Because if, just for example, the so called "proper perspective" is achieved with a 90mm for a tight head shoulder shot, then the facial proportions when increasing subject distance only enough so to shoot a full bust/waist up shot, become equivalent to being shot as a tight head/shoulders with roughly a 180mm.

All of that said, I think you have the right idea of what is useful in actually choosing. And I think the findings would be that a range of lens lengths work well. And some have a look to them that really is not so much about length as other factors. JMO of course.

[edit] forgot to add, those are D cells shot from about six feet. They are about the same height as a typical adult ear and nostrils to brow distance. The angle created roughly the same distance and depth from the left most to right most batteries as with adult nose to ear. All to say, a relevant model for the discussion.

 

[skitron]

Now the reason I said the top one was from further was because on my monitor the image right most battery is 1-2mm larger than the bottom one...

OK, I follow you now. And yes, I totally agree the differences in perspective/framing are pretty small between the 100 and 135. I suppose good thing since I'm ditching my 100 due to focus problems and very well may end up with a 135.

 

[comsense]

This discussion is becoming even more irrelevant. If you have 200 f/2 why would you use it at f/8 to match the framing of 50 @ 2? Of course if you match respective DOF by adjusting f stop and do identical framing they would look similar and most people would not be able to tell; like 2+2=3+1=4+0. That's not the point. Can you crop from 50 @ f/2.8 and make it look like 200 @ f/2? People don't buy 800 mm to match frame with 50 mm; its for reach. Similarly, people buy fast glass to use in low light and/or get thinner DOF. In good light and at f/8, I am sure most of you wont be able to pick photo taken with rebel kit lens out in blind test from ones taken with L glass.

 

[RLPhoto]

Privatebydesign's opinion is becoming more and more irrelevant by every post because he has yet to show a single photo to show he's used both the 135L and the 100L in portrait work. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. In PBD hands the 100L can't shoot anymore unique images than a lab rat, none at all.

How can anyone take him seriously? lol.

 

[brad goda]

Blah blah blah...
Yes buy the 100mm Macro IS 2.8L...
also get the Canon "tripod mount ring D (B)" for tripod use... yes its pricy but all good accessories are... 220.00! yes,, but RRS plate for that was 80.00...
its 100mm and focuses close... its a macro... with hybrid IS... a very flexible lens.
hey this lens looks good too ;D ;D
you will love it. and yes it IS lighter and more compact in the bag than the 70-200.

ps -- posters that say a lens is too sharp and contrasty for portraits...!!?? WTF are you off your cracker?

 

[Marsu42]

Blah blah blah...

Was that a comment on previous posts or a prediction about the value of yours ?

also get the Canon "tripod mount ring D (B)" for tripod use... yes its pricy but all good accessories are...

In this case, I guess you're also buying original, genuine Canon lens caps :-o ... for the rest of us I'd recommend this €18 tripod ring d (I've got it) over the €140 Canon item ... it is a good idea, makes moving the lens on the tripod more precise in comparison to a camera body mount:

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Metall-Tripod-Mount-Ring-D-Canon-EF-100mm-f-2-8L-Macro-IS-USM-/320968716828?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Stative_Zubeh%C3%B6r&hash=item4abb39f21c#ht_1760wt_919

 

[skitron]

This discussion is becoming even more irrelevant. If you have 200 f/2 why would you use it at f/8 to match the framing of 50 @ 2?

You are late to the party, so based on your comment I'll assume you haven't bothered to read all eleven pages of this (and understandably so).

The point of the experiment was to illustrate that all of this talk of "proper perspective" as expressed as a single lens focal length, is a complete ruse.

If someone wants to argue they generally get pleasing and/or more commercial perspectives with lenses in the such and such length class and they prefer a particular one because of better bokeh, contrast, color renditions, whatever, then I'm all for that, and that seems a whole lot more practical and useful imo than digging in and promulgating myths.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

The point of the experiment was to illustrate that all of this talk of "proper perspective" as expressed as a single lens focal length, is a complete ruse.

To clarify a bit further, perspective is entirely a question of camera-to-subject distance. Different focal lengths obviously provide a different angle of view. If you fill the frame with a same-sized subject with two lenses of different focal lengths, simple trigonometry tells us that that means a different camera-to-subject distance and therefore a different perspective.

Depth of field and background blur is a function of aperture -- but not the f/number; rather, the actual physical size of the aperture. So, do the actual division and you'll discover that a 50mm f/2 has a 50/2 = 25mm physical aperture, and a 200mm f/8 has a 200/8 = also a 25mm physical aperture. So, if you stand in the same place and take a shot with a 50 f/2 and 200 f/8 and crop the 50 to the same angle of view as the 200, you get, for the most part, an identical image.

Obviously, 200/2 = 100, so a 200 f/2 image has much shallower depth of field than a 50 f/2. Add in perspective changes and the end result is that a head-and-shoulders shot from a 200 f/2 has a much shallower depth of field, a much more compressed perspective, and much more background separation than a head-and-shoulders shot from a 50 f/2 -- assuming, of course, the 200 is shot from four times the distance as the 50 and no cropping.

There'll be a similar difference between a 135 f/2 and a 100 f/2.8, but nowhere near as dramatic. Indeed, it'll be just about the same difference as between 135 f/2 and 135 f/3.5. Different? Yes. Dramatically different? No.

Cheers,

b&