100mm 2.8L Macro IS as a portrait lens

[bholliman]

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

 

[Radiating]

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

 

[skitron]

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

Sorry, but the bokeh quality of the 100L is one of the best in the entire Canon lineup when comparing at f2.8.

That said, I had focus issues with mine, and had to send it to Canon for paid repairs. So upon buying one, I would highly recommend doing some focus tests using tripod, EOS Utility to control the camera, and test chart. Mine would cause the image to jump in the frame when changing direction of focus and I could set AFMA to work when focusing from closeup and it would miss when focusing from infinity or vise-versa.

I suspect this is the origin of the "soft" comments. I even made a few myself before I came up with a definitive diagnosis of what was going on with my copy. I suspect mine is not the only copy that has this issue. However, I did test a friends and it was fine.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 135L is the better portrait lens but the 100L can be one as well. I prefer the extra compression and extra speed for portraits. At F/2, the 135L can already be a pain to PP all the flaws in a face and the macro would be even sharper @ F/2.8.

 

[RLPhoto]

"I prefer the extra compression"

I'd challenge anybody in a double blind test to accurately be able to tell the focal length used between the two lenses. Focused at "normal" portrait distances it wouldn't surprise me if the focal lengths were almost the same anyway.

35% more compression and the extra stop of speed is what made me make the same choice for the 135L. Its also the reason I decided to pass on the 85L for portraits, too tight and it will produce bigger noses.

These are my tastes and If I was able to notice the difference, that's enough for me to choose 135L > 100L for portraits.

 

[skitron]

As for using it for portrait, florianbieler.de has a couple of nice examples on this thread page from the Lens Gallery:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1195.45

 

[mingyuansung]

I have not tried extensively. I have 100L for macro. And I just bought a used 135L and plan to see which one is better for portrait. It really depends on before your next purchase, macro more or portrait more. I would suggest 100L first if you are not sure. The price is good right now for 100L.

 

[florianbieler.de]

As for using it for portrait, florianbieler.de has a couple of nice examples on this thread page from the Lens Gallery:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1195.45

Hey thanks for pointin' me out

I also played with the 135L a bit, definitely also a very desirable portrait lens and even another tad sharper than the 100L. As I couldn't really afford both I sticked with the 100L because the difference is not that big (also not bokeh-wise) and you got IS and Macro on top. I say if you can afford both, get them both but if not then think about if you need IS and Macro. When you only want to do portrait and that mainly from a tripod, get the 135 instead.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

Well that's just rubbish. Throw your face at my shots with the 100mm and show me "harsh bokeh".

 

[seekthedragon]

The 100L is a quite impressive portrait lens. DOF is nice, Bokeh is lovely, it is compact and light. The AF is also fast and reliable (on 1D mkIII and 60D, with the AF limiter switch used).

However, I rather use the 70-200 II as it offers just a little worse IQ for a lot better focal range. IS is about equal. I do event photography most of the time, where portraits are included, but they are not the first priority. But if I would go on a creative session, when I have time to look for the perfect angle and distance, I would use the macro for portraits. The white guy is so heavy, that shaking hands are becoming a real issue after a few hours.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I don't have the 100L, but the 180L is my go-to passport-style portrait lens...not that I do a whole lot of portrait photography. Eric Broomfield, the subject of the attached portrait, still keeps raving that this is the best portrait of him that anybody's ever made. He was very reluctant to have me make the portrait because he's never before seen one of him that he likes. And that's even including the sweat drop, which he wanted me to leave in....

Cheers,

b&

 

[gary]

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.
[/quote]

I have extensively used the 100mmL IS 2.8 for portrait work and have never experienced harsh bokeh. I have recently loaned it to my daughter who is using it in her capacity as a professional portrait and fashion photographer (Pandora'sThoughts.com), to compare with what she already has and she loves it. It would absolutely be my choice at the price it is.

 

[RLPhoto]

"I prefer the extra compression"

I'd challenge anybody in a double blind test to accurately be able to tell the focal length used between the two lenses. Focused at "normal" portrait distances it wouldn't surprise me if the focal lengths were almost the same anyway.

35% more compression and the extra stop of speed is what made me make the same choice for the 135L. Its also the reason I decided to pass on the 85L for portraits, too tight and it will produce bigger noses.

These are my tastes and If I was able to notice the difference, that's enough for me to choose 135L > 100L for portraits.

Again, I'd challenge anybody in a double blind test to accurately be able to tell the focal length used between the two lenses. Focused at "normal" portrait distances it wouldn't surprise me if the focal lengths were almost the same anyway.

The one stop of speed might make a difference, if you regularly shoot at f2 and reproduce small. People forget that dof is output sized and viewing distance specific, in this age of small web based output I well understand people chasing faster lenses, I print, and often big, at decent print sizes f4-5.6 only give you a couple of inches of sharp dof.

Ok, so what are you trying to say? That there is no discernible difference between the 135L and 100L?

 

[cayenne]

Can anyone post an example or two of the 100L being used for MACRO shots?

I'd like to see what that looks like....having never taken macro type shots before myself....

C

 

[pdirestajr]

They are both fine lenses.


Ben by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


Happy Violet by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

 

[brad-man]

Can anyone post an example or two of the 100L being used for MACRO shots?

I'd like to see what that looks like....having never taken macro type shots before myself....

C

It's awesome...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1195.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11194.0

 

[brad-man]

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

Bull crappies. This is one of the most all around excellent lenses that Canon produces. It is great for everything from macro to portraits to general telephoto shots. It is a lightweight and weather sealed jack-of-all-trades lens. The only improvement that could possibly be made is for it to be an f/2. Feel free to post an example of this "harsh bokeh" and show me the error of my ways...

 

[Zlatko]

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

Oh my goodness, the bokeh of the 100L macro lens is exceptionally good at portrait distances. Canon must have had its top bokeh wizards working overtime on this lens, building in every last bit of bokeh magic that could be packed into a 100/2.8 lens. For bokeh, it stands out as one of Canon's best.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

How can we set up a double blind test?

You wouldn't need a double blind test, just a test in which the viewer didn't know the lens.

Since it's portraiture we're discussing, I'd find a really good portrait photographer and her favorite model. Hand her one camera and the two lenses, and tell her to make a single portrait with each lens, and to make each portrait to the best of her abilities, but on the same set with the same lighting. Let the photographer critically pick the best composition, aperture, and whatever else, again, with the goal of maximizing the quality of each lens. She's probably going to pick different shooting positions and compositions for each lens; I know I would. Also have her do similar post-processing to each, but again maximizing quality for each file individually rather than slavishly insisting that the knobs must be spun synchronously.

Finally, hand the two (unlabeled) photos around for comparison.

I'm sure some will note that this is a much different protocol than the one I suggested for comparing sensor formats. That's because this is a subjective comparison of the subjective qualities of the two lenses, not an empirical analysis of one aspect of performance. The goal is to see both lenses at their best and do everything reasonable to make those lenses shine -- everything you'd normally do if you were simply using the lenses.

Maybe, for example, the one lens gives a bit more pop with a narrow depth of field, in which case the comparison is between a lens that produces the best image with a narrow depth of field and one that produces the best image with a bit wider plane of sharp focus. Maybe the one vignettes in a pleasing way and the other in a distracting way, so the comparison would be between lenses with different vignetting style. Whatever the case, showcase each lens at its best.

In addition to just the two final images for comparison, I'd also appreciate a review by the photographer explaining her experiences shooting each and why she gravitated to the usage she did for each lens.

Cheers,

b&

 

[vlad]

I bought the 100 Macro (USM) first, precisely for the versatility mentioned by others, but a couple years later ended up getting the 135L as well. It's probably been said before, but it bears repeating - the macro lens is more versatile and is pretty good at portraits, but once you start using the 135 for portraits, it's hard to go back to the macro. The 135 is great at f2, which along with the tele compression lets you achieve DOF and background separation that 100 @ 2.8 just can't do. If you don't find yourself craving more background blur at portrait distances, then the macro will be great for you. I'm not going to make a big deal about compression - sure, it helps, but it's not like you can't take a great portrait at 85mm...

 

[ChilledXpress]

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

I call pure bull-shite!!!! Either you've never used it or you don't know how to use it. Great bokeh and a good portrait lens, not the best but very good. Here are a few examples and a macro!!!!


BBQ marshmallows... YUMMM !!! by David KM, on Flickr

Golf shoes by David KM, on Flickr

Maui - Starfish, Culcita novaeguineae (cushion star fr. tropical N. Pacific) by David KM, on Flickr

Maui - Gardens by David KM, on Flickr