Can a Canon 100mm macro lens double as a good portrait lens?
Asked 5/29/2011
2 views
2 answers
0
I'm considering the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro as a lens that could serve both macro and portrait work, so I can avoid carrying a heavier 70-200mm f/2.8. Is a 100mm macro a strong portrait option, or is it mainly a great macro lens that is only average for portraits? How does it compare with a typical 70-200mm zoom in this range, and is the newer 100mm f/2.8L IS version noticeably better for portrait use?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
22
I've used the EF 100 f/2.8 and the EF 100 f/2.8L for portraits. I find the focal length ideal for full frame and APS-H (might be a bit long for APS-C unless you're doing tight headshots). I find I need to have a macro in my arsenal and working double duty as a short tele makes either 100 particularly useful.
Stopped down in a studio setting both lenses are razor sharp and free from distortion. Here's the non L:
actual pixels, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro on 5D
On FF you get images so sharp you could cut yourself on. I bought the L version to use as a long(ish) lens for events as IS enables me to get more ambient light into the shot, but it still excels in the studio:
actual pixels, Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro on 1D mkIV
Bokeh on either lens is good in my opinion (I'll dig out a sample when I get the chance), though if you want to shoot portraits with great bokeh there are better lenses (85mm f/1.2L, 135 f/2.0L).
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes — a 100mm macro can be a very good portrait lens. The 100mm focal length is well within the classic portrait range, especially on full frame, and both Canon 100mm macro versions are known to be very sharp with low distortion.
Compared with a 70-200mm f/2.8, the main tradeoffs are flexibility and autofocus behavior. A zoom gives you framing convenience, while the 100mm macro gives you one focal length, lighter carry, and excellent optical quality. As a prime, it may even be sharper than a zoom at similar settings.
Possible downsides: macro lenses can have slower autofocus, and some photographers find macro-lens bokeh less creamy than lenses designed specifically for portraits. Still, the Canon 100mm macro is generally regarded as producing good bokeh and strong portrait results.
The f/2.8 maximum aperture is usually sufficient for portraits, and at 100mm you can still get shallow depth of field without needing to shoot extremely wide open.
The 100mm f/2.8L IS version adds image stabilization, which can help in lower light and event-style shooting. For studio portrait work stopped down, both the L and non-L versions perform very well.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Which 70-200mm is the better buy: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS I, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS, or Canon 70-200mm f/4L?
Best Canon lens for portraits and occasional wedding/party shooting on an EOS 600D?
Choosing a macro lens for a Canon APS-C body: 60mm vs 100mm for macro and portraits
What’s the difference between the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM?
Which Tamron 70-200mm lens was compared to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and is it optically better?