Reading mode: Light Dark

portrait lens

Go to last post
...

try using ND filters on them to cut down the light even more. I know what you mean by having to much light. I have alien bees and they make ND filters for their lights and it's helpful. only thing is some lights loose functionality and you may not be able to use your softboxes... just depends on the light.

Just curious... do you really need that wide in a studio setting?

--

 
Eric Lamont said:
I found the 100mm macro to be very slow
focusing and ended up selling it but it IS a good lens.
Click to expand...
You probably had the old version, which lacked in the AF department, this is at least what I have heard.

If you buy a new 100mm/f2.8, AF will be as good as with any other decent EF lenses.
 
astefot said:
astefot said:
I found the 100mm macro to be very slow
focusing and ended up selling it but it IS a good lens.
Click to expand...
You probably had the old version, which lacked in the AF
department, this is at least what I have heard.
If you buy a new 100mm/f2.8, AF will be as good as with any other
decent EF lenses
Click to expand...
On the 100mm/f2.8, you can limit the minimum focusing distance to 0.48m (up from 0.38m). These ten centimeters sound lousy, but can actually make a substantial difference when not wanting to shoot close to 1:1 magnification. For portraits, 0.48m with a 100mm is already darn close (use the calculator that I mentioned further up in this thread to calculate the magnification).
 
That Canon makes is the 85 1.2L - No need for VII for portraits. Amazing, especially on a 5D. Better than the 70-200 by far for portraits, plus it will give you shots in near darkness if ever needed. Out of all Nikon or Canon lenses I have owned, it is my favorite.
 
I agree. The 85mm is lovely in a 5d. And the 1.8 is much lighter on your wallet than the 1.2 so if you don't need the extra stop, you can pick the 1.8 version.

=)

--
-Steph!
http://www.pbase.com/bunnylady
'Shine! Show 'em what you've got, let them wish that they were not
On the outside lookin' bored!'
 
I bought the brand new version from B&H. In the studio with modelling lights only the 100mm macro was slow to focus and often hunted in and out and in and out. On the other hand, my 70-200 f/2.8, the 50mm f/1.4, the 17-40 f/4, and the 85 f/1.8 (when I had one) all have the ability to lock focus FAST, without hunting, and in even lower light.

This was all with the 1DmkII, by the way.

Outside in daylight it had no problems focusing, but I wouldnt say the speed was on par with the 70-200, for example.

YMMV.
astefot said:
astefot said:
I found the 100mm macro to be very slow
focusing and ended up selling it but it IS a good lens.
Click to expand...
You probably had the old version, which lacked in the AF
department, this is at least what I have heard.
If you buy a new 100mm/f2.8, AF will be as good as with any other
decent EF lenses.
Click to expand...
--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell
 
I bought the newer, USM version, new from B&H.
Eric Lamont said:
This was all with the 1DmkII, by the way.

Outside in daylight it had no problems focusing, but I wouldnt say
the speed was on par with the 70-200, for example.

YMMV.
astefot said:
Eric Lamont said:
I found the 100mm macro to be very slow
focusing and ended up selling it but it IS a good lens.
Click to expand...
You probably had the old version, which lacked in the AF
department, this is at least what I have heard.
If you buy a new 100mm/f2.8, AF will be as good as with any other
decent EF lenses.
Click to expand...
--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of
scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell
Click to expand...
--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell
 
As someone else mentioned in this thread (astefot, in the post with the subject "AF..."), if you limit the minimum focusing distance, the autofocus will work a LOT faster. Macro lenses have a huge focusing range, so limiting it helps the focusing speed greatly.

For portraits, I really like the 100mm f/2, so if you still don't like the 2.8 macro lens, the f/2 is one stop faster anyway--a good thing for portraits done with available light or in which you're trying to freeze motion. Best wishes!

Victor
graphicaldeb said:
and i'm having the same problem -- VERY slow. i'm considering
returning it. tell me what you think (i posted this in another
thread but in case you don't look...)

http://www.graphicaldeb.com/portraits/
Click to expand...
 
vor said:
For portraits, I really like the 100mm f/2, so if you still don't
like the 2.8 macro lens, the f/2 is one stop faster anyway--a good
thing for portraits done with available light or in which you're
trying to freeze motion. Best wishes!
Click to expand...
Another thing I like about the 100mm f/2 is that it's compatible with E-TTL II by sending distance information to the flash (if you're using an EX Speedlite and your camera is compatible). And, it's not an L-series lens, which means it's relatively affordable.

I also wanted to clarify that I like the 100 f/2 for head-and-shoulder portraits. For full-person portraits, or portraits of several people, I'm much more likely to use the 50mm f/1.4. Now this is one fast, sharp lens that is also relatively affordable. So, I'd recommend both this one and the 100 f/2.

I hope this helps!

Victor
 
...listen to any advice people can offer, try different solutions, but dont let them talk you in to keeping it if you just can get it to your satisfaction. I did that with a Sigma 24-70 and now I am pretty much stuck with it since selling it on FM will net me only about $325 when I paid WAY more than that originally since I bought locally. I wish I had returned it the next day.

If you end up returning it, have a go with the 85mm f/1.8 (or the 1.2L, tho I hear you got an ear full on that one), the 135 f/2L, or the 100mm f/2.
graphicaldeb said:
and i'm having the same problem -- VERY slow. i'm considering
returning it. tell me what you think (i posted this in another
thread but in case you don't look...)

http://www.graphicaldeb.com/portraits/

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi
Click to expand...
--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell
 
vor said:
vor said:
For portraits, I really like the 100mm f/2,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I used the 100mm/f2 on fim bodies several years ago. It's definitly a nice lens, although optial performance can't really keep up with the 100mm/f2.8 - but this doesn't say much, in absolute terms, image quality is more than good enough.

The thing which is attractive about the 100mm/f2 is its large beginning aperture and the fact that it is compatible with extenders. On the other hand, I don't consider it a "portrait speicalist" due to its rather large minimum distance of 0.9m. Field of view on a fulls-size body at minimum distance is 0.25m horiziontal and 0.16m vertical. This is good enough for a "tight" facial shot, but otherwise, that's it. When doing portraits, I personally want the flexibility to move in closer (to have one cheek plus eye only (quarter face), for example. Another thing is faces of smaller beings like cats or babies).

But that's just me, it all depends on what you are doing with your equipment. The 100mm/f2 is definitly "suitable" for portraits (probably more "suitable" than any of the 85mm models), but I think this lens only really "shines" in other applications (100mm/f2 + extender make a very fast and compact "tele combo" for traveling).
 
astefot said:
When doing portraits, I
personally want the flexibility to move in closer (to have one
cheek plus eye only (quarter face), for example. Another thing is
faces of smaller beings like cats or babies).
Click to expand...
I understand. That's closer than I like to get to my subjects when doing portraits (I find the perspective too distorted for my taste). For the kind of portraiture you're describing, I'd rather use the 180mm f/3.5L macro lens. This lens would both help me keep my distance from the subject and maintain a flatter perspective. Unfortunately, I can't justify the price of this lens yet. Ah well.

Regards,

Victor
 
the other setting and see how much faster it is. it was just difficult getting eye contact with a squirmy lil monster like my son with a slow AF, lol.

i'll let you know how it goes.
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top