difference in lenses

I want to take portraits and macros and can't decide between these two lenses. The price difference is obvious but what about results:

Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM SLR Lens -58mm- USA
Our Low Price: $469.95

Canon EF 100mm F2.0 USM SLR Lens -58mm- USA
Our Low Price: $389.95

Mike Adams

For any uses that matter... the f2 lens will let you use it at f2, of course, and will be a bit easietr to focus in poorish light.

The f2.8 macro will let you get closer.

But you can buy a closeup lens to screw into the front of the f2 model, too.

The real question is whether you'll want extreme closeups, and there's no easy answer to making a choice.

If you want a 100mm lens because you keep reading about how great they are for portraits, go back to your source material and see what kind of cameras are involved -- if 35mm cameras, and if you have a 20D, 30D, or any Digital Rbel, you need a 60mm f2.8 Canon or 70mm f2.8 Sigma instead of a 100mm lens.

BAK

When I use a 1.6x crop camera I personally like a focal length of 85-100mm for head and shoulders portraits.

Either of the lenses you mentioned should give good results. The f/2 (as was pointed out earlier) will allow you to photograph in lower light levels while the macro (also pointed out earlier) will let you focus more closely. Neither of these attributes are a great advantage in portrait photography.

One factor might make a difference between these two lens and that would be which lens has the better bokeh (general look of out of focus areas). The bokeh is important in portrait photography because usually we want the background out of focus to keep interest on the subject.

Bokeh is usually a factor of the shape and number of blades of the diaphram controlling the aperture. My 90mm Tamron f/2.8 Macro has a beautiful (often described as creamy) bokeh and therefore, it is a great portrait lens.

I don't know which of the two lenses you mentioned has a better bokeh but, if you go to Photosig.com you can look up examples of images shot with either of the above mentioned lenses. Of course, these will not be all portraits but, there might be a sufficient number of portraits to let you make a decision.

Another Canon lens which is excellent for portraits and for low light shooting is the 85mm f/1.8. It is also a bit less expensive than either of the lenses you are considering.
--

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate. I was a Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director, and a Naval Aircrewman. I also had experience in reconaissance and intelligence photography. I have had considerable commercial photo experience in weddings and advertising photography. I am fully retired now although I dabble occasionally in dog portraiture. I presently use Canon DSLR cameras.

Both are great lenses. If you want a macro, the 100mm f/2.8
or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 are great.

As for 100mm versus 60mm, the 100mm will be preferred if you want
a nicer (i.e. longer) working distance from the bug/flower/mushroom
you are taking the macro shot of. The 60mm is a great all-around
focal length on the crop-sensor camera's though.

If you want a portrait lens, the 100 f/2 will suit you better if you
want great bokeh (background blur). The bokeh on macro lenses is
not great on non-close-up shots. The macro lens will, however, be
super sharp in the focus plane -- suuuuuuuuuper sharp.

I have both the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro and the EF 100mm f/2.
Both are great lenses optimized for their intended purpose. I think
both are also great for landscapes. [Not all landscape shots need to
be made with a wide angle lens.]

Here are some sample shots:

60mm macro @ f/2.8



100mm f/2 @ f/2.8



100mm f/2 @ f/2.5



100mm f/2 @ f/5.6

For portrait work a zoom is more versatile. You can adjust the focal length to the situation, indoors or outdoors, head shot or head and torso or full length. Zooms today have very good image quality and low light is not really a factor for either portraits or macro work where you want depth of field. With portraits you are more likely to be at f8, and with macro at f11 or f16 depending upon the lens.

With portraits a lens that has the ability to have excellent edge to edge focus is often a negative. That is why the Canon 135mm soft focus lens exists.

With film cameras favorite indoor lenses were 85mm and 105mm which with a 1.6 crop camera would translate into a 50mm or a 65mm lens. The Canon 24-105mm f4 IS lens is really the best "portrait" lens available from Canon.

With macro photography you need to consider the size of the subjects. If you are focusing on subjects that are under an inch in size then the longer the better and the Canon 180mm macro becomes a good choice.

Another approach to minimize costs and provide portrait and macro capabilities is to get something like the Sigma 17-70 macro lens.

montereyphoto said:

For portrait work a zoom is more versatile.

Click to expand...

i have read that a majority of the phtographers prefer prime lenses (80 1.2/1.8 or 100 2 or 135) for potraits for their bigger aperture.

montereyphoto said:

With portraits you are
more likely to be at f8, and with macro at f11 or f16 depending
upon the lens.

Click to expand...

i almost use the maximum available aperture for the lens (or down by 1 stop) for narrow DOF which gives good background blur. F8 is mostly used for landscapes where everthing will be in focus. For macros, yes F11 or more because at such close distance you might get unbelievably thin DOF.

montereyphoto said:

The Canon 24-105mm f4 IS lens is really the best "portrait" lens
available from Canon.

Click to expand...

who said? Again I have read that the bokeh is bad with this lens.

montereyphoto said:

Another approach to minimize costs and provide portrait and macro
capabilities is to get something like the Sigma 17-70 macro lens.

Click to expand...

and finally not satisfied with both potrait and macro work. I prefer specific lenses for specific purpose, if you try to combine things and expect all in one lens, then be ready to compromise IQ.
--

------------------------------------------------
Ganesh
Canon 400D, 17-55 2.8 IS, kit lens

Thanks everyone for your answers. It was brought up about using

"screw in lenses" How good are they? Where is some good info on how good they work/where to buy and also the cost? Do most canon lenses have the ability to take an screw in lenses?

Mike Adams

mdadams said:

I want to take portraits and macros and can't decide between these
two lenses. The price difference is obvious but what about results:

Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM SLR Lens -58mm- USA
Our Low Price: $469.95

Canon EF 100mm F2.0 USM SLR Lens -58mm- USA
Our Low Price: $389.95

Click to expand...

For head and shoulder portraits with a 30D and 100mm, you need to be about 2m from the subject (45cm vertical field of view in portrait mode). At that distance, f/2.0 will give you a whopping 2.9 cm DOF. So unless you're trying for those shots where the eyes are in focus but the hair is not, or are doing half-body or larger portraits, I would not necessarily count f/2.0 as a plus for portrait work.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

Are you using full frame now or planning to move to it in the future? The 60mm macro is an EF-S lens, so your only macro option below $500 is the 100 f/2.8. (Well, there's the 50mm but that's only 1:2.)

For studio work, portraits are typically taken at f8 or even f11 as the background is a muslin material and you don't need to eliminate the background. In this case a 24-105 or even a 17-85 make a great portrait lens. For available light or outdoor photos were you want shallow depth of filed to blur the background and isolate the subject, a wide aperture lens like a 100 f2 prime is more desirable.