New Canonian with macro lens questions...

Hi,

Have had my 550D/T2i about a month now and would like to get a lens that would work both as a portrait lens and as a (1:1) macro at the same time. Looking at the Tamron 60 2.2 1:1 macro. Questions:

1. Does it make a good focal length on my 1.6 crop body (96mm) for portraits ?

2. How is the bokeh for portraits ?

3. Does anyone know how many blades it has ?

4. It says it has a "nice working distance of 100mm" . Is 4" a "nice working" distance ?

5. About ow far away would I have to be to fill the frame with a postcard ? Asking because that would be about a large butterfly or dragonfly with room around the edges to crop for standard print sizes.

Thanks in advance,
Sid

Sid in SE Texas said:

Hi,

Have had my 550D/T2i about a month now and would like to get a lens that would work both as a portrait lens and as a (1:1) macro at the same time. Looking at the Tamron 60 2.2 1:1 macro. Questions:

1. Does it make a good focal length on my 1.6 crop body (96mm) for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Good

Sid in SE Texas said:

2. How is the bokeh for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Macro lenses are the epitome of bad bokeh for portraits. There is only one lens that I'm aware of that does good macro and has good portrait bokeh, it costs $2000 used partially for that reason, the Voigtlander 125mm. I checked and the 60mm EF-S is no exception.

Sid in SE Texas said:

3. Does anyone know how many blades it has ?

Click to expand...

7

Sid in SE Texas said:

4. It says it has a "nice working distance of 100mm" . Is 4" a "nice working" distance ?

Click to expand...

4" will give you 1.5x macro, not bad.

Sid in SE Texas said:

5. About ow far away would I have to be to fill the frame with a postcard ? Asking because that would be about a large butterfly or dragonfly with room around the edges to crop for standard print sizes.

Click to expand...

18 inches.

Sid in SE Texas said:

Thanks in advance,
Sid

Click to expand...

Thanks very much for your quick and honest replies. $2000 used, huh ? I am afraid that one will have to wait ... lol.
Thanks,
Sid

Legion5 said:

Sid in SE Texas said:

Hi,

Have had my 550D/T2i about a month now and would like to get a lens that would work both as a portrait lens and as a (1:1) macro at the same time. Looking at the Tamron 60 2.2 1:1 macro. Questions:

1. Does it make a good focal length on my 1.6 crop body (96mm) for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Good

Legion5 said:

2. How is the bokeh for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Macro lenses are the epitome of bad bokeh for portraits. There is only one lens that I'm aware of that does good macro and has good portrait bokeh, it costs $2000 used partially for that reason, the Voigtlander 125mm. I checked and the 60mm EF-S is no exception.

Legion5 said:

3. Does anyone know how many blades it has ?

Click to expand...

7

Legion5 said:

4. It says it has a "nice working distance of 100mm" . Is 4" a "nice working" distance ?

Click to expand...

4" will give you 1.5x macro, not bad.

Click to expand...

This is false.At the minimum working distance(4") this lens is a 1:1 lens.To be clear........"1:1" ....."lifesize" ........."1X" all mean that the lens will cover an area equal to the size of the film or sensor.

Legion5 said:

Legion5 said:

5. About ow far away would I have to be to fill the frame with a postcard ? Asking because that would be about a large butterfly or dragonfly with room around the edges to crop for standard print sizes.

Click to expand...

18 inches.

Legion5 said:

Thanks in advance,
Sid

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The bokeh on this lens is not bad at all and the same is true for the Canon 60mm macro.

aVolanche said:

Legion5 said:

Sid in SE Texas said:

Hi,

Have had my 550D/T2i about a month now and would like to get a lens that would work both as a portrait lens and as a (1:1) macro at the same time. Looking at the Tamron 60 2.2 1:1 macro. Questions:

1. Does it make a good focal length on my 1.6 crop body (96mm) for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Good

aVolanche said:

2. How is the bokeh for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Macro lenses are the epitome of bad bokeh for portraits. There is only one lens that I'm aware of that does good macro and has good portrait bokeh, it costs $2000 used partially for that reason, the Voigtlander 125mm. I checked and the 60mm EF-S is no exception.

aVolanche said:

3. Does anyone know how many blades it has ?

Click to expand...

7

aVolanche said:

4. It says it has a "nice working distance of 100mm" . Is 4" a "nice working" distance ?

Click to expand...

4" will give you 1.5x macro, not bad.

Click to expand...

This is false.At the minimum working distance(4") this lens is a 1:1 lens.To be clear........"1:1" ....."lifesize" ........."1X" all mean that the lens will cover an area equal to the size of the film or sensor.

Click to expand...

Actually you can't even focus the lens less than 9 inches away from the subject, so it would neither be 1x or 1.5x, it's 1x @ 9 inches.

aVolanche said:

aVolanche said:

aVolanche said:

5. About ow far away would I have to be to fill the frame with a postcard ? Asking because that would be about a large butterfly or dragonfly with room around the edges to crop for standard print sizes.

Click to expand...

18 inches.

aVolanche said:

Thanks in advance,
Sid

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The bokeh on this lens is not bad at all and the same is true for the Canon 60mm macro.

Click to expand...

The bokeh on the Canon 60mm macro is even worse... I'd actually prefer this one over the Canon one. This lens has an f/2 aperture so you can achieve greater blur and smooth out some of the harshness pretty well.

OK, so now I'm really confused on two things:

1. Brokeh. ya'll seem to disagree on this ( for portraits ). I was hoping with
f2.0 and with 7 blades that it was alright.

2. The minimum working distance I have found in some text to be 9.1 " ,
and yet here is what I find on the "bay" in their text:

Long Working Distance : The working distance of the lens is 100mm which should help the photographer stand a comfortable distance away from the subject to prevent, for example, scaring away a shy bug he or she is photographing. The long working distance of this 60mm Macro is also designed to prevent capturing the shadow of the lens barrel.

Ya'll see that ? 100mm. That is like 3.93" .... what are they talking about ?

Thanks,
Sid

The minimum focusing distance is 9", but the working distance is about 4 inches. This means that the camera sensor will be 9" away from the subject at the closest focusing distance (I.e., maximum magnification), but the distance between the front of the lens and the subject will be about 4". At this distance, maximum magnification is 1:1 (consistent with Avolanche's explanation).

I believe the confusion is between the meaning of the terms minimum focusing distance and working distance. Working distance is the far more relevant measure for macro work.

Regarding bokeh, given the wide aperture of the lens, I would imagine it would be pretty good. Maybe someone who owns it can provide samples?

I would suggest reviewing a few sample portraits to evaluate this aspect of the lens, as bokeh tends to be rather subjective anyways.

Hope this helps.

Re "bokeh" (btw: I hate that word!)

"Bokeh" is all a matter of taste: one loves it, another hates it. Because it is a matter of individual taste, nobody will be able to give any impatrial advice.
Find out what appeals to you the most, and stick with that!

Sid in SE Texas said:

OK, so now I'm really confused on two things:

1. Brokeh. ya'll seem to disagree on this ( for portraits ). I was hoping with
f2.0 and with 7 blades that it was alright.

Click to expand...

Bokeh has to do with many factors, the biggest ones are:

• Numbers of Blades
• Aperture
• Spherical Aberration Correction

Virtually all dedicated Macro lenses tend to have spherical aberration correction which prevents good "portrait bokeh" from being acheived, simply due to their optical design.

A lens can have the fastest aperture technology will allow and a perfectly circular aperture but if it has issues with spherical aberration correction the bokeh will have issues. Experts like Ken Rockwell often talk specifically about spherical aberration correction with relation to good bokeh because it is pretty much as important as the other two. There are even special lenses that are actually made so you can modify spherical correction to your liking, this is Nikkon's Defocus Control line of portrait lenses.

In macro situations a Macro lens without ideal portrait bokeh will probably look stunning because the optical characteristics change when focus is shifted to macro distances.

The bokeh by no means will look like a train wreck with the Tamron you're intersted in, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't expect classical portrait bokeh. In the above post I mentioned the Tamron would do well compared to the Canon for bokeh, in fact the Tamron 60mm f/2 is a good bet if you want bokeh and good Macro around $500.

Sid in SE Texas said:

2. The minimum working distance I have found in some text to be 9.1 " ,
and yet here is what I find on the "bay" in their text:

Long Working Distance : The working distance of the lens is 100mm which should help the photographer stand a comfortable distance away from the subject to prevent, for example, scaring away a shy bug he or she is photographing. The long working distance of this 60mm Macro is also designed to prevent capturing the shadow of the lens barrel.

Ya'll see that ? 100mm. That is like 3.93" .... what are they talking about ?

Thanks,
Sid

Click to expand...

The post two above this one explained it well.

Legion5 said:

Sid in SE Texas said:

OK, so now I'm really confused on two things:

1. Brokeh. ya'll seem to disagree on this ( for portraits ). I was hoping with
f2.0 and with 7 blades that it was alright.

Click to expand...

Bokeh has to do with many factors, the biggest ones are:

• Numbers of Blades
• Aperture
• Spherical Aberration Correction

Virtually all dedicated Macro lenses tend to have spherical aberration correction which prevents good "portrait bokeh" from being acheived, simply due to their optical design.

Click to expand...

Nonsense... There ane many types of macro lenses, with many types of bokeh, just like many other lenses. But good bokeh is subjective, you can't quantify it - some people like it in one way, others in another way. Only real solution is to try the lens in actual use.

Legion5 said:

A lens can have the fastest aperture technology will allow and a perfectly circular aperture but if it has issues with spherical aberration correction the bokeh will have issues. Experts like Ken Rockwell often talk specifically about spherical aberration correction with relation to good bokeh because it is pretty much as important as the other two. There are even special lenses that are actually made so you can modify spherical correction to your liking, this is Nikkon's Defocus Control line of portrait lenses.

Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell an expert? Ok... But I like his site, despite his sometimes funny comments.

Legion5 said:

In macro situations a Macro lens without ideal portrait bokeh will probably look stunning because the optical characteristics change when focus is shifted to macro distances.

The bokeh by no means will look like a train wreck with the Tamron you're intersted in, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't expect classical portrait bokeh. In the above post I mentioned the Tamron would do well compared to the Canon for bokeh, in fact the Tamron 60mm f/2 is a good bet if you want bokeh and good Macro around $500.

Click to expand...

But you stated "the epitome of bad bokeh for portraits"? Isn't that the same as a "train wreck"? No wonder the OP is confused.

To the OP: Of course you can use the macro lens for portraits. It will not give the same smooth background as a larger aperture lens, but none the less will be prefectly usable.

--

• Jan

Sid in SE Texas said:

OK, so now I'm really confused on two things:

1. Brokeh. ya'll seem to disagree on this ( for portraits ). I was hoping with
f2.0 and with 7 blades that it was alright.

Click to expand...

It is.

Sid in SE Texas said:

2. The minimum working distance I have found in some text to be 9.1 " ,
and yet here is what I find on the "bay" in their text:

Long Working Distance : The working distance of the lens is 100mm which should help the photographer stand a comfortable distance away from the subject to prevent, for example, scaring away a shy bug he or she is photographing. The long working distance of this 60mm Macro is also designed to prevent capturing the shadow of the lens barrel.

Ya'll see that ? 100mm. That is like 3.93" .... what are they talking about ?

Thanks,
Sid

Click to expand...

Working distance is measured from the front of the lens. Focus distance is measured from the sensor plane. But for macro lenses working distance is more relevant because a short working distance will make lighting difficult, and might scare subjects away.

Don't believe Legion5's nonsense about bokeh. And the lens can't give more than 1:1 magnification, not 1.5x macro as he stated.

The Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 is a dream lens - I got one of the last with Canon mount as new. Now there are only used copies for sale. And it has good bokeh (in my eyes), but so has many other lenses, including macro lenses.

--

• Jan

I don't think it will be easy to shoot dragonflies or butterflies with the 60mm macro lens unless they are drugged. They are typically too skittish. A better lens for this application would be the 300mm f/4l shooting from around five or six feet, or even the Canon 55-250mm.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

google "macro lens portrait" and you will find nice articles.

Most macro lenses are known to have very nice bokeh. Just read some reviews and look at forums about macro shooting, Fred Miranda's site for instance.

IMO the range 90-100mm is the best choice if you are going to use it for serious macro photographe because of the working distance.

If portraits are your goal I would prefer the 50-60 mm range because this will give the most used portrait range which is 70 - 135 mm FF.

If you decide not to buy a macro lens then the 85mm/F1.8 is a bargain for such a top lens.

Difficult to choose? Well consider it's just a kind of foreplay, it has to be done

Happy shooting, Chris

60mm macro on 1.6-factor, or 100mm macro on FF, is in my experience not ideal for most butterflies and dragonflies, although there are exceptions – you can almost touch Painted Lady butterflies in late summer before they will fly off their flowers. 100mm on 1.6-factor is much better, although often still not long enough, whereas for some other types of close-up work it is too long, so there's no single all-purpose answer.

Incidentally, PZ judges the bokeh of the EF-S 60/2.8 to be "decent", and I have certainly found nothing to complain about when using mine. Plenty of positive comments have been made on forums about its use as a portrait lens. Of the new EF 100/2.8L IS macro, PZ says that in respect of bokeh it "truly shines ... It's one of the best lenses in this respect we've seen so far." Believe who you will. I'm certainly very happy with my 100/2.8IS.

The focal length is excellent for portraits and the working distance isn't shabby either.

The only problem is that macro lenses are not, in my view, good for portraits. I should qualify this statement - it depends on the person being photographed.

I have a 50 mm Sigma macro lens and it is excellent. That said, my wife hates any photograph I have taken of her with this lens. Macro lenses will reveal every pore in the skin, blemish, and wrinkle.

If the subject is young with good skin - a macro lens will do the job. If a baby, it will give you nice details on all the dribble on the chin.

If the subject is older, or has a poor complexion, then you will have to spend lots of time learning PhotoShop. That is why soft focus lenses were made.

Personally, I'd rather use my 35f2 or 85f1.8 for portraits. If I were buying a lens for just this purpose, a 50f1.4 would be ideal. Depending on lighting, even the 35f2 can be too sharp wide open. My wife likes photos with strong backlighting - it works wonders for rendering skin.

Legion5 said:

aVolanche said:

Legion5 said:

Sid in SE Texas said:

Hi,

Have had my 550D/T2i about a month now and would like to get a lens that would work both as a portrait lens and as a (1:1) macro at the same time. Looking at the Tamron 60 2.2 1:1 macro. Questions:

1. Does it make a good focal length on my 1.6 crop body (96mm) for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Good

Legion5 said:

2. How is the bokeh for portraits ?

Click to expand...

Macro lenses are the epitome of bad bokeh for portraits. There is only one lens that I'm aware of that does good macro and has good portrait bokeh, it costs $2000 used partially for that reason, the Voigtlander 125mm. I checked and the 60mm EF-S is no exception.

Legion5 said:

3. Does anyone know how many blades it has ?

Click to expand...

7

Legion5 said:

4. It says it has a "nice working distance of 100mm" . Is 4" a "nice working" distance ?

Click to expand...

4" will give you 1.5x macro, not bad.

Click to expand...

This is false.At the minimum working distance(4") this lens is a 1:1 lens.To be clear........"1:1" ....."lifesize" ........."1X" all mean that the lens will cover an area equal to the size of the film or sensor.

Click to expand...

Actually you can't even focus the lens less than 9 inches away from the subject, so it would neither be 1x or 1.5x, it's 1x @ 9 inches.

Legion5 said:

Legion5 said:

Legion5 said:

5. About ow far away would I have to be to fill the frame with a postcard ? Asking because that would be about a large butterfly or dragonfly with room around the edges to crop for standard print sizes.

Click to expand...

18 inches.

Legion5 said:

Thanks in advance,
Sid

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The bokeh on this lens is not bad at all and the same is true for the Canon 60mm macro.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Legion5 said:

The bokeh on the Canon 60mm macro is even worse... I'd actually prefer this one over the Canon one. This lens has an f/2 aperture so you can achieve greater blur and smooth out some of the harshness pretty well.

Click to expand...

Once again,Legion5...You have no clue about this !The Tamron 60mm macro has a maximum magnification of 1x .It cannot do 1.5x.You are wrong.

If you had a clue,you would realize that the .23meter (minimum focus distance is .23 x 39.37"=9.06").That distance is from the subject to sensor just as JanM & Dianoda said.

The minimum working distance is 100mm (3.94") just as JanM/Dianoda and I said.That is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject.At the MWD the magnification is 1:1.It cannot be greater than 1:1.For you to not know the difference in 1x and 1.5x is pretty funny,especially when all (1 exception in common use the Canon MP-E 65) of the commonly used macro lenses max out at 1x.

I've included a link from dpreview so you can see how you again gave false information to someone who is contemplating an expensive purchase. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032401tamron60macro.asp

Of course,you will act like you already knew this.As we all know how difficult it is for you to admit that you are ..again.......just plain wrong .Sorry to come off so strongly about this,but your reactions to being called out yesterday and your recent namecalling warrants it.

Fred

aVolanche said:

Once again,Legion5...You have no clue about this !The Tamron 60mm macro has a maximum magnification of 1x .It cannot do 1.5x.You are wrong.

If you had a clue,you would realize that the .23meter (minimum focus distance is .23 x 39.37"=9.06").That distance is from the subject to sensor just as JanM & Dianoda said.

The minimum working distance is 100mm (3.94") just as JanM/Dianoda and I said.That is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject.At the MWD the magnification is 1:1.It cannot be greater than 1:1.For you to not know the difference in 1x and 1.5x is pretty funny,especially when all (1 exception in common use the Canon MP-E 65) of the commonly used macro lenses max out at 1x.

I've included a link from dpreview so you can see how you again gave false information to someone who is contemplating an expensive purchase. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032401tamron60macro.asp

Of course,you will act like you already knew this.As we all know how difficult it is for you to admit that you are ..again.......just plain wrong .Sorry to come off so strongly about this,but your reactions to being called out yesterday and your recent namecalling warrants it.

Fred

Click to expand...

I highly doubt it helps, but you never know... You can't deny that Legion5 is entertaining, but it really annoys me that his false informations and ridiculous postulations are taken as expert advice by newcomers in here - that is a pity.

Cute lens, if I was in the APS-C size I would seriously consider it. Tamron has a very good history of making macro lenses. I recently purchased an old Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 macro to my adaptall-2 collection, but haven't had time to really test it yet.

--

• Jan

Jan Madsen said:

Sid in SE Texas said:

OK, so now I'm really confused on two things:

1. Brokeh. ya'll seem to disagree on this ( for portraits ). I was hoping with
f2.0 and with 7 blades that it was alright.

Click to expand...

It is.

Jan Madsen said:

2. The minimum working distance I have found in some text to be 9.1 " ,
and yet here is what I find on the "bay" in their text:

Long Working Distance : The working distance of the lens is 100mm which should help the photographer stand a comfortable distance away from the subject to prevent, for example, scaring away a shy bug he or she is photographing. The long working distance of this 60mm Macro is also designed to prevent capturing the shadow of the lens barrel.

Ya'll see that ? 100mm. That is like 3.93" .... what are they talking about ?

Thanks,
Sid

Click to expand...

Working distance is measured from the front of the lens. Focus distance is measured from the sensor plane. But for macro lenses working distance is more relevant because a short working distance will make lighting difficult, and might scare subjects away.

Don't believe Legion5's nonsense about bokeh. And the lens can't give more than 1:1 magnification, not 1.5x macro as he stated.

The Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 is a dream lens - I got one of the last with Canon mount as new. Now there are only used copies for sale. And it has good bokeh (in my eyes), but so has many other lenses, including macro lenses.

--

• Jan

Click to expand...

Sid,

I'll add a bit to Jan's excellent post.
MWD="minimum working distance"-front of lens to subject=4" on the Tamron 60mm.
MFD="minimum focus distance"-sensor to subjest=0.23meters=9".

MWD Canon 60mm=3.5" MFD Canon 60mm=7.9"
MWD Canon 100mm=6.0" MFD Canon 100mm=12"
MWD Canon 180mm=19.2" MWD Canon 180mm=9.5"

As you can see,longer focal length means more distance from the front of the lens and from the camera sensor to the subject(and it moves you further away-helps to not cast shadows on the subject or get stung,etc.)........Obviously this is good when shooting insects that may be skittish.

But the 60mm lens works fine in many cases as many insects are not skittish.Plus,as you shoot larger subjects(like butterflies) you move further away to be able to keep the subject in the frame.

The 60mm (Tamron) is internal focus so it does not extend.This allows you to use the cameras onboard flash.The lens is lightweight which makes hand-holding easier.

There are advantages and disadvantages to 60mm vs longer.The bokeh is not an issue for me with the Canon 60mm macro.The Tamron appears to be better with bokeh than the Canon 60mm.

Jan Madsen said:

aVolanche said:

Once again,Legion5...You have no clue about this !The Tamron 60mm macro has a maximum magnification of 1x .It cannot do 1.5x.You are wrong.

If you had a clue,you would realize that the .23meter (minimum focus distance is .23 x 39.37"=9.06").That distance is from the subject to sensor just as JanM & Dianoda said.

The minimum working distance is 100mm (3.94") just as JanM/Dianoda and I said.That is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject.At the MWD the magnification is 1:1.It cannot be greater than 1:1.For you to not know the difference in 1x and 1.5x is pretty funny,especially when all (1 exception in common use the Canon MP-E 65) of the commonly used macro lenses max out at 1x.

I've included a link from dpreview so you can see how you again gave false information to someone who is contemplating an expensive purchase. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032401tamron60macro.asp

Of course,you will act like you already knew this.As we all know how difficult it is for you to admit that you are ..again.......just plain wrong .Sorry to come off so strongly about this,but your reactions to being called out yesterday and your recent namecalling warrants it.

Fred

Click to expand...

I highly doubt it helps, but you never know... You can't deny that Legion5 is entertaining, but it really annoys me that his false informations and ridiculous postulations are taken as expert advice by newcomers in here - that is a pity.

Cute lens, if I was in the APS-C size I would seriously consider it. Tamron has a very good history of making macro lenses. I recently purchased an old Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 macro to my adaptall-2 collection, but haven't had time to really test it yet.

--

• Jan

Click to expand...

I bought the Canon 60mm macro for my wife,even though I preferred the 100mm or longer for MWD.All these lenses are so close optically!My wife is very petite and handholds when shooting macro,so the 60mm fits her well.It's a nice portrait length for APS-C,though we use it as a macro almost exclusively.For $300 used it's a bargain.

The Tamron 90mm is the sharpest macro I have used(the newest version),but I have read that the SP f2.5 is just as good.We considered the 90mm,but it's MWD is only 0.4" more than the Canon and the lens extends which keeps her from being able to use onboard flash easily.It's only a couple of ounces heavier,too.If I was really serious about macro,it would have to be the MP E 65 Canon.......but that entails a lot more than simply shooting handheld!The magnification is amazing.

Fred

Now there are all sort of software filters to do the job.

I assume soft focus lenses are used by "specialists" as they are not as vesatile as normal or macro primes.
Just my thoughts, no "evidence"