Portrait or Macro Prime?

[Tiller]

Hey guys, I've been sitting on this question for a while. I'm not getting much closer to an answer so I'll post here.


I want a lens for portraits, mostly outside, but inside as well. The closest I have right now is a 90mm Tamron 52b f/2.5. I bought it for a macro lens, but it doubles as a portrait lens for me. But I'm starting to really miss autofocus. I'm finding that I'm playing around with focus, and I'm missing shots, especially around dusk, when I don't have much time to begin with. I just bought the nifty fifty, but I like the length of the 90 on my 60d.


So I'm thinking about either the 85 1.8 or the 100 macro. I've heard the 100 is ultra sharp, and would also be useful to me for macro.


There is also the option of getting the 70-200 f4 (non-is). I know it can be a good portrait lens, and I may like the versatility. But I'll be giving up that big aperture...


So, all that for this question. If you were me, would you go for the 85 1.8 and stick with the Tamron for macro? Or would you get the 100 macro as kind of an all purpose lens? OR would you go for the 70-200 for the versatility?


Thanks everyone!

 

[Overread]

Macro lenses are good at macro photography, they have a very fine focus control for the close up ranges. The problem is that they offset this against very crude control for focus at further distances; small turns in the focusing wheel result in big shifts in the focus. This makes macro lenses much more hair trigger and tricky to focus at more normal focusing distances.

Of course if you use AF all the time this is less of a problem, although typically the AF on a macro lens (even when using the limiter switch to block out the long close up ranges) is often a touch slower than on a regular lens.

In the end you've already got a macro lens and macro photography is typically done with manual focusing. If you don't really feel a burning need to upgrade the 90mm you have as a macro lens to something better; then I would argue that you should get a normal prime (or zoom lens) for your portrait and other photography.

70-200mm are also something that, on crop sensor, I tend to find too long as a generalist portrait lens unless you are outside all the time (indoors and on crop sensor 70mm is quite long I find).

 

[Tiller]

Thank you Overread. So for outside portraits, would you rather have the 85 1.8 or the 70-200 f4?

 

[LShooter]

Get a 100mm L and you'll have yourself an awesome portrait and macro lens all in one.

 

[cgipson1]

I too would recommend a portrait lens if you really want portraits... a macro lens can do portraits (as can any lens) but as mentioned, the close focus application can cause issues at times. The 85 1.8 would be my first choice... as the larger aperture will come in very useful in low light, and for shallow DOF. The 70-200 would do well under normal light conditions, and the additional length could be useful also (perspective compression, etc...).

Only you know the way you shoot.. and what you shoot. Only you can really make the decision which one fits your shooting style and subject choices best.

 

[Derrel]

Answers #2 and #5 are in my opinion, absolutely spot-on. I've tried using my Tamron 90mm AF-SP (autofocus,macro lens) and my Nikon 60mm 2.8 AF-D (autofocus, macro lens) for portraiture, or had one or both with me as my only choice for spontaneous portrait or candid shooting...and while they will "usually" focus "okay", the reject rate due to missed focus is much,much higher than with a field telephoto or tele-zoom. This May I went to photograph the cherry blossoms down by the waterfront, and took my 90mm AF-SP macro with me instead of my 85/1.8, trying to convince myself it was an acceptable compromise. Well..wouldn't you know it...I had occasion to use the 90 for some candids at about 20 meters...and S.O.B....it missed focus about half the time at that range...just could not absolutely NAIL focus, due to the hair-trigger focusing mechanism at such longer distances.

I've found this to be the issue with every macro lens I have EVER owned; the only exception I have seen is on the new Cosina-manufactured Zeiss ZF and ZE manual focus macro lenses, which have very,very slow focusing ring turns at long distances--much more like a field telephoto than any macro lens that I have ever owned. Your older Tamron is, as I recall, typical of most MF macros...very fine,fine focus control up to 1 meter, then it races to Infinity in just a few degrees' throw, making accurate, repeatable focus at portrait ranges challenging.

Like Charlie said, "Only you know the way you shoot.. and what you shoot. Only you can really make the decision which one fits your shooting style and subject choices best." So, if you occasionally need a fast lens for low-light at festivals, picnics, 4th of July, or for indoor events like school plays, volleyball, basketball, then the 85mm 1.8 is really, and has been for years, a go-to prime choice. It's EASY to hand-hold it, it's small, and it does not draw a lot of attention to you, and people feel pretty 'secure' when an 85/1.8 is aimed their way. A 70-200/4 with IS...I have seen and handled this lens recently; it feels very,very light and well-balanced on the 7D w/o grip. it is however, somewhat big, and light-colored, and so it looks like "a big lens", which in my experience, is not always the best thing.

 

[Tiller]

Ok thanks everyone. I ordered the 85 1.8.

 

[ktan7]

Go with the 85mm for portrait lenses. 100mm are not great portrait lenses.

 

[Big Mike]

100mm are not great portrait lenses.

Really?

Back before crop sensor DSLR cameras were the norm, the most recommended focal length for portraits was 100mm. It's a great balance between being too short/wide and too long.