Question about "true" macro lens

[Robin Usagani]

So theoratically, what happens when you use a true macro lens (the one that will fill the frame 1:1 or larger) for portraits? I know these lenses have very small minimum focus distance. Can someone explain it to this noob? :lmao:

 

[Markw]

They have a very small MFD, but they also work as a regular 2.8 lens (most macros are 2.8, besides the 180mm and older models). Ive shot many portraits with my 105mm macro. This was a series of a family members daughter shot with my 105mm macro. Sorry for the content. I can blur it out if someone is offended.

Mark

EDIT: Sorru, link issues. Ill get it up in about 2 mins.

 

[Markw]

All of those were taken with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG macro.

Mark

 

[Big Mike]

Most Macro lenses are very similar to 'regular' lenses, they just have a shorter Minimum Focus Distance (MFD)...which allows you to get closer to the subject while still being able to focus. They can still focus out at normal distances, and thus can be use for portraits or anything else.

There are exceptions, the Canon 65mm MP-E for example. It's a macro only lens, and can get you up to 5X magnification.

 

[rufus5150]

The MPE-65 has no infinity focus and indeed, no focus ring at all.

The rest of them work perfectly fine. You'll find the AF kinda slow sometimes if it has to hunt over the entire range, but newer ones like canon's 100mm L you can limit the MFD when you're using it for other-than-macro shooting.

In short -- nothing. They're wonderfully sharp lenses and frequently a great length for portrait shooting.

 

[misstwinklytoes]

Oh, kids!

 

[gardy90]

off topic but the expression in #2 is classic haha

 

[Robin Usagani]

Thanks! My Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG has MACRO on it... I wish they have rules when you can consider something "macro" lens.

So most macro lenses are prime lenses arent they? So you are really paying for the engineering of the really small minimum focus distance. So theoratically a faster prime lens is a better buy if you are not really using it for macro because it is a lot faster? (ie. f/1.4, 1.8)

 

[pgriz]

Ok, here's a dissenting opinion. Good macro lenses are SHARP. Focus it properly and it will reveal every mole, every chin hair, every crease, and every pore. Some people may not want their portrait to reveal all that. And doing PP with every portrait to tone down the detail may seem like a waste of good lens resources. I love my macro lens, but for flattering portraits, somewhat less accurate renditions may be a better choice.

 

[Robin Usagani]

stupid photos were blocked by my work puter.. darn.. i just checked it on my iphone.. thats freaking funny!

 

[Robin Usagani]

Thats only because you shoot it very close correct? I mean if you go back a little and use it to take a head shot, I am not sure if it will perform any better than regular lens with the details.

Ok, here's a dissenting opinion. Good macro lenses are SHARP. Focus it properly and it will reveal every mole, every chin hair, every crease, and every pore. Some people may not want their portrait to reveal all that. And doing PP with every portrait to tone down the detail may seem like a waste of good lens resources. I love my macro lens, but for flattering portraits, somewhat less accurate renditions may be a better choice.

 

[Markw]

No, macro lenses are just sharp. Thats how theyre built. Theyre sharp in all applications if there is no user error. There is a line that says what can be called macro. Macro is a term that can only be used when a particular lens can focus closer than most lenses could with the same focal distance, and such. Yes, a faster prime lens is a better buy if you do not need macro. The main thing here is the focus speed, not so much the aperture. The focus on most primes, especially fast primes, is extremely fast and accurate. With Macro lenses, the focus is generally extremely slow and noisy because of all the extra distance it has to cover. My sigma 105 is ridiculously slow and noisy in anything less than alright lighting conditions. I cant say anything about Canon macro lenses, though. Ive never shot with them. For portraits, where you want at least the whole face in frame, you wont need a macro lens. Ive actually found that the longer primes work very, very well for portraits. This way, you can still have the build and optical quality of a prime lens, fast and accurate focus, isolation if you do please, and be more than 12" away from your subject as to not make them any more uncomfortable than they already are.

Mark

 

[astroskeptic]

Ok, here's a dissenting opinion. Good macro lenses are SHARP. Focus it properly and it will reveal every mole, every chin hair, every crease, and every pore. Some people may not want their portrait to reveal all that. And doing PP with every portrait to tone down the detail may seem like a waste of good lens resources. I love my macro lens, but for flattering portraits, somewhat less accurate renditions may be a better choice.

Huh?

Sharpness is an engineering goal of all lens designers (I hope). The only place to intentionally add blur is in PP for photo-specific reasons and in the sensor's filter for anti-aliasing reasons. My Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro can see hair detail if I get in close, but for portrait distances, the results are similar to my other lenses.

Edit: You may be confounding sharpness with the effects of image scale. Hairs may look more sharp in macro versus portrait simply because of image scale: the circle of confusion represents a smaller percentage of the feature's size the bigger the feature is in the shot.

 

[pgriz]

How much sharpness you want in a picture does depend on your subject. If you're shooting smooth-skinned babes then the sharpness isn't getting in the way. If you're shooting older folk, well, there's such a thing as too much sharpness. A good macro lens is sharp as a good prime lens, and I'm not argueing that point. Just that sharpness in itself is not always a desirable thing for some situations. There is a reason why wrinkle creams (and a bunch more of "age-reversing" creams/lotions/potions) sell so well..

As for autofocus on a macro lens, some lenses have a limit switch that restrict the autofocus to the "normal" range (infinity to about 3 ft.). However, when focussing is truly critical, I rely on manual focusing.

 

[benlonghair]

Sharpness is an engineering goal of all lens designers (I hope). The only place to intentionally add blur is in PP for photo-specific reasons and in the sensor's filter for anti-aliasing reasons.

Not always. There's a Nikkor 105 f/2 and a 135 f/2 that have "defocus control" which allows the user to set the softness of the foreground and background.

I know next to nothing about them other than they exist. Maybe somebody that's used one can elaborate.

EDIT: Here's an article about how it works plus photographic examples.