I thinking of replacing my 85/1.8 with a 90/2.8, which I'd use mostly for macro. However, the 85/1.8 was my go-to for all my family portraiture. Any of you with the 90mm use it for portraiture also?
I will say I usually stopped the 85 down a bit, as 1.8 can be rather unforgiving, so a 2.8 portraiture lens wouldn't be a huge step down from what I'm used to.
RoamingScott wrote:
I thinking of replacing my 85/1.8 with a 90/2.8, which I'd use mostly for macro. However, the 85/1.8 was my go-to for all my family portraiture. Any of you with the 90mm use it for portraiture also?
I will say I usually stopped the 85 down a bit, as 1.8 can be rather unforgiving, so a 2.8 portraiture lens wouldn't be a huge step down from what I'm used to.
Hi Scott,
I have no experience with the Sony 90mm Macro lens. Let me just say that Macro lenses as you know are extremely sharp. In particular many women may find that this lens may reveal too many skin imperfections.
It's been a while since I sold it, but at the time I was waiting for a fast 100/135 (this is about 3 years ago) and decided to get the 90mm as a dual-usage (macro/portrait) lens in the meantime. It did exceptionally well.
Most of the other macros I've used (Nikon 60 and 105mm D and G, Tamron 90, Olympus 60, and Tokina 100) are all either very slow to focus, or have not so pleasing bokeh at portrait distances. The Sony focused plenty fast for portraiture and I thought the bokeh was actually really nice too.
I'll see if I can find any example photos but if anyone wants a lens that can pull double duty for macro and portraits they can't go wrong with the 90mm IMO.
Luckily there is only one gal that is ever in front of my camera and she’s the most easy going person on earth the yin to my high strung yang
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Scott,
I have no experience with the Sony 90mm Macro lens. Let me just say that Macro lenses as you know are extremely sharp. In particular many women may find that this lens may reveal too many skin imperfections.
Yes I just use iPhone for portraits Tried with 90mm but people are just not as relaxed with me and a proper camera and results generally more pleasing with iPhone which is designed to take nice portraits above all else
I bought the 90mm macro but haven't used it for any portraits (or for anything). Maybe it works. I mostly use 85mm f1.8 as I don't have the f1.4 version.
RoamingScott wrote:
I thinking of replacing my 85/1.8 with a 90/2.8, which I'd use mostly for macro. However, the 85/1.8 was my go-to for all my family portraiture. Any of you with the 90mm use it for portraiture also?
I will say I usually stopped the 85 down a bit, as 1.8 can be rather unforgiving, so a 2.8 portraiture lens wouldn't be a huge step down from what I'm used to.
Thanks Scott.
I have used my FE 90/2.8 G OSS for portraits.
A negative contrast like -7 in Capture One takes care of little blemishes.
RoamingScott wrote:
... so a 2.8 portraiture lens wouldn't be a huge step down from what I'm used to.
If you prefer portraits with more than one eyelash in focus, then consider the Sony 100 STF GM which has f/4 DOF when wide open. You also get defocus blur which is unrivalled—literally. The STF is designed with a fully-corrected closeup mode that offers 1:4, and can reach 1:2 with a Canon 500D diopter.
rico wrote:
If you prefer portraits with more than one eyelash in focus, then consider the Sony 100 STF GM which has f/4 DOF when wide open. You also get defocus blur which is unrivalled—literally. The STF is designed with a fully-corrected closeup mode that offers 1:4, and can reach 1:2 with a Canon 500D diopter.
I thought the 100 has 2.8 bokeh wide open, but 5.6 light transmission.
RoamingScott wrote:
I saw the EDU deal on the 90 was ending tonight so I snagged that (and threw a 20/1.8 in the cart too for fun)
Honestly I used it for a while and it's actually pretty good for pulling double duty. It's funny, I sold it because even though it was decent as a portrait lens, I wasn't shooting enough macro at the time. Now I'm thinking that I need another lens for macro again!
AGeoJO wrote:
Scott, I thought you sold your Sony gear and switched recently, no?
Consider that Canon jaunt a poorly executed rental There were some dealbreakers for me (details in the R5 thread here on the Sony side if you're interested at all).
I traded right back for another R4/24-105/100-400 and am retooling the rest of my lenses with the leftovers.
Had them both for over a year, have had the 90 for 3 years. The reason I got the 85 was for low light Christmas photos at the time, but before that the 90 was actually my most used lens for almost 2 years, and I have a few lenses. The usual comments you hear concerning the two are indeed relevant in regards to Size benefits and aperture, but these aside, I have shot more portraits with the 90 than! It definitely is sharper, and “cleaner” in my opinion, and when deciding which one to keep, I kept the 90 and sold the 85……….That said, I now have the latest sigma 85 DG DN🤦🏾♂️😂 Couldn’t resist the 1.4, and am glad I purchased both. 👍🏾
RoamingScott wrote:
I thinking of replacing my 85/1.8 with a 90/2.8, which I'd use mostly for macro. However, the 85/1.8 was my go-to for all my family portraiture. Any of you with the 90mm use it for portraiture also?
I will say I usually stopped the 85 down a bit, as 1.8 can be rather unforgiving, so a 2.8 portraiture lens wouldn't be a huge step down from what I'm used to.
Borrowed one from Sony Pro Services. Zero image issues, with lovely (near flawless) rendering. My only issue was it's size, and more importantly *complexity* with all the controls and switches as a run and gun telephoto for on-the-fly *busy* multi-portrait sessions.
the yin to my high strung yang