just a note, some reviewers rate the bokeh of the non-USM Canon 100 macro as higher than the USM macro. If that's one of your concerns, check it out. I have the USM 100 macro and the bokeh for portraiture is, well, it looks like a macro lens. Wiry, busy. At macro distances all lenses have excellent bokeh.
an oddball choice worth looking at is the Tamron 90 macro. Cheap noisy lens but has a unique fingerprint - wet dense colors, sharp of course, but a roundness to the bokeh not often seen in macros. Not f2, but maybe a unique look overcomes that
Exactly, there are many cheaper alternatives that perform better, as well as some more expensive ones. It's not all about resolution, or outresolving the sensor. I'm not going to take over this thread , or get into a tit for tat discussion, about it. BTW, I don't know any experienced macro people that use AF for macro.
pdmphoto wrote:
Exactly, there are many cheaper alternatives that perform better, as well as some more expensive ones. It's not all about resolution, or outresolving the sensor. I'm not going to take over this thread , or get into a tit for tat discussion, about it. BTW, I don't know any experienced macro people that use AF for macro.
Ok, good. BTW, the OP said he wants to use the lens for portraiture, not just macro.
My vote goes to the Tamron 90/2.5 + dedicated 2X tele. I just got one and it has exceeded my expectations, to say the least.
The lens alone does 1:2 very nicely and makes very nice portraits (from what I can tell so far) with very smooth bokeh. Sharp wide open, excellent coatings, 9 blades, all that the OP asked for (except f2). The ability to slap the tele on and go to 180mm f4 1:1 macro is icing on the cake.
Oh, and at these focal lengths, f2.5 (or even f2.8 for that matter) should be shallow enough for just about anything.
The best thing? It is the cheapest of any mentioned so far.
The Tamron 90 macro has been famous for a long time. Of the recent 3rd-party macros, I'm most impressed by images from the Sigma 150/2.8 - frankly astounding bokeh.
Thanks everyone for some very useful suggestions. You have given me a few more alternatives to look at, and helped me concentrate on just a few key things.
First of all, I should say that although I do have 1.6x cropper right now, I am planning to buy a new full frame body when the EOS 5D update comes out. This 100mm lens is being purchased with that in mind.
I should also say that I very much enjoy travel photography (who doesn’t? , and I am the kind of person that likes to take my whole kit on my travels rather than feel I do not have the most appropriate lens with me when I need it for a certain unplanned shot. That means that I do value a lightweight system. I love macro work and shallow depth of field work, so I have simply forgone the usual 2 or 3 “travel zoom” lenses in favour of a few primes in my most used focal lengths. Hence the 24/50/100/200/(400 with TC) setup. I need a single 100mm that does everything I require at 100mm, otherwise I will invariably find I have a perfect shot in front of me which requires the 100mm lens I left at home.
So my problem is that at 100mm I want a fast lens that also focuses close. Canon does not offer such a lens, which is why I am looking elsewhere and asking for opinions on this forum.
I have read reviews about the EF 85/1.8 and 100/2 from Canon, and found that both have pretty nasty CA/purple fringing at wide apertures and neither focuses very close. They both perform verry well when stopped down just a little though. I could add my Kenko extension tubes to either of these, but even with all the tubes attached I would be struggling to achieve anything like 1:1 reproduction. I find working with ETs to be a slower and less satisfying process than simply focusing a macro lens, and would much rather use the tubes to occasionally give me additional extension on top of what I can already achieve with the bare macro lens. So I need a lens that focuses close in the first place, without adding additional ETs or TCs. Canon, Sigma, and Tamron all offer perfectly good 1:1 macro lenses, but they are all f/2.8, an this is just too slow for how I want to use a 100mm lens in the non-macro world. Same goes for the Viogtlander, and the Zeiss 2.8 macros. 100mm is the perfect indoor portrait and museum close-up focal length, so I need a fast maximum aperture to allow hand holding and subject isolation from backgrounds. There will be many circumstances in museums and informal parties when I will not want to use flash, and every stop extra aperture is invaluable to me.
Thanks to the discussions on this thread, I have decided to try to find the Zuiko 90mm f/2 (1:2 semi-macro). If I do not find this by the time the CZ 100mm f/2 is available, and if I have in the meantime managed to save enough money, I will buy that instead (providing the reviews are good). I’ll also look at the Zuiko 100/2 – thanks for that one. I am prepared to be patient and save up for exactly what I want, rather than go through a series of expensive and frustrating upgrades to get what I always knew I wanted in the first place.
Once again, thanks everyone for your help. Honestly, it is greatly appreciated.
Also, if anyone does find an OM Zuiko 90/2, please post here or send me an e-mail. I will keep an eye on KEH. Cheers guys!
, and I am the kind of person that likes to take my whole kit on my travels rather than feel I do not have the most appropriate lens with me when I need it for a certain unplanned shot. That means that I do value a lightweight system. I love macro work and shallow depth of field work, so I have simply forgone the usual 2 or 3 “travel zoom” lenses in favour of a few primes in my most used focal lengths. Hence the 24/50/100/200/(400 with TC) setup. I need a single 100mm that does everything I require at 100mm, otherwise I will invariably find I have a perfect shot in front of me which requires the 100mm lens I left at home.