Terra Australis Loc: Australia

But that is not what you said is it? You gave the poster the impression that working distance for a portrait was the same regardless of sensor size.

amehta Loc: Boston

Ok, let us first agree on a definition: WD is simply the distance from the objective lens to the subject.

Now to the question of portraits, and your suggestion that "Working Distance often determines the best focal length of a portrait lens." The focal lengths you suggest, based on approximate WD ("small studio" ) do depend on the sensor, and your suggestions are "35mm equivalents". For the T3, 60mm corresponds to your 100mm suggestion for indoor portraits.

I wouldn't belabor the issue, except it speaks directly to the question asked, which macro lens to get, since both 60mm and 100mm lenses are available.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

First of all, I never posted the term "35mm equivalents". You brought-up the subject.

Second, I have posted hundreds of photographs on UHH, the vast majority are macros at MFD, or quite close. I looked for your photographs on UHH, but found zero: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user_profile.jsp?usernum=40118

OP asked about macro lens used also for portraiture. Based on my personal experience with macro lenses, I stand by my recommendation made here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-171666-1.html#2901046

amehta Loc: Boston

Just so there is no confusion, when you say this:



Do the lens quality you mention ("too long for a small studio", "too close to subject for comfort" ) depend on sensor size or not when discussing these focal lengths of lenses for portrait work? If they do depend on the sensor, were you already accounting for the APS-C sensor of the T3? If they do not depend on sensor size, I would really appreciate if you could elaborate on your thinking.

Yes, it's true, I have not started any topics showing my pictures. I have also been here about 27 days. You have been here about 27 months. But that has nothing to do with this, because I wasn't questioning the 100mm recommendation, I was simply asking you to clarify the context. Meanwhile, the link to my profile does not say whether I have posted any pictures or not, it only says that I haven't started any topics.

But, in case anyone is wondering if I can actually take a picture, here is one.

Portrait of a friend, D800, 300mm

ASR666 Loc: Singapore

i'd echo Cotondog ... the EF 100 mm f2.8 maco is also great for portraits

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

If you are looking for a top macro lens for not too much money, you can't do better than a Tokina 100mm macro. I have tested it alongside Nikons and Sigmas and it is as sharp or sharper. Not many out there for sale as people who have them hold on to them. While macro lenses are fine for portraits in that they are usually in the best range (slight telephoto), they are sharp and do you really want to be able to count someone's nose hairs? A lot of photographers use a softening filter on lenses so portraits aren't razor sharp. Sometimes you may want a really sharp photo if someone has perfect skin -- like a baby's, but if you are looking to get really sharp images of all your portrait subjects, you may be disappointed with some of the results.

DavidT Loc: Maryland

Almost all macro lenses are fine for portraits. The only exception would be the Canon MP-E 65mm lens.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Okay, I will try to make some sense here.

For portraiture, one of the more important things is how far from your subject you position the camera. In general, if you stand about 8 feet or so in front of your subject, the proportional distances from camera-to-nose and camera-to-ear make for what comes out as a pleasing image.

So if you set up 8 feet from the subject, no matter WHAT lens you use you will get that pleasing perspective. I know that sounds crazy at first, but read on…

Now imagine in my little experiment above that you use a super-wide angle lens, a "normal" lens and a moderate telephoto lens. For your camera, given the crop factor, that might be a 20MM lens, a 35MM lens and a 50-60MM lens. If you enlarge the shots from the 20 and the 35 so the subject's face fills the frame to the same degree it does with the 50MM, the images will all be identical. Same DOF (if you use the same aperture), same overall look, etc. Identical - it bears repeating. If one were to have an infinite-resolution camera that would allow for any amount of enlargement without loss of visual detail then there would be no need for different lenses… birders would shoot wide angle lenses and simply crop the photo down to what would otherwise been viewed by a 800MM tele!

Anyway, back on topic… so the appropriate "working distance" for portraiture work is generally considered to be about 8 feet from the subject. Ergo, the next issue is how best to fill the frame of the camera with just the subject's head and shoulders (I assume you are inquiring here about classic portraiture; obviously the artfully inclined have done portraits with super-tele and ultra wide lenses to get different effects on purpose). In the land of 35MM film cameras, pros generally migrated towards the 85-135MM focal length (note Nikon's 2 portrait-specific Defocus Control lenses are 105MM and 135MM). So with your camera's crop factor the 50MM (same angle of view as an 80MM lens has on full frame) could be just the thing. Or the 60MM. The 100MM lens might require you to step a little too far back to get the desired head-and-shoulder composition, but could work if you don't have a cramped studio.

One thing about using macro lenses for facial portraits might be the lens being TOO sharp - this has been a complaint historically over the years - in that the lens' ability to capture every defect and every pore in the subject's face might make for less-than-pleasing results. Of course, you can always run the image through Portrait Professional or similar software to reduce that issue.

Now, back to the "use any lens" comment above. Let's say the only lens you had is the 14MM super-wide lens (approx 22MM equivalent). Well, if you stand back at 8 feet away and shoot, then crop down the image to just fill the frame with head and shoulders, the image will be identical to having used the 60MM lens (other than for resolution issues). BUT - if you walk up to the subject such that you can fill the farm with her head and shoulders, you will probably be standing only a foot or so away. And here's where the perspective thing kicks in:

When you are at 8 feet distance from the tip of her nose, the distance to the back of her ear would be about 8-1/2 feet, right? So the ratio of those distances is, well, whatever. But when you stand 1 foot from the tip of her nose (again, filling the frame with head and shoulders only to match the composition of the first shot) the distance from nose to camera is one foot, but from nose to ear is 1-1/2 feet - and THAT is what makes for the 'distortion' people perceive with wide angle lenses. It has nothing to do with focal length per se - it has only to do with how far you are from the subject.

So - in order to maintain a good distance from your subject; not "invade their personal space" and have that pleasing perspective ratio, AND fill the frame with the head and shoulders shot you might be looking for, something in the arena of a short tele pens would be most appropriate.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

I use the Canon 100mm Macro on my 6D and 7D for portraits almost exclusively.

Jtrim Loc: Elmira Heights, NY

The 100mm 2.8L canon lens is a winner hands down!

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Macro has always interested me. I have a friend that had both a 60 and 100 non L. I used them both. I liked the 100 the best because as Douglas stated the min focus distance. You just had to get to close.

I always have a wish list/shopping list. A 100 Mac non L showed up used at a ridiculously low price. I find that it can be used for everything from it's intended use (Macro), portraits, to landscapes. These are not just my ideas, but have been published. It is such a great portrait lens that I have put off buy an 85 mm at this time.

Lots of great 3rd. party macro available also. J. R.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i don't know if these are still made, but the Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 is a fine lens and is generally acknowledged to be one of the best.
i've used 50, 60 and 100mm macro lenses on my 35mm cameras and i do tend to like the 60mm macro for portraiture. if i'm a little too far back from the person i'm photographing, i just move forward a little.
i do hope you are successful in finding that perfect macro lens for your use. they are really special lenses and great for portraiture.

cweisel Loc: Arizona

:thumbup:

Peekayoh Loc: UK

You can use a macro lens but there are better choices around. In general Macro lenses ..
have a small maximum aperture
are slow to focus
perform best at close distances (probably doen't matter that much)
rate high for micro contrast
poor for Bokeh

In general, those things are not what makes a good Portrait lens. If all you have is a macro lens .......

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

yea I would at least go 105 or 120 mm just in case you ever want to shoot the bugs . as if you had the 60mm and wanted to crawl around on the ground
You would soon be wishing you had the 120mm or the 105 mm