85mm 1.8 vs 100mm 2.8 macro

[optimist]

I prefer head to shoulder shots and I prefer using natural light over flash. Which one will make a better portrait lens on a EOS400D, the 85mm 1.8 or the EF 100mm 2.8 Macro.

I am more inclined towards the 100mm as I may want to get into macro photography in the future. Anyone has experience on these lens. Thanks in advance.

[spartacus.ret]

ef 85mm hands down.

[n0d3]

Since you're into macro, might as well get the 100mm f/2.8. Makes a fantastic portraiture lens too.

[calebk]

Portraiture/events: 85mm hands down as mentioned earlier.

But since you want to get into Macro maybe the 100mm will be a better choice. Looks like you've answered your own questions. Hmm.

[optimist]

Hi guys, thanks for the replies.

I would have bought the 100mm right away if not for the price difference of $350 when compared to the 85mm. A princely sum for me for ‘…may want to get into macro…’.

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

well i use the 85/1.8 and to me, it is my favourite lens of all time. it has an extra 1 stop compared to the 100mm too

[Splutter]

I personally prefer the 85 over 100, but since you are intending to go into macro, the 100mm is a much stronger contender here.

[chantyeroop]

If you are not into macrophotography yet, get the 85mm 1.8.
Better choice for portraiture, IMHO.

you can consider the 50mm 2.8 macro later, if you decide to go macro.

[spartacus.ret]

aiyah if you want macro, get the sigma 150mm.

[babykailan]

get the 85mm f/1.8 for portraiture, then an extension tube for macro.

[ianpaice]

will the tamrom 90 mm f2.8 macro be a good choice instead since it can be both a portrait and macro lens?

[optimist]

Looks like the 85mm is the choice for most. Will probably pamper myself with one before Chinese New Year.

[kelccm]

Originally Posted by babykailan get the 85mm f/1.8 for portraiture, then an extension tube for macro.

I'll second this suggestion

[Russ]

EF 85 1.8 - very good quality for money
Some people say the 70-200 F4L is better but I can't see how it can beat the prime, L notwithstanding

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Russ EF 85 1.8 - very good quality for money Some people say the 70-200 F4L is better but I can't see how it can beat the prime, L notwithstanding

We can't always be stuck inside the train of thought that primes are always sharper. There are some exceptions of primes being a tad softer than a zoom at the same focal length, and some exceptions of zooms being sharper than some primes at the same focal length. The 70-200 f/4L and f/4L IS are two very sharp, if not two of Canon's sharpest, mid tele zooms.

[XiaoMiaoWang]

100mm is a bit too tele for a portrait... unless you're taking body parts. =D

Take the macro for shots on flora and fauna, or product shots.

Events/Portraiture: 85. (actually I think 85 is a bit too tele for my kind of portraiture anyway... but its individual preference I guess...)

[USM]

Originally Posted by optimist I prefer head to shoulder shots and I prefer using natural light over flash. Which one will make a better portrait lens on a EOS400D, the 85mm 1.8 or the EF 100mm 2.8 Macro. I am more inclined towards the 100mm as I may want to get into macro photography in the future. Anyone has experience on these lens. Thanks in advance.

You have 2 areas of interest here.

1) Portrait

2) Macro

They are quite different in its own league.

Given the 1.6x crop of the 400D, which lens should you buy? Actually, each of the above interest requires different lenses.

For portraits, 50mm and 85mm lenses are ideal for 1.6x crop camera bodies while 135mm will be additional for FF bodies.

For macro, how serious are you into it? Macro itself is an art. What kind of subjects are you shooting? Tiny insects like housefly, or bigger size insects like butterfly, etc. or simply still life subjects like fruits, etc. In macro photography, we are talking about magnification and working distance. To use a portrait lens for macro, to a certain extent has its limitations.

To know more about macro photography, there will be one workshop organised by me, join us if you can make it.

[jdredd]

get the 85mm 1.8.

if u want to get into macro, get the tamron 90mm macro.

[XiaoMiaoWang]

Originally Posted by jdredd get the 85mm 1.8. if u want to get into macro, get the tamron 90mm macro.

why the tamron? Price?

[calebk]

Because for the price point, the Tamron is more bang for buck than the Canon. With the Canon, advantages are faster USM focusing, but in Macro most focusing is MF anyway. In terms of working distance, between 90mm and 100mm, the difference is neglible.