Most photographers drool over 85mm f/1.4 lenses for portrait work, and while those are certainly a lot of fun, they might not actually be the best choice for you. This awesome video will show you why you should consider a 100mm macro lens for your work.
Coming to you from Kayleigh June, this great video tutorial will show you why you should consider using a macro lens for portrait and beauty photography. In the age of f/1.4 apertures and backgrounds blown to bokeh oblivion, the idea of using a lens with a relatively pedestrian maximum aperture might seem odd, but there are a ton of advantages to be had. First, a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is likely significantly cheaper than an 85mm f/1.4 with comparable image quality. Second, it will be much lighter and easier to handle. Furthermore, it will likely focus more quickly and produce sharper results. And all of this is said without mentioning the increased versatility of having macro capabilities, which allow you to capture detail shots that wouldn't be possible with a normal 85mm portrait lens. I have shot probably 90% of my headshots with my 100mm macro lens, and it has been a reliable workhorse that has paid for itself several times over. Check out the video above for the full rundown from June.
Its a common misconception that a macro lens is sharper than other primes. This isn’t true. A macro lens is just like any other lens other than having a greater focus range which lets it focus closer. In fact, at 2.8 it is probably significantly softer than a normal prime stopped down to 2.8.
I don’t have any actual data on it but I would also be surprised if it is faster focusing. It will have the same focus tech as any other equivalent lens but it will have a much wider focus throw which if anything slows focusing. (though many macro lenses have a limit switch so that you can limit its focus throw to a more normal range)
That said, all the reasoning listed in the video are 100% accurate. Kaleigh makes great points.
There's an article here in Fstoppers that says that macro lenses are sharper for portraits...
I assume you are referring to the article that I personally wrote many years ago when I worked for Fstoppers?
If so, then yes, I did make a comment about macro being sharper. I was wrong then and someone pointed It out in the comments.
That said, back then I was much closer to being right as it was before the revolution in lens sharpness. Back then a high-end 100mm macro was sharper than most other lenses. It was the sharpest lens in my kit at the time which is why I believed the common misconception. But it wasn't sharper than elite-tier stuff like a Zeiss.
Things have changed. Sigma ART arrived on the scene and was absurdly sharp at a good price and that caused everyone else to shape up their game.
You can test yourself. Take a modern 100mm macro lens and put it up against any modern prime stopped down to 2.8. Put them both on a tripod and blast them at a lens calibration tool. The macro lens will be softer at 2.8 in most cases and if you stop both lenses down to say 5.6 their sharpness will be about the same.
He's not comparing it to primes; the comparison is between two macro lenses, a 85mm 1.4 and a 100mm 2.8. The sharpness comparison is at wide open, so the 2.8 would be sharper. The faster focusing is because there is less glass weight for the focusing motor to move in the 2.8.
She didn't say anything about sharpness or focus. (unless I missed it). That was added in the article which is what I providing feedback on.
She also wasn't comparing anything. Her point was that 100mm macro is excellent for beauty because it has the versatility to focus closer to the subject while also being a focal length that has a more pleasing perspective distortion. She is 100% correct.
Furthermore, what is the point of comparing two lenses wide open if they are wildly different apertures? Compare them both at their widest shared aperture and go from there. A good 85mm 1.4 is going to be sharper at 2.8 than a 100mm macro at 2.8.
I'd also add that while logically less glass does mean less weight to move in my experience that really doesn't matter. Modern 70-200s focus incredibly quick and they much bigger than any portrait primes. My experience is that camera makers mostly put better quality focus tech and motors in more expensive lenses which tends to result in the higher-end lenses having better focus performance.
All that said, IMO sharpness isn't even all that important for portrait lenses beyond a certain point. I was more meaning to correct the misconception that macro = sharper in general. Many of my favourite portrait lenses of all time aren't nearly as sharp as the cutting-edge lens tech.
Not "she," but Alex Cooke:
"In the age of f/1.4 apertures and backgrounds blown to bokeh oblivion, the idea of using a lens with a relatively pedestrian maximum aperture might seem odd, but there are a ton of advantages to be had. First, a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is likely significantly cheaper than an 85mm f/1.4 with comparable image quality. Second, it will be much lighter and easier to handle. Furthermore, it will likely focus more quickly and produce sharper results."
That's a comparison, period. Cooke points out, cost / focusing speed / weight / sharpness / focal length / max aperture.
You're stating that, at max aperture, a 1.4 lens will be sharper than a 2.8 lens. . . due to what? The focal length? If it is a factor perhaps the 2.8 would logically be the sharper lens. BTW, the subject lens is $1300.
Picking between you and Alex Cooke, I'm going with Cooke.
I'm stating it based on the fact that a lens stopped down a few stops is almost always sharper than one wide open. (because physics). If you are going to shoot at 2.8 then a faster lens stopped down will give you sharper results than one wide open. I mentioned that if you stop both down then its a toss up.
My point only was that macro is not inherently sharper than non-macro and that macro lenses don't inherently focus faster than non-macro. Thats it.
I was merely using 85mm 1.4 as an example because it is the example used above. The same is true of an 85mm 1.8 which will be cheaper than the 100mm.
Macro has one inherent benefit: It can focus closer. That's it. No more, no less.
You can go test all of this yourself. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I feel confident because I have worked with 100mm macro and an 85mm in portrait work for many years. I've tested the comparison. Both are forever in my kit because they both have a purpose.
"...a faster lens stopped down will give you sharper results than one wide open"----> "...if you are going to shoot at 2.8"
The above statement has nothing to do with Cooke's discussion. The comparison is, **once again:** Lens 1. a f/1.4 85mm shooting at f/1.4 and Lens 2. a f/2.8 100mm shooting at f/2.8.
I'll keep my 105mm/2.0 DC Nikkor. No issues what so ever.
I have not seen very many articles on 100mm lenses. It's like they have been overlooked or over-spotlighted by the 85's and 105's. Personally, I have a Nikon 105mm f2 DC lens which I really love, but I intend on getting a 100mm pretty soon. I don't see much difference between it and an 85. They are both quite capable and should put out very similar IQ. Can anyone direct me towards more articles or videos on the 100? I appreciate it and thank you.
I suspect the reason you haven't seen many articles on 100mm is because they're more of niche lens. Also:
1. They appear to be dominantly a Canon thing.
2. They are typically macro
3. They are typically f2.8. It's surrounded by fast 85s and 105s.
Yes. I do believe that to be the case....a niche. Nikon does have a 100, but a series E. Not macro though. I like Canon, but I decided to go with Nikon in the 60's. Back then Canon was using the breech style lenses which had a spring in it when you turned it onto the camera. Over time the spring would wear out, so I looked over the Nikon, compared the viewfinder and I just loved it. Too bad because I loved the A2, AE1, F1 and others. Thank you for the repky.
I've been shooting portraits for 10 years using a Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro and love it. Never been tempted by 85mm at all.