Posted by David Prichard on November 12, 2006 at 1:07 AM
A friend using a Canon 30D body is looking to buy a prime lens for primarily portraiture and some nature work. From my review of equipment either the Canon or Sigma 105 macro seems to be her best bet.
Has anybody any experience with either for comparison? I'm somewhat shy on the Sigma but that is based from the product many years ago. Ideally she would like a 90mm but there doesn't seem to be such an animal for Canon.
Dave
Posted by Scott Elliot on November 12, 2006 at 2:30 AM
I have the Sigma 105 macro lens. It is an extremely sharp lens, but mine has been back to the distributor twice to have the chip replaced when I got a new camera and it wouldn't work and once to have the auto-focus motor replaced. If I was buying again I would buy the Canon 100 mm macro lens with the USM motor so I don't have to remember to hit the AF/MF switch before focusing. You get used to full time manual focus override when all your other lenses have it.
Posted by Alice Scoggins on November 12, 2006 at 10:11 AM
I'm not familiar with Canon lenses, but have the Sigma 105 and love it. If she wants the 90mm though and Tamron makes one that may be the way to go.
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 12, 2006 at 10:26 AM
I too have the Sigma and it is excellent. Images are very sharp, colour rendition is good, contrast is good. I would highly recommend the lens but not for portraiture.
In general, macro lenses are not good choices for portraiture. They are simply too sharp and show too much detail. They simply don't flatter facial features.
It's a little longer but you might look at the Canon 135mm f2.8 soft focus. It's very reasonably priced. Image quality is very good without the soft focus engaged (it's not a full time soft focus lens) and has two stages of soft focus effect depending on need.
If your friend is bound and determined to go the macro lens route then s/he might consider a mild soft focus filter or using a piece of old stocking over the lens to soften it a bit for portraiture.
Optically there really is very little difference between the three macro lenses and build quality in all is very high.
I don't shoot Canon any more, but used their 100mm some years ago while illustrating a book. During that period I also used it on a few portrait shoots.
Criteria not metioned so far but specific to use for portraiture are large aperture performance and bokeh, since the former reflects common technique (for shallow DOF) and the latter can be an issue in "dreamy" type portraiture.
In a nutshell, the Canon was excellent and so good in fact, that it was our only hesitation in parting with the system for a return to Nikon. Can't say about the Sigma and Tamron, but for principal use as a portrait lens I would examine those criteria carefully.
As for soft effects, macro lenses are typically so sharp as to be problematic for portraits. Rather than hanging a bunch of stuff in front of the lens, we have finally resorted to post processing. That's specific to our commercial market because in our experience you never really know what a client will like till they see it on the screen. It's much easier to add soft focus effects afterwards than to remove them!
We prepare those effects as a layer and click it on and off to show clients the results, and especially using the opacity slider in the layers palette to adjust the intensity. As a further bonus, you can mask the effect and apply it selectively to the image. My wife is the master of gaussian blur and typically uses that on a duplicate layer to create her effects.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on November 12, 2006 at 11:13 PM
There was a shootout several months ago on Photography monthly of macro lenses which included the Sigma, Tamron 90mm and the Canon 180mm 3.5L among many other lenses. The Sigma 105 mm got a rave review, with great sharpness across a wide range of apertures.
Discussion
7 repliesHas anybody any experience with either for comparison? I'm somewhat shy on the Sigma but that is based from the product many years ago. Ideally she would like a 90mm but there doesn't seem to be such an animal for Canon.
Dave
Tamron make a 90mm macro lens that is superb,every bit as good as the Canon equivaelant.
Optically there is very little difference between the Canon,Sigma and Tamron macro lenses,they are all superb performers.
If your friends budget will stretch to it then the Canon would be the best choice IMHO,for the slightly better build quality.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_90_28/index.htm
Basil
In general, macro lenses are not good choices for portraiture. They are simply too sharp and show too much detail. They simply don't flatter facial features.
It's a little longer but you might look at the Canon 135mm f2.8 soft focus. It's very reasonably priced. Image quality is very good without the soft focus engaged (it's not a full time soft focus lens) and has two stages of soft focus effect depending on need.
If your friend is bound and determined to go the macro lens route then s/he might consider a mild soft focus filter or using a piece of old stocking over the lens to soften it a bit for portraiture.
Optically there really is very little difference between the three macro lenses and build quality in all is very high.
I don't shoot Canon any more, but used their 100mm some years ago while illustrating a book. During that period I also used it on a few portrait shoots.
Criteria not metioned so far but specific to use for portraiture are large aperture performance and bokeh, since the former reflects common technique (for shallow DOF) and the latter can be an issue in "dreamy" type portraiture.
In a nutshell, the Canon was excellent and so good in fact, that it was our only hesitation in parting with the system for a return to Nikon. Can't say about the Sigma and Tamron, but for principal use as a portrait lens I would examine those criteria carefully.
As for soft effects, macro lenses are typically so sharp as to be problematic for portraits. Rather than hanging a bunch of stuff in front of the lens, we have finally resorted to post processing. That's specific to our commercial market because in our experience you never really know what a client will like till they see it on the screen. It's much easier to add soft focus effects afterwards than to remove them!
We prepare those effects as a layer and click it on and off to show clients the results, and especially using the opacity slider in the layers palette to adjust the intensity. As a further bonus, you can mask the effect and apply it selectively to the image. My wife is the master of gaussian blur and typically uses that on a duplicate layer to create her effects.