135 f/2 or 100/2.8L! Et tant qu'à faire je me dis que si je peux faire du portrait avec un même objectif, c'est interessant.Matériel: D90 avec 18-105mm * 17-70 f2,8/4 Sigma * 50mm f1.4 * SB-900
Il fonctionne aussi bien pour la mode et la beauté, la nourriture et les portraits, que pour la vraie macro photographie.
Anybody can answer
Objectif portrait et macro. It only takes a minute to sign up.Is this lens a great macro lens, but an "OK" portrait lens? Learn more about Stack Overflow the company
Or is the performance near or on par with the typical zoom lens offerings in this range(70-200). By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. Auteur Message; inkobl Membre Validé Nombre de messages: 13 APN: GF1+20mm f/1.4 Dépt.
ou Pays: 78 Date d'inscription : 17/05/2011: Sujet: Recherche objectif GA et Portrait classique pour GF1 !
It is lighter and smaller and just as good if not better at the 100mm focal length. I have the 100mm L version (with IS) and I can recommend it in general, it's an amazing lens.Great examples Matt, thanks!
And how much of your photography is portrait?
+1.+1 I think these tests are useful; they provide an objective comparison you won't easily find in sample shots.They're objective but largely irrelevant. Macro lenses are also generally designed to be sharpest at close focus distances. Quand tu t'en sers pour faire du portrait, le fait que l'objectif soit macro ne te change rien (à moins que tu ne veuilles faire une macro de l'oeil du modèle par exemple...).D'accord.
D'accord.
100 f/2.8L) or a good zoom (e.g.
Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us
I shoot portraits with the 105 2.8 macro and 70-200 f4L IS, as I find these lenses FAR more useful for other types of photography.
If you are just doing it for fun or for friends and family, I think you are fine.
This lens does the job of 4 lenses! If you're going to do studio/stopped down portraits, or if you want a macro lens anyway, get the 100. The correcting elements needed to render a flat field of focus also tend to make out of focus blur, often called bokeh, a bit harsh. Alors soit tu fais le portrait du point noir que ton modèle à sur le nez, soit le sigle "macro" ne change rien
@gjb despite the fact you'd very rarely shoot macro wide open the two Canon 100mm macros I have are sharp at f/2.8 when I've used them as short teles.Actually, a good soft-focus lens is normally still quite sharp (high resolution).
@mattdm - I agree it is similar, but the only answer given addressed the shortcomings of that particular Nikon lens and didn't really get into the detail on why or why not to use a Macro for portraits.I know — I'm not complaining, just adding the link for reference.You should really specify what sort of camera you have, the size of the sensor will affect responses. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Sometimes, but not always, they are also very sharp at longer focus distances.Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange! I also have the 50mm prime and the 24-105 f4 IS.Your question is a bit subjective, but the following tests should enable you to make a fair comparison.Just hover over the images to compare results.
Reflex, Objectif. My Nikon 105mm has average bokeh - doesn't look bad until you compare to the 85mm.
Mais l'objectif macro en lui-même n'apporte rien d'autre que sa qualité optique, corrigez-moi si j'ai faux, mais je ne pense pas sur ce coup. I use them less for portraits than my 85 because I tend to work more closely with my subjects.