105 micro v 85 1.4 for portraits?

Messages
9,241
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Just a quick ponder really, as I have a 105 micro already, but wondered how it actually compares to the 85 1.4. I am thinking macro isn't really my cuppa tea, and as i now have a 70-200 vr it's rapidly becomming redundant.

Answers on a postcard please :D
 
85mm all the way. :)

If you keep an eye on the classifieds there may be one listed very soon. ;)
 
I agree 85mm is the way to go. It's tempting to see a macro lens as doing double duty as a mid range tele lens and they do fulfill that function, just not as well, due the fact that they're optimised as a macro lens and perform their best at macro distances. I found the bokeh suffered compared to a true tele lens of the same range.
 
I agree 85mm is the way to go. It's tempting to see a macro lens as doing double duty as a mid range tele lens and they do fulfill that function, just not as well, due the fact that they're optimised as a macro lens and perform their best at macro distances. I found the bokeh suffered compared to a true tele lens of the same range.
#

Thanks CT
Since i got the 70-200 i just dont use it anymore. My macro fling has gon off the boil totally too, so its just sitting in the bag at the moment.
 
#

Thanks CT
Since i got the 70-200 i just dont use it anymore. My macro fling has gon off the boil totally too, so its just sitting in the bag at the moment.

LOL. I sold my macro lens for much the same reason. FWIW I have the Canon 85mm 1.2L and it's a great portrait lens - very flattering used wide open and getting progressively cruel as you stop down for those wrinkly character shots
 
LOL. I sold my macro lens for much the same reason. FWIW I have the Canon 85mm 1.2L and it's a great portrait lens - very flattering used wide open and getting progressively cruel as you stop down for those wrinkly character shots


Super sharp wrinkles wont do anyone any favours :lol: Maybe all my OOF portraits will be much better should i get one :D
 
Back
Top