I have an ef 50/1.4 but can't get the candids I want. I feel I need a longer lense and have my eye on the ef 135/2 or 200/2.8. Please help!

-- marc brackhahn (pookeybookey@aol.com), February 21, 2002

Answers

I am a little confused by your post; do you want me to give you a lens? I am afraid that I do not have one to spare!

Don't rule out the 70-200 f2.8 (No, I will not give you mine!)

-- Roger S. (rashrader@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

In addition to the 135mm and 200mm, you may want to consider the 100mm f2 or 100mm f2.8 macro. I would go for the 100mm f2 unless you alse felt macro work was in your future (or present). Only your style of working will let you know whether 100mm will be long enough, but if it is, the 100mmm should be more hand-handholdable than the others. As for the 70-200 f2.8, it is a fantastic lens. My only criticism of it as a lens for candids is that a white Canon L lens draws more attention than you might want. Even a 70-200 f4 gets a lot of looks.

-- AC Gordon (cgordon@stx.rr.com), February 22, 2002.

A few threads down, Sajeev and I carried on a discussion of the virtues of the 100 mm 2.8 USM macro as a portrait lens.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0087IJ

I would find the 200 mm too long for portraits. 100 or 85 are considered "portrait length." I shoot actress' headshots with the 100, and it does exactly what I want.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), February 22, 2002.

preston... do you shoot the actress's headshots with a 100mm macro lens. if you get a close-up of her, its more of a macro photography than a portrait. the idea sounds good, marrying macro and portrait photography.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), February 22, 2002.

Sajeev, "macro" really refers to photography from a few centimeters away. In this case, it might be just the actress' eye filling the frame. Most non-macro lenses, except for some long telephotos, will focus from about 1/2 a meter, so you can get a very tight "close-up" shot, but it would not be considered "macro."

For my purposes (taking portraits and headshots), the macro aspect of the 100 mm lens just means I can get as close as I want (which is rare) without having to worry the ability to focus. The fact that the lens is 100 mm means that I can stand far enough away, not crowding the subject, to get a decent head/shoulders shot. From the distance of a few meters, the subject looks natural and comfortable, and there is no distortion of perpective, which you might see if you stood very close and used a wide-angle lens.

I think, and someone who knows these things better than I do should correct me if necessary, that the optics on Canon's 100/2.8 USM macro are better than on its other 100 mm non-macro lenses. So even if you don't shoot from macro distances, you'll still get the improved sharpness, color, and contrast, with reduced flare, that this particular lens offers. This is why I love it for portraits.

Having said all this, I find the lens useful only for more formal portraits. When I want something more candid or "environmental" (including some of the background behind and around the subject), I'll use the 50 mm 1.4 USM. To get the same shot with the 100 as I do with 50, I would have to stand in the next room. (This is all a function of the angle of perpective that different mm lenses offer. Lower mm number offers wider angle of view).

If I were photographing insects or scientific equipment for a catalog or gourmet food for restaurant advertising, the macro aspect would be very important.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), February 22, 2002.

Another alternative if you like portrait photography in a non studio setting is the 135 f2.8 sf. with the soft focus set to 0 it is a great travel or outdoor portrait lens it has very good sharpness and will allow you some extra distance between you and your subject.With the money you save go pick up a cheepo vivitar 100mm macro for indoor portraits.

-- joe cap (jomocap@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.