100mm Macro WR for Portraits?

DogLover · 02-17-2011, 02:34 PM

Since you say you are looking specifically for a portrait lens, I think I would lean towards the 77. There's not a thing in the world wrong with the 100 and choosing it would not be a mistake, but the 77 is one of the most unique portrait lenses in the world, and one of the blessings of being a Pentaxian. Rendering is so important with portraits and this is where the 77 really shines. Yes, it will exhibit some PF sometimes, but this shouldn't be much of a problem when shooting portraits unless your light-source is directly behind your subject. It's faster AF would definitely be appreciated when shooting your kids, too. BTW, that's also why I wouldn't recommend the 50-135. It's IQ is top-notch, but it's AF may not be able to keep up with kids. I use it to shoot playing puppies sometimes and it can't always keep up.

Antifreez · 02-17-2011, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

honestly speaking, you need to add some other parameters inorder to make it easy for you to decide. price-wise, the macro is significantly cheaper compared to the 77 as long as it's not the WR version, otherwise they are pretty close. secondly, focal range can work either way. for closer shots, the 77mm gives you more flexibility indoors however can be a tough focal length to use on something with significant distance (outdoors). size-wise, the 77 is much more portable and handy. rendering, the 77 is great for portraits but is a CA/PF monster, while the macro handles CA/PF very well.

Thank you Pentaxor. I appreciate the direct comparisons between the two. I understand the decision will come down to my preferences and there's no right or wrong. However, I do realize I didn't provide many parameters.

Price: yeah where I am there's not a huge difference in price as I am looking at the WR version.

Size: I almost didn't consider the 100 because of the intimidation factor, but then I found people referring to how compact it is (although it looks monstrous with the hood). But yes, this is a huge consideration.

Rendering: Seems like people debate about how problematic the CA/PF is with the FA 77, but it seems relatively non-existent with the 100mm (from what I've read).

as far as AF is concerned, do you really need something that is very fast? the FA77 is fast but not as fast as the DA40, the macro has decent fast AF.

I really appreciate this because perhaps both lenses would be just fine in terms of AF speed. I think the fact that the 100mm is a macro (I've never shot with a macro) is what I'm concerned with when primarily only using it for portraits.

again, there is no right or wrong answer but rather what you decide to be of priority or preference.

Again, thanks for your feedback.

Antifreez · 02-17-2011, 02:37 PM

sorry, I accidently responded within Pentaxor's e-mail. I'm still learning this website much less my own camera gear...

Antifreez · 02-17-2011, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Since you say you are looking specifically for a portrait lens, I think I would lean towards the 77. There's not a thing in the world wrong with the 100 and choosing it would not be a mistake, but the 77 is one of the most unique portrait lenses in the world, and one of the blessings of being a Pentaxian. Rendering is so important with portraits and this is where the 77 really shines. Yes, it will exhibit some PF sometimes, but this shouldn't be much of a problem when shooting portraits unless your light-source is directly behind your subject. It's faster AF would definitely be appreciated when shooting your kids, too. BTW, that's also why I wouldn't recommend the 50-135. It's IQ is top-notch, but it's AF may not be able to keep up with kids. I use it to shoot playing puppies sometimes and it can't always keep up.

Thanks DogLover. You know, I was so very sold on the FA77 to the point of literally dreaming about it - haha! For the reasons you mentioned, it just made a lot of sense, and I'll certainly strongly consider it before purchasing.

Really the only thing that got me leaning toward the 100mm was when I realized that a lot of my portraits (even indoor) are closer to 100mm. I actually don't shoot much in the 70 range. But with the 77 as special as it is, maybe I'll learn to...

Thanks again.

Pentaxor · 02-17-2011, 02:47 PM

anyway, as far as the difference between focal lengths is concerned, here are two samples taken with a 70mm and a 100mm. both are macros though.

70mm

100mm

both are approximately shot at the same distance.

GeneV · 02-19-2011, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by sewebster

Well, sure, I see the difference when you use a wide angle, but at basically 50 up there seems to be little or no difference. Look at all those photos in the other linked thread, they're practically all the same. And in the wide angle photos the woman has a different pose that exaggerates the effect.

Differences may seem subtle, but they are noticeable (at least to me). Sometimes capturing our vision of the shot is about subtlety. Depending upon the face, the 50 or even the 40 might be a better choice.

OrenMc · 02-19-2011, 08:48 PM

I've heard a lot of different FLs mentioned and some things about distortion or flattening.
May I ask then why is one of the prefered professional portrait lenses a 300/2.8. Of course the reason is working distance to subject and DOF however....

As G-Diesel showed FL can vary greatly. I just think to not to put too much importance on focal lenght but subject isolation, color, and the OOF area.

BTW, I do own the DFA WR 100 and love the color and bokeh. Its a good tool, but so are many others.
Sorry to confuse.

pdo · 02-19-2011, 09:36 PM

I usually shoot beauty headshot and I prefer to use my DFA 100mm Macro more then my FA 77mm..

DFA 100mm Macro

skyoftexas · 02-19-2011, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by G-Diesel

Not a fantastic bokeh but hey...still looks good I think:

Not to mention your girl friend. Very nice photo.

Michael

skyoftexas · 02-19-2011, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by pdo

I usually shoot beauty headshot and I prefer to use my DFA 100mm Macro more then my FA 77mm..

DFA 100mm Macro

Beautiful shot. Do you mind revealing why you like the 100 over the 77?

Michael

skyoftexas · 02-19-2011, 10:55 PM

is that one has at least three excellent lenses to choose from that will do the same task.

The 100mm is a wonderful lens with great color rendition and sharpness. It can be used as a macro or as a short tele. It was my very first lens and still my be my favorite.

The 77mm is a classic and no one would ever argue against picking it. I don't have one, but I do have the:

70mm, which as good as any lens for portraits. And sharp? My word it is sharp. I just recently did portraits of an older women. I shot at f/11 to get consistent sharpness, but I'm beginning to think that may have been a mistake. Every nuance of skin tone is visible, and that requires major PP. Fortunately, I have a pretty good soft filter plug in, but still I can't jack it up enough to hide what needs hiding without getting fluffy looking. A soft filter lens seems like a good idea. Here are a couple of examples from the DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited:

(The first image was taken at f/2.4, ISO 1600.)

And a couple from the 100mm. The first is a bit jacked up contrast wise for effect. The second is an old favorite.

OrenMc · 02-19-2011, 11:09 PM

Example, I hope you don"t mind ! Sam (SLRPhotography) Tamrom 70-300 an example;

Not Work Safe

Does it really matter! Light, composition, of course subject

AKum8 · 05-12-2011, 01:12 PM

Sorry for grave digging the thread again.

I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm.
The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution.

I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice?

DogLover · 05-12-2011, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by AKum8

Sorry for grave digging the thread again.

I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm.
The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution.

I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice?

As I said above, the 100WR is an excellent choice and excels at portraits. Put the "macro" in it's name out of your mind. Just think of it as a top-notch 100, which is exactly what it is. My personal preference is for the 77, but you want something longer, so the 100WR is my recommendation. You'll love the build-quality and all-metal construction, too!

Pentaxor · 05-12-2011, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by AKum8

Sorry for grave digging the thread again.

I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm.
The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution.

I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice?

I would assume you don't know what macro really means, per se. I would suggest you read the posts in this thread inorder for you to get a real picture of what you are so worried about. otherwise it would be pointless on trying to convince yourself or others to convince you. I don't mean to be rude, but the answers are practically here and you just need to read them.

02-19-2011, 10:55 PM	#71
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156	The problem here --- is that one has at least three excellent lenses to choose from that will do the same task. The 100mm is a wonderful lens with great color rendition and sharpness. It can be used as a macro or as a short tele. It was my very first lens and still my be my favorite. The 77mm is a classic and no one would ever argue against picking it. I don't have one, but I do have the: 70mm, which as good as any lens for portraits. And sharp? My word it is sharp. I just recently did portraits of an older women. I shot at f/11 to get consistent sharpness, but I'm beginning to think that may have been a mistake. Every nuance of skin tone is visible, and that requires major PP. Fortunately, I have a pretty good soft filter plug in, but still I can't jack it up enough to hide what needs hiding without getting fluffy looking. A soft filter lens seems like a good idea. Here are a couple of examples from the DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited: (The first image was taken at f/2.4, ISO 1600.) And a couple from the 100mm. The first is a bit jacked up contrast wise for effect. The second is an old favorite.

02-19-2011, 11:09 PM	#72
OrenMc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,901	Example, I hope you don"t mind ! Sam (SLRPhotography) Tamrom 70-300 an example; Not Work Safe Does it really matter! Light, composition, of course subject Last edited by OrenMc; 02-21-2011 at 08:05 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SMC MACRO-TAKUMAR 100mm F4 Macro Stuck Auto/Manual Switch	Ombre2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-13-2023 08:31 AM
100mm f2.8 macro FA vs new 100mm mavro f2.8 DA	stemked	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	08-23-2010 01:34 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC M 100mm f4 Macro (M100/4 Macro) (Worldwide)	C2H4	Sold Items	1	05-02-2010 09:06 PM
Voigtlander 125mm apo macro or Zeiss 100mm macro	amati	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	03-06-2008 11:53 PM

02-17-2011, 02:34 PM	#61
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Since you say you are looking specifically for a portrait lens, I think I would lean towards the 77. There's not a thing in the world wrong with the 100 and choosing it would not be a mistake, but the 77 is one of the most unique portrait lenses in the world, and one of the blessings of being a Pentaxian. Rendering is so important with portraits and this is where the 77 really shines. Yes, it will exhibit some PF sometimes, but this shouldn't be much of a problem when shooting portraits unless your light-source is directly behind your subject. It's faster AF would definitely be appreciated when shooting your kids, too. BTW, that's also why I wouldn't recommend the 50-135. It's IQ is top-notch, but it's AF may not be able to keep up with kids. I use it to shoot playing puppies sometimes and it can't always keep up.

02-17-2011, 02:35 PM	#62
Antifreez Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kenmore, WA Posts: 156	Originally posted by Pentaxor honestly speaking, you need to add some other parameters inorder to make it easy for you to decide. price-wise, the macro is significantly cheaper compared to the 77 as long as it's not the WR version, otherwise they are pretty close. secondly, focal range can work either way. for closer shots, the 77mm gives you more flexibility indoors however can be a tough focal length to use on something with significant distance (outdoors). size-wise, the 77 is much more portable and handy. rendering, the 77 is great for portraits but is a CA/PF monster, while the macro handles CA/PF very well. Thank you Pentaxor. I appreciate the direct comparisons between the two. I understand the decision will come down to my preferences and there's no right or wrong. However, I do realize I didn't provide many parameters. Price: yeah where I am there's not a huge difference in price as I am looking at the WR version. Size: I almost didn't consider the 100 because of the intimidation factor, but then I found people referring to how compact it is (although it looks monstrous with the hood). But yes, this is a huge consideration. Rendering: Seems like people debate about how problematic the CA/PF is with the FA 77, but it seems relatively non-existent with the 100mm (from what I've read). as far as AF is concerned, do you really need something that is very fast? the FA77 is fast but not as fast as the DA40, the macro has decent fast AF. I really appreciate this because perhaps both lenses would be just fine in terms of AF speed. I think the fact that the 100mm is a macro (I've never shot with a macro) is what I'm concerned with when primarily only using it for portraits. again, there is no right or wrong answer but rather what you decide to be of priority or preference. Again, thanks for your feedback.

02-17-2011, 02:37 PM	#63
Antifreez Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kenmore, WA Posts: 156	sorry, I accidently responded within Pentaxor's e-mail. I'm still learning this website much less my own camera gear...

02-17-2011, 02:42 PM	#64
Antifreez Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kenmore, WA Posts: 156	Originally posted by DogLover Since you say you are looking specifically for a portrait lens, I think I would lean towards the 77. There's not a thing in the world wrong with the 100 and choosing it would not be a mistake, but the 77 is one of the most unique portrait lenses in the world, and one of the blessings of being a Pentaxian. Rendering is so important with portraits and this is where the 77 really shines. Yes, it will exhibit some PF sometimes, but this shouldn't be much of a problem when shooting portraits unless your light-source is directly behind your subject. It's faster AF would definitely be appreciated when shooting your kids, too. BTW, that's also why I wouldn't recommend the 50-135. It's IQ is top-notch, but it's AF may not be able to keep up with kids. I use it to shoot playing puppies sometimes and it can't always keep up. Thanks DogLover. You know, I was so very sold on the FA77 to the point of literally dreaming about it - haha! For the reasons you mentioned, it just made a lot of sense, and I'll certainly strongly consider it before purchasing. Really the only thing that got me leaning toward the 100mm was when I realized that a lot of my portraits (even indoor) are closer to 100mm. I actually don't shoot much in the 70 range. But with the 77 as special as it is, maybe I'll learn to... Thanks again.

02-17-2011, 02:47 PM	#65
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	anyway, as far as the difference between focal lengths is concerned, here are two samples taken with a 70mm and a 100mm. both are macros though. 70mm 100mm both are approximately shot at the same distance.

02-19-2011, 06:51 PM	#66
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by sewebster Well, sure, I see the difference when you use a wide angle, but at basically 50 up there seems to be little or no difference. Look at all those photos in the other linked thread, they're practically all the same. And in the wide angle photos the woman has a different pose that exaggerates the effect. Differences may seem subtle, but they are noticeable (at least to me). Sometimes capturing our vision of the shot is about subtlety. Depending upon the face, the 50 or even the 40 might be a better choice.

02-19-2011, 08:48 PM	#67
OrenMc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,901	I've heard a lot of different FLs mentioned and some things about distortion or flattening. May I ask then why is one of the prefered professional portrait lenses a 300/2.8. Of course the reason is working distance to subject and DOF however.... As G-Diesel showed FL can vary greatly. I just think to not to put too much importance on focal lenght but subject isolation, color, and the OOF area. BTW, I do own the DFA WR 100 and love the color and bokeh. Its a good tool, but so are many others. Sorry to confuse.

02-19-2011, 09:36 PM	#68
pdo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Westminster CA Posts: 264	I usually shoot beauty headshot and I prefer to use my DFA 100mm Macro more then my FA 77mm.. DFA 100mm Macro

02-19-2011, 10:19 PM	#69
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156	Originally posted by G-Diesel Not a fantastic bokeh but hey...still looks good I think: Not to mention your girl friend. Very nice photo. Michael

02-19-2011, 10:20 PM	#70
skyoftexas Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 156	Originally posted by pdo I usually shoot beauty headshot and I prefer to use my DFA 100mm Macro more then my FA 77mm.. DFA 100mm Macro Beautiful shot. Do you mind revealing why you like the 100 over the 77? Michael

05-12-2011, 01:12 PM	#73
AKum8 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Milan Posts: 89	Sorry for grave digging the thread again. I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm. The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution. I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice?

05-12-2011, 01:56 PM	#74
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by AKum8 Sorry for grave digging the thread again. I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm. The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution. I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice? As I said above, the 100WR is an excellent choice and excels at portraits. Put the "macro" in it's name out of your mind. Just think of it as a top-notch 100, which is exactly what it is. My personal preference is for the 77, but you want something longer, so the 100WR is my recommendation. You'll love the build-quality and all-metal construction, too!

05-12-2011, 02:53 PM	#75
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by AKum8 Sorry for grave digging the thread again. I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm. The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution. I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice? I would assume you don't know what macro really means, per se. I would suggest you read the posts in this thread inorder for you to get a real picture of what you are so worried about. otherwise it would be pointless on trying to convince yourself or others to convince you. I don't mean to be rude, but the answers are practically here and you just need to read them.