[Blacknight659]

I am stuck between the 100mm macro WR and the 70mm Limited for a Portrait lens. I do mostly outdoor portraits and studio headshots. I like the idea of buying the Macro so I can have the best of both worlds (Macro and Portraiture) but I want to make sure this lens will do its primary purpose well.

Can anyone speak to these two lenses and if there is any downside to using the 100mm Macro for portrait work?

Thank you!

[UncleVanya]

Subject Distance is going to be longer on the 100. Studio space needs to be long enough for that.

100 is noiser, larger and much more imposing ( nervous subject may react negatively ), long focus throw and focus miss can delay shot due to the extreme range of focus,

Both lenses can produce great photos of people.

[kp0c]

If you buy both use, you could get both for the original price of the 100mm wr (before its reduced price of <400 $ that it now sells at) - so that's an easy way to rationalize getting both .

edit : all kidding aside (or was I even kidding...) I'd go for the 70mm if you really are after portrait simply because the 100mm will hunt on you on occasions and the focus will be slower, all of which can be a burden when doing a lot of portraits and while trying to capture one's reaction/emotion/expression. I wouldn't worry about the size difference however as both are rather small lenses, the 70mm being obviously a lot smaller, but none of those two lenses would strike me as intimidating, especially if people are surrounded by strobe lights.

[CarlJF]

I have the DA70 and a 90mm macro. Although both can be used for portraits, I prefer by far to use the DA70 for the reasons UncleVanya mentions above.

On a APS-C body, the macro is a bit long when used indoor. And, in a portrait situation, the macro just feels akward to use relative to the DA70.

Although I could make do with the macro for portraits, I rarely use it. The DA70, a 50mm or my 17-50/2.8 just are more practical to use...

[Apapukas]

I use both and they are both really wonderful lenses for portraits (headshots). Both have really gorgeous color rendition, but 100mm macro isn't really sharp wide open, when 70mm is sharp straight from f/2.4. Also, on K5 the focus is really slow with the 100 macro, while on K3 it is noticeably faster.

[HYS]

I have both lenses and simply said they are excellent. Speaking of portraits the results are quite different from the point of perception. It largely depends on you taste. On APS-C I'l prefer the 70Ltd.

[fwbigd]

Both lens are extremely sharp and the bokeh is very nice on each lens. The DA* Limited f2,4 on APS-C sensor camera has an effective crop of 105mm. That at one time was considered to be the perfect focal length for a portrait lens. Today the 85mm is considered ideal for portraits, which is a bit short in my opinion. When you mount the 70mm on a FF camera the lens is to short to be a portrait lens. As a side note the 70mm can be used effective as a FF lens on new K-1 with minor vignetting. I have both lens and I use the 70mm on the K-3ii and the 100mm on the K-1 for portraits. I think your real choice is between the two lens is what camera format you shooting. APC go with the 70mm. FF go with the 100mm macro. Both lens are very reasonably priced.

[6BQ5]

I have shot portraits of my kids with the D-FA 100mm. Very nice lens, very sharp! The bokeh in my case turned out soft and creamy. Maybe not exceptional but nice for sure. My kids have a fairly smooth complexion and a super sharp lens like the D-FA 100mm is just fine. Be careful with some subjects who may want a softer portrait.

Working distance for a 100mm on a APS system is pretty long. Outdoors it may be ok but indoors could be problematic. Also, be aware that shake will be more evident in your viewfinder at 100mm. A tripod or monopod may be advisable. I did my work hand-held and the SR mechanism took care of the rest. These two reasons may be why people gravitate to 70mm.

On FF the answer may be different.

[pathdoc]

Background: I own both lenses, and I shoot them on the K-5.

What body will you be using? The 70 on crop has a 105mm full frame equivalent FOV while the 100 has a 150mm FOV; long portrait lenses on film sort of top off around 135 traditionally.

If you're going to be using a K-1, the 100 might be just your thing in field of view terms (very close to the FOV of the DA70 on crop). However, Uncle Vanya has spelled it out - if you miss focus, it tends to hunt through its entire range (which is quite long in focus throw terms) until it comes back and locks on, and that isn't a quiet process. Of all the lenses I've used that have Quick Shift, this is the only one on which I feel it is an absolute necessity. The upside is that it's sharp as all get-out, as macro lenses tend to be, and it's not significantly slower (f/2.8 compared to f/2.4). Get it near enough, then touch up with AF.

If you can work around the limitations or accept them, your intent to use the 100 as a dual-purpose portrait/macro lens makes a lot of sense. If nothing else, it will let you get as close as you need to just about anybody.

The 70mm, on the other hand, has an irritatingly long minimum focus distance sometimes. You won't be able to get really, really, really close to crop in on a particular part of the face without doing some of it in post. It also has the minor irritation that the (very nice) push-on cap requires the screw-on hood to be used, and if you are the sort who wants the most compact lens possible and is prepared to/prefers to ditch the hood when out and about, you will need a pinch cap of some sort. Fortunately it's the very common (for Pentax) 49mm size. Those disadvantages aside, I could take pics of my kids with this lens all day long and never get tired.

If you don't have a K-1 and are thinking of trading up to it, consider how that might change things. The 100 WR Macro is a D-FA WR lens and therefore rated for full-frame, and you will be good to go. The DA 70 is not so rated. Some users have reported minor vignetting at some apertures. I couldn't see any on the VERY few film pictures I have taken with it, but most of those were unwittingly substandard (unfocused) and I need to do more experimenting in this regard. When I eventually get the K-1, I will do some shooting with it in full frame mode and see what happens. If Raw Therapee or some other similar tool can make the vignetting go away in post, that will be good enough for me.

[Blacknight659]

Ok, was kinda leaning towards the 70mm, but I didn't want to pass on a dual purpose lens if performance was comparable. Thanks!

[kp0c]

I use both and they are both really wonderful lenses for portraits (headshots). Both have really gorgeous color rendition, but 100mm macro isn't really sharp wide open, when 70mm is sharp straight from f/2.4. Also, on K5 the focus is really slow with the 100 macro, while on K3 it is noticeably faster.

If your DA 70mm is sharper at 2.4 than your 100mm macro is at 2.8, you need to make some focus adjustment or there is a problem with your 100mm imo.

[Blacknight659]

I am planning on using my K-5iis with this combo. FF is awesome, but I won't be upgrading to that any time soon. APS-C for me for now.

[UncleVanya]

70-200 2.8 zooms are used commonly by many pros for portraits. 70 isn't too short and 100 isn't too long even with cropped perspective. But working distances will get longer with the longer lens.

Saying the 70 is too short is getting too hung up on numbers. The FA 77 was shorter than the 85 and still did plenty of duty as a portrait lens in the film era. In my day the 85 was the defacto standard but the Nikon 105 was quite popular as well. However even then the 180/200mm had some followers. Basically anything 70-200 is likely useable and even shorter works depending on your skill.

Btw I've even used a 400 for 3/4 headshots. On crop that's like using a 600mm on 35mm film.

[bdery]

I was going to answer that you should get the 70. For portraits only, it's a better lens.

However, you mention that macro would interest you also. In that case, I'd say the 100 is a better package. It's a bit larger, but no more imposing than many fast 50s (have you seen the Sigma 50 Art?). It doesn't hunt that much at the tele end (although it can hunt in the macro range). It's not really noisy on that range either. The difference in field of view between 70 and 100 is real, but not dramatic. Plus the macro can let you do some stuff that a regular lens won't (like close-ups of the eyes, for instance).

So if you do plan on doing macro, the 100 is a great choice. Otherwise get the 70.

[robthebloke]

Uncle Vanya has spelled it out - if you miss focus, it tends to hunt through its entire range (which is quite long in focus throw terms) until it comes back and locks on, and that isn't a quiet process.

I hated the DFA 100 for that very reason on the K-5 and K-3. On the K-1 though, I have yet to see it hunt once. It just locks on, and boom! It even locks on first time when shooting macros. It's a totally different lens on FF.

To the OP, if you are only interested in portraits, then I'd suggest the DA70. It's so small and unassuming, that people don't realise you're shooting a close up on their face. It's bokeh is nicer, and it's really easy to use.

If you have plans to move to FF eventually, then id probably recommend the DFA100. It's a ball ache of a lens on APSC from a usability point of view, but it does deliver some fantastic images when everything clicks into place. On the K-1 though, it's in my top 3 lenses (along with the FA43 and FA77).