Macro for Portraiture

The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes for
portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I have
noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why, but never
asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over normal primes?

D3X (60mm macro):
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/im...g/pic_001b.jpg

5D II (100mm macro):
http://www.afashionshooter.com/wp-co..._0015-copy.jpg

"Alan Smithee" wrote in message
...
The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have
been portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that
sometimes for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp,
for years I have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and
wondered why, but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use
macro lenses over normal primes?

D3X (60mm macro):
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/im...g/pic_001b.jpg

5D II (100mm macro):
http://www.afashionshooter.com/wp-co..._0015-copy.jpg


Where have you been for the last 50 years?
Millions of portraits were and are shot with macro lenses.

"Frank Arthur" wrote in message
. ..

The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes
for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I
have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why,
but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over
normal primes?

D3X (60mm macro):
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/im...g/pic_001b.jpg

5D II (100mm macro):
http://www.afashionshooter.com/wp-co..._0015-copy.jpg


Where have you been for the last 50 years?
Millions of portraits were and are shot with macro lenses.


Where have you been? Obviously not learning how to read going by your
reply.

Alan Smithee wrote:
The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes
for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I
have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why,
but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over
normal primes?

The focal length of many macros (esp. 90 - 105mm macros) make them
suitable for portraits. They are not ideal, but certainly make the grade.

It is the backgrounds that one wants to be particularly smooth to
contrast against the detail of the subject. The Minolta 135 f/2.8
[T4.5] STF is a lens designed for this particular effect.

If one wants to soften the in-focus subject one can use beauty lights
(or at least large area softboxes), softening filters and post processing.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:26:21 -0000, "Alan Smithee"
wrote in :

The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes for
portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I have
noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why, but never
asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over normal primes?

In a word, yes. Also good bokeh. But not all portraits benefit from
sharpness, so many portraits are taken with short telephotos (my usual
choice) and with special portrait lenses.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

Alan Smithee wrote:
The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes
for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I
have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why,
but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over
normal primes?


It's also germane to note that macro lenses are typically sharpest in
their macro range (say 1:4 to 1:1) and less sharp at portrait range.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:17:49 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote in
:

Alan Smithee wrote:
The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes
for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I
have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why,
but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over
normal primes?

It's also germane to note that macro lenses are typically sharpest in
their macro range (say 1:4 to 1:1) and less sharp at portrait range.

With all due respect, that's typically a tiny difference and not
meaningful -- my Canon 50 mm macro lens, for example, is as sharp as or
sharper than a "normal" Canon 50 mm lens at non-macro working distance.
The only real advantage of the "normal" lens is speed.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

"Alan Browne" wrote:
Alan Smithee wrote:
The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes
for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I
have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why,
but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over
normal primes?


It's also germane to note that macro lenses are typically sharpest in
their macro range (say 1:4 to 1:1) and less sharp at portrait range.

But they do _real_ nice in the portrait range as well. I presume that this
site tests both normal and macro lenses at the same distances, i.e. roughly
portrait working distances, and in general, the macro lenses do better than
the generic primes and zooms.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2

For example, the Stigma 70/2.8 is sharper at f/2.8 than the Canon 24-105/4.0
is at it's best f stop and best focal length. (The Zeiss ZF 100/2.0 is also
nice: it beats out the Canon 100/2.8 macro at every f stop, even when you
compare with the Zeiss shooting one f stop wider open.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:17:49 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote in
:

Alan Smithee wrote:
The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes
for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I
have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why,
but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over
normal primes?
It's also germane to note that macro lenses are typically sharpest in
their macro range (say 1:4 to 1:1) and less sharp at portrait range.

With all due respect, that's typically a tiny difference and not
meaningful -- my Canon 50 mm macro lens, for example, is as sharp as or
sharper than a "normal" Canon 50 mm lens at non-macro working distance.
The only real advantage of the "normal" lens is speed.

With equal due respect, a well known macro such as the Hasselblad
Carl-Zeiss 120 f/4 Makro Planar is known to be sharper in its macro
range yet less than stellar at non macro ranges. (See below).

My 120 certainly shows this as not being terrific for larger piece copy
work (I photographed a painting with it but got better results with the
150 f/4 Sonnar).

Part of the above may be that the 120 Makro is designed to be flat field
in its makro range and perhaps cannot achieve a flat field outside of
its makro range resulting in less sharpness v. desired focus.

OTOH, my Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro is exceptionally sharp at infinity
(beats the Canon, Tamron and Nikon (in that order)) as well as macro.
It is also a very good portrait lens.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
Alan Smithee wrote:
The two sharpest images I have seen from the D3X and the 5D II have been
portraits shot using macro lenses. Although I understand that sometimes
for portraiture you don't want the images to be too sharp, for years I
have noticed people using macro lenses for portraits and wondered why,
but never asked. Is sharpness the reason they use macro lenses over
normal primes?

It's also germane to note that macro lenses are typically sharpest in
their macro range (say 1:4 to 1:1) and less sharp at portrait range.

But they do _real_ nice in the portrait range as well. I presume that this
site tests both normal and macro lenses at the same distances, i.e. roughly
portrait working distances, and in general, the macro lenses do better than
the generic primes and zooms.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2

For example, the Stigma 70/2.8 is sharper at f/2.8 than the Canon 24-105/4.0
is at it's best f stop and best focal length. (The Zeiss ZF 100/2.0 is also
nice: it beats out the Canon 100/2.8 macro at every f stop, even when you
compare with the Zeiss shooting one f stop wider open.)

How about using a portrait lens for macros? The 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor is
pretty good on extension tubes. Maybe not as good as a macro lens for
closeups but maybe the person is more interested in portraiture and just
occasionally wants to do some macro work.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam