Benson Wills schrieb: > > I'm torn...I've read rave reviews of the 135L and also of the 100 usm > macro. > > But, I'll probably be taking more portrait type photos than macro > photos. > > Is the 135 really that much better than the macro for portraiture, > with regard to bokeh, perspective, handling, etc? (Note that I left > off 'sharpness' :-) >
Well, I don't own one of these lenses, so I don't speak out of personal experience here. IMHO, both lenses are good for portraits. What focal length you prefer is a matter of taste and also a matter of what type of portraits you do. If you work in a studio, 135mm will already be a little long or at least require a big studio. Outdoors you can just step back most of the time. I'd prefer the 135 for outdoor work, maybe even a 200 or 300 to get a smooth background. In a studio, background blur is often not necessary, because you have full control of your background. Also, if your model has a big nose you probably should prefer a 200mm lens over a 85mm :-). Thomas Bantel * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
