The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L or the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens for fashion / beauty?

[MissKyami]

I'm debating between the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. I primarily plan to shoot close ups of makeup (sharp detail is very important) and 3/4 - full body shots of fashion. Would either lens be more suited to my needs? Would the versatility of the 70-200mm come at the cost of sharpness up close?

Thank you for your help!

[ScottyP]

Hi,

I dont shoot makeup but i do I do shoot my girls a lot and I own both lenses. 

Look at the minimum focus distance of both lenses. The 70-200 cannot focus on anything closer than 47" away, measured from the camera's sensor, not from the end of the lens. The lens is 8" long, and the sensor is about an inch inside the camera so, roughly, you can take pictures with the end of lens just about 3 feet from your subject. That is pretty darn close.  The lens has great resolution so you should be able to crop the image to enlarge the image to where you want it. 

The macro has true 1:1 close focus ability so you could shoot an extreme closeup and get an in focus shot of a patch of your model's skin the same size as the sensor in the camera, which would be displayed blown up to the size of your monitor. Not sure an extreme closeup of pores and hairs like this would show off your makeup work to its best advantage.  Very possibly overkill on the closeup ability. 

The 70-200 gives a lot of flexibility. It can not only go 2x as long but also 1/3 wider than the fixed 100mm.   100mm can be very long at times, especially on a crop body. 

What camera era do you use?

[diverhank]

Are you thinking of the EF100mm f/2.8L or non-L version?  Regardless, for your purpose (3/4 - full body), either lens will do very well and both will get you sharp detail that you desire.  The 70-200mm is very sharp and I'm not sure the non L 100mm version can match it.

I have both the 70-200 and the 100L version and personally I don't think the 100L can match it (I will no doubt get debates over this).

[Mitsubishiman]

The 2 lens you are looking at I have, although I do not take that many of the same genre of photography I am curious, the distance from the subject will always be the predominate factor.

I am curious if you really need a zoom of that magnitude unless you are really far away, or with the 100mm if you are that close.

I would be looking at the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

For versatility

[Waddizzle]

---

@MissKyami wrote:

I'm debating between the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. I primarily plan to shoot close ups of makeup (sharp detail is very important) and 3/4 - full body shots of fashion. Would either lens be more suited to my needs? Would the versatility of the 70-200mm come at the cost of sharpness up close?

Thank you for your help!

---

For 3/4 to full body shots, either of those lenses [100mm or 70-200mm] are going to require for you to be some distance from your subjects with a full frame camera, and even further with an APS-C sensor camera. 

[MissKyami]

Thanks so much for your help.

Right now I'm using a t5i, but am hoping to upgrade to a 5D Mark III in the coming months. Getting detailed images of the skin is important, because I'll be editing and really don't want the texture to get lost in that process. If the 70-200 could still achieve the same results, the versatility would be nice. If not...

[ScottyP]

Anyone with both lenses and a willing model care to shoot some close ups tomorrow using both lenses, and post?  Maybe I will, if I don't eat too much turkey and enjoy too much wine.  I have never photographed anyone using the 70-200 with the front element 3 feet from someone's face.  My daughter would wonder if I've finally gone nuts. 

[Waddizzle]

"Right now I'm using a t5i, but am hoping to upgrade to a 5D Mark III in the coming months. Getting detailed images of the skin is important, because I'll be editing and really don't want the texture to get lost in that process. If the 70-200 could still achieve the same results, the versatility would be nice. If not..."

Hmm.  More times than not, I get too much texture detail in the skin of the face.  I look for ways to smooth it out, most especially for women's faces.  A little too much Noise Reduction can help smooth out the skin's pores and pimples. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"Right now I'm using a t5i, but am hoping to upgrade to a 5D Mark III in the coming months. Getting detailed images of the skin is important, because I'll be editing and really don't want the texture to get lost in that process. If the 70-200 could still achieve the same results, the versatility would be nice. If not..."

Hmm.  More times than not, I get too much texture detail in the skin of the face.  I look for ways to smooth it out, most especially for women's faces.  A little too much Noise Reduction can help smooth out the skin's pores and pimples. 

---

Pimples and moles usually yield to DPP's "Stamp Tool". I don't doubt that LR has a similar capability.

[Mitsubishiman]

Actually I have Lightroom and DPP and for small spot removal Lightroom is better, it allows more versatility in size, blend diameter and location of clone with editing of the spot