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?

[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...

[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

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Mitsubishiman wrote:

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

---

I'm not surprised. Note, however, that DPP doesn't usually require a clone source when removing small spots. You just put a circle around the spot, tell the program whether it's darker or lighter than its surroundings, and click the mouse button. The spot is removed, and the blending is automatic.

[ScottyP]

I love Lightroom. Clone for inorganic things. "Heal" for skin.  Works great.  Won't add Bigfoot or remove your ex girlfriend from a shot but does all the things you want done in a normal situation. 

[Waddizzle]

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

Too much work to go over ever pore and pimple on someone's face, neck, arms, etc. 

If you oversharpen a photo just a bit followed by a little too much noise reduction, you tend to lose some details, and usually that's just enough to smooth over the skn.  It won't exactly make every pimple and pore go away, but it does make them far less noticeable.  In fact, I don't really oversharpen a photo, I adjust the "radius" of the sharpening tool.

And, the effect is applied everywhere evenly.  It's a trick I discovered using Lightroom.  I cannot say how well it works with DPP, because you have fewer adjustments and less "control" over how much, and in what way, sharpening and noise reduction can be applied.

[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).