Why You Should Use a 100mm Macro Lens for Beauty Portraits

[@jpdj2715]

Using a ~100mm macro lens for portraits is an old pro-insider-secret. Way back, the reasoning was that lens designs are optimised at infinity and lens performance becomes less when you focus closer by. Macro lenses are the exception to this design principle. In the meantime, we have lens designs with a lot more elements than was possible, 20 or 50 years ago, because better coatings, with better corrections, because computer simulations, and better resolution. Today, some lenses are so crystal clear and so difficult to cause them to glare or flare that some people complain about it. We also have lenses with "floating elements" that do the focusing, rather than the entire arrangement of lens elements in one go. Such floating elements (aka internal focusing) would allow for corrections to be adapted to the focused-on distance. Similar elements are also found in prime lenses that have no "focus breathing". As focusing closer by shifts the lens away from sensor/film, the actual focal length gets longer and the image angle narrower. That's called focus breathing and lenses that compensate this, are actually subtle zoom lenses that zoom out a bit when you focus closer by. Again, with these floating elements, there could be modern day adaptive optical corrections of optical distortions like chromatic aberration or coma, etc. When you move from an 85mm to a 105mm, the focal length gets longer and the Depth of Field (DoF) shallower at the same aperture number (in theory (*) ). To get the same frame as with 85, you need however more distance and this has implications. You need a larger studio ;). You get deeper DoF - because more distance. Why 1.4 or 1.2 even (*)? Well, in studio shots you never need that shallow DoF (**). Pros would shoot a 1.8, or a 2.8 macro, rather, as such lenses had less issues and you would shoot at 5.6 or 8 anyway. And when you primarily shoot real medium format, it generally does not get "better" than 2.8 anyway. Do you need shallow DoF to get more depth in a portrait? No, "we" would use hair and rim light for that. You never need that shallow DoF? Well, in some cases you can use it to create fuzziness in bad skin. Or only get one eye in focus, rather than both. Or have a piece of jewellery or stretch of makeup sharp and nothing else. And then there's the outdoors where you may want to obliterate an ugly background Do you want the sharpest lens out there? Well, in commercial beauty shots of models with perfect and young skin, you may need all the detail you can get. In that case, sharper is better. If you shot a lot of "models" then you know most of them do not have perfect skin. If you shot loads of "normal" people, then you know that sharpness may frustrate your client rather than make them happy, because of all the details in your photos that they never see when looking at themselves in the mirror, with or without their glasses on. In studio shots with controlled backgrounds, nobody cares about how pretty the background blur is rendered. Because it is about the subject that should be in focus. What do you say to a bride complaining that she does not look like a supermodel in your shots? "Yeah, but have you seen how beautiful the background blur is?" 105 distorts less than 85? If you have been to art school and took the "perspective drawing" class, then you know that perspective relates to, is a function of, distance, not angle of view or focal length in photography. The distortion you reference is what you perceive as perspective distortion and that's not caused by these lenses. You will make a good step back with 100mm lens relative to 85. With increasing distance, the area of what is in view increases squared. So perspective has its "square law" that is used in flash exposure through the "inverse square law". The latter simply dictates that you get half the light intensity when the area you light doubles - that's the inverse. The square law says that, if at distance 1 you see an area of 1*1=1 square units, then at distance 2 you will see 2*2=4 square units. So the distance increased by a factor of 2, but the area in the frame increased by 2^squared. Farther away, the differences become less dramatic and nearby these "exponential" differences will be dramatic. Tell your model to extend her arm to the camera and make a fist. Shoot with 35mm from 1.5m distance. Repeat with your 105 at a distance where the model is equally large in the frame. You will be significantly farther away for the latter. In the former her fist may seem bigger than her head. In the latter, the differences will look more natural. What you call distortion just is correct application of the laws of geometry in perspective. And, considering the "square law" of perspective, stepping from 1.5m to 2m is a huge difference (that's 5' to some 6' 7"). An experienced portrait photographer uses these perspective insights in their work. Almost all people have some asymmetry in their faces and not looking into the camera, you can use the perspective of close by or farther away to camouflage such asymmetry. Or, the other way around, when you don't know what you are doing make it look worse. To get to grips with this, you need "real" people, not pretty girls with tender skin and baby face proportions. While some have rounder faces, others have narrow faces and how you depict that, is greatly impacted by angles and distance. What you get in the frame only depends on the focal length. Using wide angle lenses for portraits, the effect of smartphones & selfies, and Asian women. Let me start with the latter. In the past five years, a couple Asian women have said to my face that they preferred, were more attracted to, deeper set eyes and bigger noses. My joking response was, so that makes me extremely attractive to you? Don't ask me why they feel that way. It's what they said and I have seen this a couple of times being said explicitly or alluded to, in a YT video. Well, this just means you need to get closer to these people who feel that way, than you would do with your 85 or 105. That gets us to 35mm for starters. The shorter distance of subject to lens exaggerates "depth" and shape, or curves, compared to what we are used to seeing in real life when we stay outside some else's comfort zone. Selfies? Well, as people make selfies with smartphones at an arm's length, they get more used to the altered perspective associated with the shorter distance between camera (phone) and subject (self). These selfists may be aware of how to pose in order to look better. This leads to two things: they expect you as professional to already know this and how to pull it off with your camera. And mentally they are better adapted to perspective influences of portraits shot close by - no longer afraid of what you may call distortion. (*) The "number" in f/"number" only gives the geometric relation between focal length "f" and the diameter of the aperture. If you replace the glass in your 1.2L lens by almost black glass, then it still retains the f/1.2. But it lets much less light pass. This is why we have an alternative to the f/number in the T-stop that indicates light coming through. This is easily seen in DxO Mark data - and indicates that my old 1.4G lens had a transmission of T-1.5 when a 1.2L lens also had a transmission of T-1.5. Then the 1.4G was sharper too and altogether had similar or shallower DoF. The insider-pro detail about those 1.2L lenses is that you don't by them because they would be fast or have shallow DoF, but rather because they are soft. (**) DoF depends on focusing distance, focal length and aperture, right? Wrong ALSO on the "Circle of Confusion" (CoC). That CoC bundles a number of parameters: the size at which you look at your image (larger gives more DoF because of the effect on CoC). The distance at which you look at your rendered image (larger and less DoF). Then there's lens resolution: less resolution increases the CoC and this makes DoF deeper. And film/sensor resolution: more resolution means smaller CoC and hence shallower DoF. Finally there's the impact of "processing" that can make the image sharper or less. This means that a very sharp 1.8 lens can actually have less DoF than a soft 1.2. "Your" DoF calculator abstracts away from CoC with a rule of dumb. It allows you to choose a lens but only uses the focal length in software, not its sharpness (CoC). If you take the formula and start playing with parameters then you'll see actually rather dramatic differences.

[@thebluebooklife]

God Bless You for all this info my Goodness lol

[@thefocalcode]

Now can u repeat that?, joke. Thanks i read it all and gained alot.

[@HELMETMEMET]

oh man thanks for detail informationn

[@AshlynMarks-j1c]

Would you recommend this lens over 28-70mm for portraits and skincare photography

[@poocky100]

I love my tokens tax pro d 100mm f2.8 macro lens. It does it all. Macro, portraits and landscapes. Love it

[@JessicaKobeissi]

Seriously these images are stunning. WOW.

[@KayleighJune]

Love you!!! 😘🥰

[@rossholmes178]

@@KayleighJune Oh, come on you two! 😉

[@ladykatkaMUA]

I am about to pick up my order for Canon R and 100 mm Macro Lens and can't wait to do makeup and photograph it thanks to you and your videos!

[@KayleighJune]

How exciting! Have fun photographing!! 😁❤️

[@stephenvsawyer]

You're absolutely stunning thanks for the video

[@nahmeo5795]

Just bought mine and your course and i don't regret at all

[@KayleighJune]

I’m so happy to hear that! ☺️

[@glxxyz]

1:50 try holding the camera the other way up in portrait mode, with your left hand under the lens supporting the weight, and your right hand supporting from above. When you get use to it it should. be way more stable and your nose will fit better. Great shot though!

[@JessicaKobeissi]

I will use whatever you tell me to

[@joaovtaveira]

How do you compare it with the 85mm?

[@BJArt81382]

I hate that lens i took it back and bought the 85mm 1.2

[@hefegraphie]

This is my feeling too. I don't know. Taking a 85mm Prime Lens doesn't work for beauty, while 105 is perfect. I still don't get it why, because it is only 20mm difference...strange

[@KayleighJune]

It’s funny isn’t it!? I think 85mm is a beautiful focal length for portraits but it doesn’t always work for my beauty portraits. Could be the extra bit of distortion? Not even too sure myself!

[@thecringe_tv]

Such underrated photography channels! 🙏

[@KayleighJune]

🥰🥰🥰

[@minina221994]

Always love your content. Keep it up! ✨

[@KayleighJune]

Thanks Emily! 🥰

[@DrChip47]

Hi, does it make any difference that I have a Laowa 100mm x2 manual focus Macro lens. I do enjoy using on plants and insects

[@KayleighJune]

Hi George! I've actually not heard of this particular lens before, but I'd assume it could still be used for beauty! I'd also just assume that you may need a little more room to take a shot as it has the 2 x magnification on it. 🙂

[@DrChip47]

@@KayleighJune Hi Kayleigh, thanks for replying. To my limited knowledge and use it's been the best macro lens I have ever purchased Venus Optics manufacture them , have 58mm as well 👍

[@AshlynMarks-j1c]

Does this lens work with canon rebel t7

[@dorottyakiss5039]

it could, but it will make it around 160mm which isn't in the optimal range for portraits unfortunately

[@FeliciaBakes]

So, when you use the 100 macro lens do you use manual focus or auto focus ?

[@daustin777]

In the video she is turning the focus ring and looking into the LCD screen, so, I'd say she's using manual focus.

[@KayleighJune]

I prefer to use manual focus, especially when shooting closer up with my 100mm. I find it to be a lot easier when I have more control over the focusing 😁

[@FeliciaBakes]

@@KayleighJune awesome that’s good to know! I work with Fujifilm ended up getting a 100mm manual focus lens for beauty photography. Thanks for your reply.

[@FrankieAdams-FGV]

I owned the sony a7iii what lens you recommended for this camera for beauty?

[@KayleighJune]

I believe Sony has a 90mm option (Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G Lens,) however there’s also other brands like Sigma that you could look into! I think they have a 105mm f2.8 art lens. 🙂

[@FrankieAdams-FGV]

@@KayleighJune thank you!! Great video btw

[@diegoramirez6165]

If you will use the lens for video, get the sony. If your main use will be photography, get the sigma 105, its a bit sharper than rhe sony and more contrast in the center and corners sensor.

[@anapaulap3843]

for taking jewerly portraits photos 100mm is a good idea?

[@KayleighJune]

Definitely! It really depends on the style of shot you want, but especially for getting close up images of jewellery, a 100mm macro would be a must! 😊