Macro vs Non-macro lens

I want to buy a portrait lens for my EOS and my first candidate is EF
100/2.0 USM.
However, I've never done macro photography before and feel like giving
it a try, so I'm also thinking about EF 100/2.8 Macro USM. But macro is
only a "sideline", so my concern is how good the macro lens is for
ordinary/portrait photography?
What are drawbacks of this macro for non-macro shots besides being less
fast, bulkier and more expensive?

 

It could try to find focus in the macro region, and back again. (Even a USM
lens takes time when this happens.) There is a focus limiter on this lens,
so it's worth using when doing portraits.
If may be too sharp ...
....and it's a big possibly intimidating lens, particularly if the lens hood
is in place.

 

It is probably equivalent to the standard lens, but if you don't intend to
take macro shots, you will be spending a lot of money for capability that
you will never use.
Jim

 

I've heard that argumentand counter to it you hear: It can't be too sharp,
as you can add soft focus effects to a sharp lens, but you can't make a soft
lens sharp.

My primary concern would be the out of focus rendition. If everything in
focus is sharp but everything out of focus is harsh and distracting, that's
not a good portrait lens.

I only know of one lens for 35mm cameras that is both a macro and an
excellent portrait lens, and that's the tokina 90mm.

 

I thought it was the Tamron 90mm that was "both a macro and an excellent
portrait lens".



Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks

 

I thought it was the Tamron 90mm that was "both a macro and an excellent
portrait lens".


Both. Also the Pentax FA 100mm f2.8 macro. Most other 90-100mm macros do
have rather harsh bokeh though, and so are sometimes not great choices for
non-macro subjects, and especially not for portraits.


Peter