Picking a Macro Lens for Weddings

[mama_fluxus]

 

I'm sick of using my canon 70-200 and cropping to take less than ideal photos of rings when I'm doing weddings. I'm a college student on a budget but, it is a cost of doing business so I'm willing to spend up to $1000 (less would be ideal).

 

Right now I'm looking at these lenses as options:

• Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro
• Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro
• Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro 

Any thoughts on these lenses or another that I should be looking at?

 

Also, these are the other lenses I usually take to weddings:

• Tonkina 11-16 f2.8
• Sigma 18-35 f1.8
• Tamron 45mm f1.8 Di VC USD
• Canon 85mm f1.8 USM
• Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II

[Aereldor]

You already have some incredibly sharp lenses, like the Sigma 18-35. Why not just use it with an extension tube?

 

 

[mama_fluxus]

9 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

You already have some incredibly sharp lenses, like the Sigma 18-35. Why not just use it with an extension tube?

 

 

Well, I already have some tubes and don't use them.  Doing wedding photography in my mind is a whole new game where time is important. I will be taking the bride and grooms rings to take pictures of them during the wedding and time is very important. It's worth it to me go get the photos done fast and accurately where I don't have to play with tubes.

 

But, thanks for the response and I love Christopher Frost's lens reviews!  

Edited February 18, 2017 by mama_fluxus

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, mama_fluxus said:

Well, I already have some tubes and don't use them.  Doing wedding photography in my mind is a whole new game where time is important. I will be taking the bride and grooms rings to take pictures of them during the wedding and time is very important. It's worth it to me go get the photos done fast and accurately where I don't have to play with tubes.

 

But, thanks for the response!  

Sure, but with your sizeable collection of lenses, you could afford to have one permanently attached to an extension tube. That way, it's just another macro lens, because all you have to do is swap the combo in like you would another lens.

[mama_fluxus]

1 minute ago, Aereldor said:

Sure, but with your sizeable collection of lenses, you could afford to have one permanently attached to an extension tube. That way, it's just another macro lens, because all you have to do is swap the combo in like you would another lens.

The issue is that it kills autofocus, cuts sharpness, and is just a pain in general. 

 

Extension tubes have their place but, It's worth it to me to invest in a new/used macro lens.

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, mama_fluxus said:

The issue is that it kills autofocus, cuts sharpness, and is just a pain in general. 

 

Extension tubes have their place but, It's worth it to me to invest in a new/used macro lens.

Do they kill autofocus? They have the electrical connections that connect the relays from the lens to the camera body.

A really popular macro lens is the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro, and there's an 'L' variant for a sizeable amount more. It isn't a night-and-day difference for image quality (check out comparisons on YouTube), but it has IS and is weather-sealed, in case you're shooting a wedding on a coal barge.

[mama_fluxus]

4 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Do they kill autofocus? They have the electrical connections that connect the relays from the lens to the camera body.

A really popular macro lens is the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro, and there's an 'L' variant for a sizeable amount more. It isn't a night-and-day difference for image quality (check out comparisons on YouTube), but it has IS and is weather-sealed, in case you're shooting a wedding on a coal barge.

Yeah on my lenses I've tested it on it slows the autofocus a lot. The auto focus is tuned to have the camera a specific distance from the sensor anything other than that and it will slow down.

 

The IS is important as I am usually shooting handheld and weather sealing isn't super important to me but it's defiantly a bonus.

[Aereldor]

12 minutes ago, mama_fluxus said:

Yeah on my lenses I've tested it on it slows the autofocus a lot. The auto focus is tuned to have the camera a specific distance from the sensor anything other than that and it will slow down.

 

The IS is important as I am usually shooting handheld and weather sealing isn't super important to me but it's defiantly a bonus.

Darn, what sort of shutter speeds are you typically shooting at? Unless you're shooting video, you aren't exactly limited in that area, and could make do without the IS. It is a hell of a lot of money to be spending on a very subtle improvement in image quality when IS and weather sealing aren't entirely necessary.

[mama_fluxus]

2 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Darn, what sort of shutter speeds are you typically shooting at? Unless you're shooting video, you aren't exactly limited in that area, and could make do without the IS. It is a hell of a lot of money to be spending on a very subtle improvement in image quality when IS and weather sealing aren't entirely necessary.

Shutter speed completely depends on the situation where no two weddings are the same. Somewhere between outdoors at noon and a dark corner of the the room at the reception. 

 

Like I said before.. It's worth it to me to buy a lens.

[Aereldor]

1 minute ago, mama_fluxus said:

Shutter speed completely depends on the situation where no two weddings are the same. Somewhere between outdoors at noon and a dark corner of the the room at the reception. 

 

Like I said before.. It's worth it to me to buy a lens.

I know, but is it worth it to shell out a bunch for 'L' glass? Well, I suppose that's up to you. My recommendation remains to use the cheaper glass, but if you can afford the L variant and think the investment is justified, it's a great macro lens. I've only used the non-L variant when working with a friend who owns one, and I'd wager IS is a welcome addition.

[johnt]

3 hours ago, mama_fluxus said:

Shutter speed completely depends on the situation where no two weddings are the same. Somewhere between outdoors at noon and a dark corner of the the room at the reception. 

 

Like I said before.. It's worth it to me to buy a lens.

I wouldn't spend too much on a macro lens TBH. I spent close to a grand on the Nikon 105mm and while it produces some of the most amazing pictures... I rarely use it. Also don't be afraid to buy lenses used. Most people who buy these specialized products baby them enough that you can probably find a very decent deal.

 

Just my $0.02

[xQubeZx]

Find a used L glass macro? Will probably cost a lot but a used will be significantly cheaper than buying new. But really glass doesn't lose its value that much so you can resell it if you never uses it in a year or two. However I've seen a lot of people using macros for portrait work so I could defentivly see the usecase for a 90-130mm ish sharp macro lens. 

 

But the major reason I would reccomend going with L glass is that its built by proffesional standards. They are made to take a beating and will most likley not fail you. And at a wedding it would be a pain if your lens broke down. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

9 hours ago, mama_fluxus said:

 

I'm sick of using my canon 70-200 and cropping to take less than ideal photos of rings when I'm doing weddings. I'm a college student on a budget but, it is a cost of doing business so I'm willing to spend up to $1000 (less would be ideal).

 

Right now I'm looking at these lenses as options:

• Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro
• Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro
• Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro 

Any thoughts on these lenses or another that I should be looking at?

 

Also, these are the other lenses I usually take to weddings:

• Tonkina 11-16 f2.8
• Sigma 18-35 f1.8
• Tamron 45mm f1.8 Di VC USD
• Canon 85mm f1.8 USM
• Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II

I'd go with the Canon as my first choice, otherwise a Sigma macro lens that is in the 100mm range.

 

Canon L series are worth it to those who need them, and if you're making money from working as a tog then it may not be that big of an investment in the long run.

[mama_fluxus]

On 2/18/2017 at 3:05 AM, xQubeZx said:

Find a used L glass macro? Will probably cost a lot but a used will be significantly cheaper than buying new. But really glass doesn't lose its value that much so you can resell it if you never uses it in a year or two. However I've seen a lot of people using macros for portrait work so I could defentivly see the usecase for a 90-130mm ish sharp macro lens. 

 

But the major reason I would reccomend going with L glass is that its built by proffesional standards. They are made to take a beating and will most likley not fail you. And at a wedding it would be a pain if your lens broke down. 

 

On 2/18/2017 at 1:40 AM, JohnT said:

I wouldn't spend too much on a macro lens TBH. I spent close to a grand on the Nikon 105mm and while it produces some of the most amazing pictures... I rarely use it. Also don't be afraid to buy lenses used. Most people who buy these specialized products baby them enough that you can probably find a very decent deal.

 

Just my $0.02

I buy all my glass used, usually one the "buy used" section on amazon. It's not uncommon to pay 60-80% of retail for new in box bodies and lenses. It's a no brainer in my mind unless you are buying glass for a larger business and need B&H's return policy. 

 

On 2/18/2017 at 7:13 AM, AkiraDaarkst said:

I'd go with the Canon as my first choice, otherwise a Sigma macro lens that is in the 100mm range.

 

Canon L series are worth it to those who need them, and if you're making money from working as a tog then it may not be that big of an investment in the long run.

 

Thanks for the advice! I will probably end up getting a Canon 100mm L macro for it's proven track record and reliability. It looks like I can pick one up used on Amazon for about $650.