Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

[Chuck Alaimo]

SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question. As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots. It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking. I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.

SO that leads to options. And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$.

Lenses:

100 2.8
100L 2.8
180L 3.5

or, I could go with an extension tube ---what are your thoughts on extension tubes? They are a fairly cheap fix which would get me in a bit closer, and I'd be able to use those on all my longer lenses.

Another option is the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87494-REG/Canon_2822A001_58mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

That one in particular is would fit my 85 1.8 --- its the cheapest option by far, but, again I have to wonder if that's enough. Do I need the versatility of the extension tube? Or, should I bag all of those ideas and snag one of the above mentioned lenses (I see the 180 macro used all the time on B&H...and I have heard that the 100L is also good for portraits...but, with a 85 1.8 and the 70-200, would I really use a 100 macro for portraits???????)

Again, it's not like I plan on diving into the insect world (yeah, of course once I can I probably will, but thats not the main idea here). Pretty much just wanting a way to get tighter shots of wedding rings, and looking to do so without spending an arm and a leg (I'd much rather snag a 135L than a macro lens..)

On the other end of things...I am considering a 2x teleconverter too. I have heard much more about those though...

 

[rang]

SO, hey hey gearheads, I can't think of a better place to ask this question. As most of you know, I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. One of the little things I'd like to improve on are ring shots. It's not that I don't like the shots that I am getting, but, I'd love to get in a little closer and the only lens I have that allows for really close focusing is the 16-35, which while it can get close, even at 35mm it's not as tight and DOF with that is not to my liking. I enjoy using the 50, 85 and 70-200 for that, but with the minimum focusing distance it requires a big crop to get the desired shot.

SO that leads to options. And I am not sure which way to go, and given the very limited use I'm seeking to fill, not sure I want to spend a ton of $$$.

Lenses:

100 2.8
100L 2.8
180L 3.5

or, I could go with an extension tube ---what are your thoughts on extension tubes? They are a fairly cheap fix which would get me in a bit closer, and I'd be able to use those on all my longer lenses.

Another option is the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87494-REG/Canon_2822A001_58mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

That one in particular is would fit my 85 1.8 --- its the cheapest option by far, but, again I have to wonder if that's enough. Do I need the versatility of the extension tube? Or, should I bag all of those ideas and snag one of the above mentioned lenses (I see the 180 macro used all the time on B&H...and I have heard that the 100L is also good for portraits...but, with a 85 1.8 and the 70-200, would I really use a 100 macro for portraits???????)

Again, it's not like I plan on diving into the insect world (yeah, of course once I can I probably will, but thats not the main idea here). Pretty much just wanting a way to get tighter shots of wedding rings, and looking to do so without spending an arm and a leg (I'd much rather snag a 135L than a macro lens..)

On the other end of things...I am considering a 2x teleconverter too. I have heard much more about those though...

I've used the 500D extensively and I've also used extreme setups with multiple tubes sets and TC's on focusing rails etc. etc. with and without the 500D added to the optical train.

If you want to take an initial step into some nice macro work...get it...the 500D. it is color corrected and very sharp and it is much easier to carry around with you with any other glass. So when the opportunity comes up you can get that macro shot. However I would not get the 500D in 58mm size. If your eventual goal is to acquire L glass the majority of the filter sizes would be 77mm. There are a few exceptions but that would be addressed by inexpensive step-up or step-down rings.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

If your eventual goal is to acquire L glass the majority of the filter sizes would be 77mm. There are a few exceptions but that would be addressed by inexpensive step-up or step-down rings.

Most of my glass is L...only exception is the 2 primes. I have the 70-200 2.8 (non-IS), 24-70 v1, and 16-35L...

77mm is the filter thread on both the 70-200 and the 24-70, but, I am also considering upgrading 1 or both to the newer versions...which means larger filter thread... (also thinking about the 135, which is 72 mm)

How bad does the vignetting get with step down rings?

 

[robbymack]

For the price it's tough to beat extension tubes. Kenkos are nice, you get af, and only $200. A little more than the close up filter you're looking at but at least then you can use them on all your lenses vs just the ones with the same filter size. I get very good results with my 70-200 f4 IS and 85 1.8 with extension tubes. I prefer the 85 most of the time.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Buying expensive attachments will result in a frustrating experience if you just want closeup images. There are a ton of third party Macro lenses, and the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM is very good as well, all for a affordable price. You also get autofocus, but its only reliable in the L for extreme closeups.

The benefit of the 100L is that you generally don't need a big expensive setup to get reasonably good images. I'm happy with those I get while out walking around.

Here are some images taken with my 100L handheld while I was out walking around. I took about 3 or 4 shots and all were good.
Aphids on our Honeysuckle vine:

Robin Nest on some boards leaned up against the kids playhouse.

A few days later, hatchlings:

 

[HeavenHell]

Get a macro lens, you won't regret it. Your biggest decision is whether to go with IS or not. Canon, Sigma and Tamron all manufacture very good macro lenses. You can get tack sharp photos from any of them.

 

[Loswr]

I've used tubes and close-up lenses, and I have the 100 L Macro. All have pluses and minuses.

Tubes: work best with short focal lengths (added mag is focal length / tube length), no optics so no direct effect on IQ, some lost light (autoexposure compensates). The 40/2.8 with a 25mm tube works quite well.

Close-up lenses: work best with tele lenses (70-100mm is 'break even' between tubes and close-up lenses), no light loss, fixed working distance (front element to subject is 50cm with 500D, 25cm with 250D), slight optical decrement (but it was hard for me to distinguish the 100 L from the 500D on a 70-200 II in terms of IQ)

Macro lens: best IQ, most flexibility, most expensive

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

TY for the responses..

attached is one of my ring shots...as you can see, it's not the tight shot that I really want.

I am someone that is willing to shell out the dough for the needed lens, but this one is hard because it really has such a limited use (one that I can conceivably accomplish with my current setup but I will have to crop).

I was considering that smaller filter one so i can push DOF ---but...if I went with the extension tube I would be able to use that with the 85 and the 70-200? What happens with the DOF at 2.8 (both for the extension tube and the 500d, either size?)

Edit ---note, I am looking to do handheld, not tripod mounted. I have a good tripod, but that generally stays in the trunk for weddings.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I've used tubes and close-up lenses, and I have the 100 L Macro. All have pluses and minuses.

Tubes: work best with short focal lengths (added mag is focal length / tube length), no optics so no direct effect on IQ, some lost light (autoexposure compensates). The 40/2.8 with a 25mm tube works quite well.

Close-up lenses: work best with tele lenses (70-100mm is 'break even' between tubes and close-up lenses), no light loss, fixed working distance (front element to subject is 50cm with 500D, 25cm with 250D), slight optical decrement (but it was hard for me to distinguish the 100 L from the 500D on a 70-200 II in terms of IQ)

Macro lens: best IQ, most flexibility, most expensive

If I am reading this right then the tube would work nice with my 50 mm 1.4? If I was thinking I'd get more into intensive macro work I'd shell out the dough for the 100L...but, if I go that route then I say bye bye to the lens I really want, the 135L...and so far in searching I have not seen enough reasons to say the 100L would replace anything I currently have for portraits....(where the 135L has that ohhh baby that's special look)

 

[TexasBadger]

I went the extension tube route. Works great for the occasional use it gets. I love the fact that the image is not degraded.

 

[Loswr]

If I am reading this right then the tube would work nice with my 50 mm 1.4?

A 25mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.53x - 0.68x mag at 4.33" - 3.25" working distance. A 12mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.24x - 0.39x mag at 8.9" - 5.6" working distance.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

here's another...again...just looking to get a weee bit closer

 

[TexPhoto]

A real macro lens will give the highest quality results, but the differences can be subtle. For the difference in money it's probably not worth it for most shooters.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

A real macro lens will give the highest quality results, but the differences can be subtle. For the difference in money it's probably not worth it for most shooters.

That's the crux of the issue right there. 100 2.8 used is $400. Tubes or attachments are half that cost. For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial? (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)

A 25mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.53x - 0.68x mag at 4.33" - 3.25" working distance. A 12mm tube on the 50/1.4 would give you 0.24x - 0.39x mag at 8.9" - 5.6" working distance.

a kenko tube set is $200 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html

12mm tube from canon is a very reasonable $85, the 25mm canon is $140.... I wish my local shops were a little bigger and carried this stuff so i could go there and play...

+ side...b&h has a good return policy...lol

 

[kentandersen]

If in doubt, then go for makro extension tubes.

I use it with a 135L and a 24-105L. And I am very satisfied with the result.

It is the cheapest way to start testing out makro.


say cheeese by andersen_kent, on Flickr

 

[paul13walnut5]

Proper dedicated macro.

Filters are rubbish, reversing rings lose electronuc control, extension tubes stretch lenses betond their specification.

Decent macros aren't necessarily all that expensive and feature a proper magnification scale, high corner to corner resolution, very low field curvature etc etc.

Canons ancient slow noisy 50mm f2.5 is still optically a goodie and at a bargain price.

Sigma do a 50mm f2.8 macro which is also nice, and modestly priced.

I currently have the sigma 70mm f2.8 which at the time of buying had the highest imatests of any lens for the canon system, was also good on my eos 3 and had a good usable aperture range (grrrrreat up to f11, very very good at f16)

I don't bother with IS, particularly for macro, tripd and manfrotto 454 all the way!

 

[Loswr]

That's the crux of the issue right there. 100 2.8 used is $400. Tubes or attachments are half that cost. For what I'm thinking, is the difference going to be that substantial? (And there comes the key...I will notice it, but will my clients?)

Your clients likely won't notice an IQ difference. You might not, even. What you will notice is the difference in convenience. You posted two examples (rings with box and rings on stick) - you'd need a different combo of tube(s) + lens for a tightly framed shot of each (less mag to include the box). The 100/2.8 (or any true macro lens) gives you the flexibility to focus from infinity to 1:1, so you can get the framing you want in minimum time. So it may come down to whether or not you can count in having time during the wedding shoot to muck about with tubes, or not. After all...time is money.

 

[Don Haines]

To my way of thinking, if you are dealing with moving subjects (live insects, ec) or handheld, the 100L is the clear best choice. If you are dealing with static objects, out comes the tripod... IS is not needed, and you have all the time you want to make your shot using whatever techology suits your fancy.

 

[Frodo]

So it may come down to whether or not you can count in having time during the wedding shoot to muck about with tubes, or not. After all...time is money.

Neuro is right with mucking about. I have a 50/2.5 macro with lifesize converter, a 250D closeup lens and an EF25mm extension tube.

I would not recommend tubes for what you want. The process would be:
- remove existing lens
- attach tube
- attach lens to front of tube
- take photo
- remove lens
- remove tube
- replace lens

I use the tube on my 200/2.8 when taking photos of flighty subjects.

For most convenience would be the 250D closeup lens. Assuming you are shooting the 85, you simply need to screw it onto the front. This will give you between 1/3 and 1/2 life size, which is fine for wedding rings. This will give you sufficient working distance. The closeup lens could stay in your pocket. Quality of the Canon produce is absolutely fine for your purposes, not "rubbish" as claimed by another poster. I would get one to suit the lens you will use most often and not get a larger (and much more expensive) closeup lens with step-up ring.

Next option would be a dedicated macro lens. The 50/2.5 would be fine for your purpose, even though it only goes down to 1/2 lifesize. Advantages: cheap and relatively small - you want to minimise gear that you carry around.

The 100/2.8 macro is a little more expensive and goes to lifesize, but is much bigger. You then have 50, 85, 100, 135 and 70-200 which is quite a focal length overlap for someone who will need to carry gear around.

I've done a few weddings. The key is to be fleet on your feet and not be encumbered with gear. Hence, my suggestions.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

To my way of thinking, if you are dealing with moving subjects (live insects, ec) or handheld, the 100L is the clear best choice. If you are dealing with static objects, out comes the tripod... IS is not needed, and you have all the time you want to make your shot using whatever techology suits your fancy.

no moving subjects...this would be primarily for wedding rings...looking to be handheld too. I don't bring out the tripod for weddings..