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

[zim]

You may want to consider Raynox DCR-150, cheep as chips (I got the 250 just for fun and would be too much macro for what you want) it’s a simple clip-on that would seem ideal in a wedding environment for just one shot, no messing about, very quick to use. Not sure if it’s up to pro requirements but I think it’s surprisingly good for the price.

 

[chauncey]

I will notice it, but will my clients?)

That, my friend, is a dissappointing statement coming from a professional. You're saying less than my best is good enough for them.

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

Heed Paul's wisdom. I use a 180 macro and the only time it's off my 1DsIII is when a 300 2.8 is mounted on it.
That lens is excellent for much more than macro work...takes great portraits.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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
Yeah, that process sounds like BLah!!!!

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. my 50mm has same filter size so I should be able to use this on both? This will give you between 1/3 and 1/2 life size, which is fine for wedding rings. which is pretty much the only reason I am thinking macro 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 have to wonder if the "rubbish" comment is because that poster assumed I will be making a bigger plunge into macro, but no, just really thinking ring shots 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. That would most likely be my primes then, because within the next year I should be upgrading my 70-200 to the v2IS...which has the larger filter thread

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. Yeah, my bag is already pretty full! I don't yet have the 135...but, i have a feeling I will at some point this season

I've done a few weddings. The key is to be fleet on your feet and not be encumbered with gear. that is exactly why I am looking to find a way to get a little closer to the rings without having to add another lens to the mix Hence, my suggestions.

Look in the quote for reply

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I will notice it, but will my clients?)

That, my friend, is a dissappointing statement coming from a professional. You're saying less than my best is good enough for them.

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

Heed Paul's wisdom. I use a 180 macro and the only time it's off my 1DsIII is when a 300 2.8 is mounted on it.
That lens is excellent for much more than macro work...takes great portraits.

It's not that I don't want to offer my best to my clients by any means... the reality is that for most common folk, the minutia of detail we deliberate over is something most won't see. My budget this year isn't that large and am trying to squeeze in as many upgrades as I can. My focus is for sure going to be getting the best I possibly can of course, but for this issue...ring shots...it's going to be 2-10 shots (10 is even stretching it!). If I am shelling out over $500 on any items now, it;s going to be on the 70-200 v2 (having IS on my longer lens will give me greater SS freedom and increase the keeper rate ---and that';s a focal range that will be used all day! Or, the 135L 2.0, which would also get lots of use at the ceremony and the receptions (not to mention it being fantastic for portraits. finding a macro option for ring shots accounts for like less than 1% of the wedding, and really has no other use for me at this stage. (if I were to do more commercial work, product shots, etc, etc, a dedicated good quality macro would be a no brainer. But...for the need I am trying to fill...do I compromise upgrades in other areas that will have a greater impact on the entire wedding...or blow the wad on glass that will sit in the bag 99.99% of the time?

"You're saying less than my best is good enough for them."..... I'm not saying that at all, just trying to fill needs in my kit in the best way I can with the budget I have

 

[Surfwooder]

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 would ask the same question on the macro section of the forum "Ugly Hedgehog.com" There are different setups people use on the forum. The macro forum is moderated by a real pro macro photographer. You can get lens help, lighting help, equipment help, all by qualified macro users.

 

[kphoto99]

I took this quick picture with a nifty fifty using 12mm Kenko extension tube on a crop camera to show you what magnification you can get. It is a nickel in case that is not obvious. Only PP was to scale it down for the web.

For occasional close ups the tubes will be much better choice then a dedicated macro lens since you can use any of your lenses. And if you put something like the nifty fifty then you can have the tubs attached to it all the time.

 

[marcel]

In macro photography the problem is the distance between the lens and the subject. This is my last work for a make up tutorial:

Pentacon 500 5.6 MC video

And a picture i take for reference for the client.

 

[greger]

I tried the Kenko set of 3 Extension tubes and found they dropped flakes of black on the counter. I don't think I held my camera up so they didn't fall into my camera. $235.99 for a set of 3. You can use 1,2 or all 3 at once. A year later I bought a Canon 100 2.8 IS USM Macro lens with the Instant Rebate for $1,019.99. I got pics I would have never gotten
with Extension Tubes. I handheld the camera up close to a little flower looking through the view finder from a distance. I should have tried live view. I got better results with the lens than with extension tubes. Go to your favourite camera store and ask to try both the tubes and the Canon 100 2.8 IS Macro lens. Take rings for the test, just like you shoot for customers. Then go home and compare the images on your computer. I think this will help you choose the lens over the tubes. Personally I think the lens gets better pics than the tubes.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

OK...maye it's time to narrow things down and just cross of things from the list, while adding a few things

Lenses:

50mm 2.5
100 2.8 macro usm
100L 2.8 (cost is too high, overlapping focal length)
180L 3.5 (High cost, overlaps with 70-200, unless I can see some portrait examples taken that beat out the 70-200, the cost outweighs the need)

Other

tubes
close-up lens filters

If L quality glass is crossed off the list...how do tubes or filters stack up against the cheaper lenses? It's process of elimination time!

PS - mind you, if I take one of the cheaper options (tubes or filters) and end up digging macro work and want to take it a step further, it's not like I can't step into one of the higher quality lenses --- lol... kind of like doing a wine tasting, if I like I can always buy a bottle...

 

[kphoto99]

Other

tubes
close-up lens filters

If L quality glass is crossed off the list...how do tubes or filters stack up against the cheaper lenses? It's process of elimination time!

Think of the close-up lens filter the same as an extender, it enlarges the image, but the trade off is lower IQ.

With the tubes you can try all your existing lenses to see which one produces the image that you like. If you don't like the results you can always sell the tubes, but since you are taking very few pictures that need the close ups, that is the cheapest way to go, and it will produce very good results. After all it is not like a picture of rings will ever be enlarged to a 36x24 size.

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

I would go for a dedicated macro lens, they can be used for a lot more then just macro, here are some shots I got with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I would go for a dedicated macro lens, they can be used for a lot more then just macro, here are some shots I got with my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro.

Love the images!!!! It made me go see what the cost of sigma is...and uggg...it's $969, $769 with rebate...If I was in ---I am gonna start doing a lot more macro mode then I'd have no problem dropping that kind of $$$ (in fact...I'd be asking to see more images from this sigma, and more from the canon 100L...and 180L because I'd want the very best tool for the job). But as of now, my resources have to go to places that give more of an impact to my overall needs. I'd like to solve this without spending much...hence why tubes or close-ups seem to be winning in my mind.

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?

 

[Loswr]

Question re: tubes... Realizing that of course - " extension tubes stretch lenses beyond their specification," how does the modest 12mm stack up? I fully realize this is a move which requires compromising... So how much of a falloff in IQ would I see with a 12mm tube vs the 250 close-up vs just sticking with what I have and cropping?

Cropping increases perceived noise (for a given output size), and costs you MP. A close-up lens reduces IQ, although slightly - the teleconverter analogy above was a good one. A tube doesn't directly decrease IQ at all - it's just filled with air. Yes, it 'stretches a lens beyond its specification' by reducing both the minimum focus distance and the maximum focus distance. That doesn't affect IQ. However, since you're in effect enlarging a central portion of the image circle to fill the frame, lens flaws are magnified (e.g., spherical aberration, etc.).

So, basically with either a close up lens or a tube, the better the IQ of the lens it's used with, the less you'll notice a decrement in IQ. I use a 25mm tube with my 600/4 (not for 'macro' since it only adds 0.04x mag, but so I get a 3' closer MFD), and there's no discernible IQ loss.

 

[eyeland]

Close-up filters are fun to play with, but the cheap ones are really terrible IQ wise, and the proper ones are so relatively expensive that I chose to get some cheap tubes and save for a decent macro/portrait lens. (Sold my Sigma 70-300APO super macro seeing as it was much worse than the cheapest +10 filter on my old nifty fifty.
Still, the cheap filters are fun to play with and always fits in a pocket, whereas (as already stated) the tubes takes a little more care and patience to use.
I have only tried the cheapest filters and they are so soft that I only really found them usable for playful abstract stuff (which CAN have its merit actually sold a print of the attached close-up filter experiment for the same price as the print+the filter )

handheld Rebel 350D + 50mm 1.8 @1.8 + cheap closeup filter + 10 and a dying flower in the street

 

[sandymandy]

Try m42 Flektogon 35mm. Not sure if IQ is enough for u tough. Would just be a really really cheap way n(50$?) to check how much u are into macro photography. some samples i did on APS-C (minimum focus distance is 16cm with the lens. im using 2.8 zebra one). oh and its a nice lens anyway XD

http://www.digitalrev.com/album?id=10708849

mostly wide open 2.8 cuz no flash hence shallow dof. and im not a photographer bear in mind mostly wide open 2.8 cuz no flash hence shallow dof. bad post processing too

 

[CalBoy87]

Another option you may consider is to get Nikon or OM adapter and get some older macro lenses like Nikkor 55/3.5 or 50/2.8 or some Zuiko OM 50/3.5. I used them on 5D and really love the results, most of them are below 100 USD on eBay with additional 10-15 USD for adapter. Here is link to the last 3 I took with Nikkor 55/3.5 on 5DMKII: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29666272@N05/sets/72157633362426637/

 

[docholliday]

When I shot weddings...70-200/2.8L IS with Tube 25 for rings if I was too lazy (or busy) to get the 100/2.8 USM with ringlight out. Just hold a flash off to the side for some modeling (that's what the assistant is for) and it'll get you in for perfect full-frame rings.

 

[caMARYnon]

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...

Here is my macro experience:

2 years ago I wanted 100 non L macro but in that moment here wasn't available so I bought 100L. I used 100L for about 8 month and after that I sold it because I thought (and I think) the L is too expensive for my needs and the IS is useless for me - in macro I always use flash. I bought and tried close-up filters (not 500D or 250D but kenko AC +3), 25mm extension tube and all combinations of extube-kenko-teleconverter 1.4x mounted on 70-200. The best results was from extube + 40 pancake + kenko or only extube+40 pancake.
2 month ago I bought 100 non L and I think this is the best and the final solution for my macro needs and all the money I spend on extube and filters are lost.

 

[Eimajm]

I can't see that anyone has suggested reverse-mounting your 50mm.
Pick up a cheap adaptor for a few ££ / $$, I've seen some teriffic shots using this method.

Check this photo out, taken with a reverse mounted 50mm with extention tubes, though you probably wont need this much magnification.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/opoterser/8688094222/#in/photostream

 

[chauncey]

It all kinda boils down to consistency...
it is always possible to take an occasional great image using inferior gear but, it's a lot easier to consistently do it using superior gear.