Which Lens for Ring Photos?

[beckstoy]

I'm a Wedding Photographer who's used other lenses to photograph rings and then cropped them with good results. However, I think it's time to grab the 100mm f2.8 for this job. What would you all suggest? The 2.8L or is the non-L good enough? Does the L version justify the doubled price? Any other macro lens recommendations? I don't do any other macro photography other than my ring photos, so I'd love ideas.

Thank You in advance!


My current lineup:

5DM3
50mm 1.4
12-24mm
24-105mm f4 (great lens, but not sure why I still have it)
24-70mm mk2
70-200mm f2.8 mk2
135mm f2L

 

[privatebydesign]

The non L is more than good enough, the L is well worth double the price.

 

[Drizzt321]

Alternatively, if you can take a few minutes (probably not, I know) you could get some extension tubes and setup on a tripod with the 24-70mm or 50mm and use those. Might even be able to use the 135mm, as you don't need to get super-macro. But, if you want to get 1:1, the 24-70 or 50 with extension tubes is your best bet. Or, just get the 100mm macro. However if you're going to hand-hold, get the L with IS. Even then, if it's in muted light, bring along a monopod/tripod.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

my 2 cents:

i shoot weddings so I was thinking the same things you are. I didn't want to buy a dedicated lens at first because...in my head its just one shot, why spend so much on a lens for one shot really? I considered extension tubes and close up filters, and talked about the decision on forums like this one --- i ended up going to a camera shop to see for myself. Tubes, clunky, PITA, yeah they get the job done but not as well as a macro lens and the time it takes to get it setup...yuck...and once setup your stuck until you take all that crap off. Same with close up filters. I tried both then the 100L...wow...wow the difference was really plain and visible.

They did not have the nonL version at the shopt though, so I went back home and asked again about what to do, got lots of good feedback on the non-L.

My advice is keep your eye on the used market. Full price for either is kind of steep for what your going to be doing with the lens. If you can find the L on a good rebate/sale, snag it...or, if you can find a used non-L snag it. IS would be great to have, but, macro work is so sensitive that I'm really not sure the IS would be of much help...your shooting weddings so just take a bit more car with how you light the ringshots and then have fun with it...its great for all the little details at receptions!!!!

Here are a few with the non-L...

Of note.. all of these were handheld - yeah i did find good light, or, create good light with some external LED's - but none of these were tripod mounted.

 

[rs]

If you have loads of time to spare and the ability carry around loads of equipment, by all means use extension tubes, a tripod and a lighting rig.

If however you are shooting a wedding and you find you're not time rich, the 100L is perfect. For wedding ring shots (and other shots like wedding dress/bouquet details), you're not at 1:1; at such magnifications, the hybrid IS (optionally combined with a bounced flash) allows for quite a noticeably slower shutter speed. In other words, you can forget the cumbersome and time consuming tripod, and compared to a non IS lens handheld, use a lower ISO and/or a more stopped down aperture.

It also doubles up as a really good portrait lens.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

If you have loads of time to spare and the ability carry around loads of equipment, by all means use extension tubes, a tripod and a lighting rig.

If however you are shooting a wedding and you find you're not time rich, the 100L is perfect. For wedding ring shots (and other shots like wedding dress/bouquet details), you're not at 1:1; at such magnifications, the hybrid IS (optionally combined with a bounced flash) allows for quite a noticeably slower shutter speed. In other words, you can forget the cumbersome and time consuming tripod, and compared to a non IS lens handheld, use a lower ISO and/or a more stopped down aperture.

It also doubles up as a really good portrait lens.

While I wouldn't mind having the IS version - it really boils down to $$$$. Optically the non L is pretty damn good - the L has IS and is better weather sealed... but how often are you going to be doing macro ringshots out in the rain?

Note --- I like the nonL option if you can find it used - brand new and the price difference just isn't big enough. But, if you can find a good copy under $500 then yeah, think of all the other things you could do with that extra $500...

for me at least there were bigger fish to fry! I shoot wide way more than macro, so the 24mm 1.4 ...now that's where i will spend the extra dough (and eventually on upgrading my 70-200mm). with all that said, someday i probably will upgrade to the 100L, but, as of now I do not at all regret purchasing the non L

 

[rs]

While I wouldn't mind having the IS version - it really boils down to $$$$. Optically the non L is pretty damn good - the L has IS and is better weather sealed... but how often are you going to be doing macro ringshots out in the rain?

Note --- I like the nonL option if you can find it used - brand new and the price difference just isn't big enough. But, if you can find a good copy under $500 then yeah, think of all the other things you could do with that extra $500...

for me at least there were bigger fish to fry! I shoot wide way more than macro, so the 24mm 1.4 ...now that's where i will spend the extra dough (and eventually on upgrading my 70-200mm). with all that said, someday i probably will upgrade to the 100L, but, as of now I do not at all regret purchasing the non L

Yeah, weather sealing isn't normally high on the features list of someone after a lens to take wedding ring photos. IS is handy, and for me I find it indispensable for most of my shots with that lens. But you've clearly shown that in the right hands, the optically similar non L 100 macro is capable of taking stunning photos, even hand held.

 

[gjones5252]

I can say the 100l is with out a doubt an amazing lens. I was having this same debate until i just waited for it to go on sale at the Canon Direct refurbished store. I thought i was buying a macro lens and that just barely scratches the surface. You get the absolutely best lens that 100mm can off up to 2.8. Portraits have never been better. Yeah you walk a foot or two back but its so worth it. I am not saying that 100 non L isnt good. If you like me you will eventually want the one that is going to deliver absolute best image quality and absolute best features. This is a lens you will have for a long time. I learned the lesson the hard way that buying cheaper just meant i bought twice.
If you have any specific questions about this lens please let me know.
Side note- Best IS out of any lens-excellent for video. if that's applicable for you.

 

[kphoto99]

Here is a photo that I quickly took

If this kind of magnification is enough then all you need is the nifty fifty with a 12mm Kenko extension tube. Since it is the only thing you are going to be taking with this lens, you can leave the extension tube permanently attached to it. Much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens, and nobody is going to enlarge the picture of rings to 24x36 size.

PS
I'm sure similar results can be achieved with the 40 pancake in an ever smaller package.

 

[slclick]

Another vote for either of the 2 100 Macros. The L if you can afford it.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

First of all, I do shoot weddings, own the 100L, and love it. It will be in my kit for a long, long time. If money is an issue, however, I have just spent some time with the new Tamron 90mm Macro VC lens to review it, and it is a very, very competitive option. Here's my thorough review of it if you want to check it out:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/12/tamron-sp-90mm-f2-8-di-macro-11-vc-usd-review/

It offers basically everything that the 100L does (slightly worse bokeh, slightly sharper optics) at a price point that falls between the EF 100 Macro and the 100L.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Any macro lens is good enough. Lighting is more important than the selection of lens. You want to control reflections so just a gemstone, for example has the highlight.

However, if you are shooting a ring on someone's finger hand held, then the 100L is the one to use because of its hybrid autofocus. Its no sharper, but images do come out well when handheld with good lighting. For a fixed subject in a well lit setting, use any brand of macro, they are all excellent.

 

[JonAustin]

I've owned both versions of the 100mm macro, and kept the L version. I don't shoot weddings; my primary use for the lens is portraiture, of which I do a lot.

I moved up to the 100mm macros to replace the 85/1.8, for which the vast majority of my work was head-and-shoulders shots. While it was a great lens, I rarely used it wide open, and I was always cropping. With the 100's, I do little or no cropping, and the images look even better.

I agree with those who wrote that for macro work only, you don't really need the IS in the L version. But be aware that you may end up using whichever version you get for a lot more than just macro work. That said, most of my portrait work is in-studio with a tripod, so the IS is of no use there, either. I upgraded to the 100L for optimum image quality and the ability to use a tripod collar.

I see a lot of both versions of this lens for sale at great prices on Craigslist in my area. It seems that a lot of photogs buy one to experiment with macro, find they don't do that much of it, don't appreciate the other uses of these lenses, and sell them.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

P.S. Here is an untouched/unedited ring shot from the 100L. From this distance you could literally shoot at 1/10th and not worry about the outcome. This is f/4.5 to allow enough depth of field for both hands to be in focus.

 

[JonAustin]

@ Chuck Alaimo: I like your shot of the rings on the piano keyboard!

 

[sulla]

If you want to work quickly on location of a wedding, the 100L seems perfect for this.
Besides its macro capabilities it is a lovely portrait lens as well, so no changing of lenses between rings and portraits. Its IS works great and it is very handholdable in low light.

I also found the 70-200 with an extension ring (the 12mm one is more appropriate for this lens) quite suitable for macro work. Better by far than cropping. A dead cheap solution compared to the 100 macro, but it involves changing lenses, because you loose the ability to focus to infinity.

On the other hand, if you have enough time to shoot the rings, control the light and so on - like in a product photography setup - nothing beats the 90mm tilt shift. The TS-E 90 is great for controlling DOF, and paired with an extension ring is good at macro sizes as well. But a tripod and a lot of time is required. Nothing for a quick shot.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

Hey Beckstoy,

I literally had the same question. I pulled the trigger on the 100L during the previous sale posted on CR. Unfortunately, they sold out at 50, but it was $870 pre-rebate for a New model from an authorized dealer thus essentially $720 post rebate. Holy cow, what a wonderful deal, especially since I've seen them no less than $850 used in my local craigslist ad, (and I try to avoid CL like the plague).

From the research I've done, they both make sense, however, the L is still the dominant lens (price aside), therefore, and an investment, I waited until the L fell into my budget and whammo!, it's here next week.

In addition to the beautiful price checker found on this site, canonpricewatch has also been a friend of mine in the past and I support both of their efforts.

I hope this helps! Good luck to you!
-Tabor

 

[NYCPHOTO]

For beckstoy

You mention you use the 12-24...I assume you mean the nikon lens on your canon bodies?

How's that working out for you?

Thanks

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

While I wouldn't mind having the IS version - it really boils down to $$$$. Optically the non L is pretty damn good - the L has IS and is better weather sealed... but how often are you going to be doing macro ringshots out in the rain?

Note --- I like the nonL option if you can find it used - brand new and the price difference just isn't big enough. But, if you can find a good copy under $500 then yeah, think of all the other things you could do with that extra $500...

for me at least there were bigger fish to fry! I shoot wide way more than macro, so the 24mm 1.4 ...now that's where i will spend the extra dough (and eventually on upgrading my 70-200mm). with all that said, someday i probably will upgrade to the 100L, but, as of now I do not at all regret purchasing the non L

Yeah, weather sealing isn't normally high on the features list of someone after a lens to take wedding ring photos. IS is handy, and for me I find it indispensable for most of my shots with that lens. But you've clearly shown that in the right hands, the optically similar non L 100 macro is capable of taking stunning photos, even hand held.

TY! For some of these shots I did have to set the camera on something to stabilize it. and yeah, if I wasn't looking at other lens upgrades, I probably would have gotten the L version. It's just the breakdown of use that made me rethink the L - if I'm really only using the lens maybe 2-4% of the day, then do I pay the premium cost?

Again, with that said --- rebates and sales did effect the decision - I was late o nthe call when i was looking and missed one of those $200 instant rebates. At $850, yeah, no brainer - but at $1050.....much harder to make that call. Even with all that said too - I probably would have bought the L had I not seen a used non L for $450 --- $600 new still seemed pretty steep for a lens that while being awesome just wouldn't get the use - yeah it can make a good portrait lens in a pinch, but would I really CHOOSE that lens over the 70-200 or the 85? Especially when optically, the non L is pretty darn close to the L (the non L can do good with portraits in a pinch too.

mind you --- in terms of IS --- I am used to not having it. I am on the older 70-200mm 2.8 - the non IS one. So holding things steady at 100mm isn't a big thing for me. I am looking to upgrade that 70-200 this year too. And with how much use that range gets, yeah, saving the extra $$$ on the macro just made sense

 

[scyrene]

The 100L is a wonderful lens, but as others have said not cheap (although I guess you can recoup that after a while). The IS is less useful at macro distances, it's worth noting.

I have to say, since I got extension tubes, I haven't really used the 100L for macro work. For a lot of uses (except perhaps the most technically exacting), I find the 85L II + 12mm extension tube works well (for food and drink, for instance) stopped down to ~f/2 or narrower (not that I'm suggesting you get this lens). I'd almost always use a flash anyway, so IS isn't that important.

The 100L is good for portraiture, as some have said (especially on a full frame body), but you have that covered already. On balance, I'd still vote for extension tubes and one of the medium-long focal length options you already have. A lot cheaper, anyhow.