Question for the Macro guys.

jeffreaux2

I recently sold my Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 lens which, although not a true macro lens, did allow for fairly close focusing. I do wedding photography and will need a solution for ring shots, and detail shots of other jewelry, shoes, and smaller details on cakes etc.

I am wondering whether I truely need a dedicated macro lens, or if I can get tubes or some other device to enable one or the other of my current lenses to act as a pseudo macro lens capable of high quality shots of the subjects I have described.

I currently own a Canon 85mm F1.8, Canon 17-55 F2.8IS, and Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS. I am planning to also add the Canon 50mm F1.4 very soon.

What do I need?

pathfinder

Jeff, you can certainly take "macro" fames with extension tubes or +diopter filter lens that screw into the filter threads of your lenses, but they are not as convenient as just rotating a lens barrel, and in the midst of all that is going on in a wedding, I would think that swapping ext tubes in and out, would not be that efficient or much fun either. When the tube is on, you can't just turn around and snap a sudden grab shot of the bride falling down either.

I would suggest a Canon 50mm f2.5 macro - cheap, fast, sharp, small, and will focus down to 1:2 without any other hardware. It also works as a perfectly good 50mm lens. The EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro is also very fine, probably sharper than the 50 f2.5, but he 50mm f2.5 will work fine on a full frame camera also. I like the 50mm f2.5 macro - I used it on a 1DsMkll to shoot this image, but it will focus quite close just the same. Cheap too - B&H gas it for $229 bucks.

It will have the angle of view of an 85 on a full frame camera of course.

ziggy53

Jeff,

I use a Sony VCL-M3358 Close-Up accessory diopter on my EF 50mm, f1.4 USM and I think it is very appropriate for the close-up requirements of wedding photography.

It is a 3.3 diopter, 58mm, 2 element diopter and it is very high quality.

I like it best with the host lens stopped down to f8 or so.

A few samples from my copies:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=947583&postcount=8

pathfinder

Ziggy, is that like the Canon 500D macro lens adapter?

ziggy53

pathfinder wrote:

Ziggy, is that like the Canon 500D macro lens adapter?

They are very similar quality. Both the Canon 500D and the Sony I mentioned are 2 element, but a 500D is a 2 diopter, 500mm lens while the Sony is a 3.3 diopter, 300mm (approx) lens. The Canon 250D is closer in specifications in that it is a 2-element, 4 diopter, 250mm lens.

The cool thing about the Sony diopter is that is was designed for the lenses of the Sony F717 and F828 at their longest focal length of, you guessed it, right around 50mm actual focal length. That's why I tried it with the Canon 50mm lens and I am pretty pleased with the combination. The 58mm threads match and the Sony is less expensive than the Canon equivalents.

pathfinder

Thanks for the explanation, Ziggy

jeffreaux2

Okay....did you two get together in private and decide to throw two totally different approaches at me?...Is the joke on me?....


Seriously,

I think both answers are good ones....but of course lead to more questions.

- The 50mm F2.5 indeed appears to be a bargain. I might investigate that a bit more. One issue I will have with that as a choice would be that I am definately going to go through with the purchase of a 50mm F1.4 lens. I sold my F1.8 because of the irregular bokeh and hit or miss focusing....but sorely miss having a 50 mm prime for portraits. It would also serve as something to get me through an event if my 17-55 were to go on strike in the middle of it. Maybe not the best choice fot that, but I think I could manage. That said, having two primes in the 50mm range plus a zoom that covers the same focal length makes little sense to me. I would consider selling my 85mm prime and replacing it with maybe a Tamron 90mm F2.8 Macro, or the 100mm Canon Macro. With the prospect of eventually moving to full-frame I am hesitant to purchase another EFS-only lens.

- The screw on idea is interesting. What will this do to the focusing on my 50mm F1.4 lens. Will I only have a short range of focus, or will I still have focus to infinity? I have no desire to go all the way with a geared rack on a tripod or anything that serious. Hand held detail shots is really all I am after...and ease of use. Also, since the 85mm F1.8 also shares the 58mm filter size with the 50mm F1.4, how well do you suppose it might work with the 85mm....or would it work at all? This solution is certainly affordable, and would allow me to keep my current lens kit intact.

There is a third possibility. I also own an old pentax F1.4 prime lens....manual focus. I have seen folks use a threaded adapter to mount two 50mm lenses face to face for macro work. Are either of you familiar with this.....is it viable....or trouble? I would need a threaded 49mm to 58mm adapter for this. Probably under $20, but if it is a difficult set up to focus with or use I am against it on that principal.

jeffreaux2

Okay....dumb question...

The ratio given on the 50mm F2.5 Macro was 1:2.....does that mean that what it will frame is 1/2 of life size? How does the ratio work out?

pathfinder

Yes, it will shoot at 1/2 of life size without any adapters, and then turn right around at shoot at inifinity, wich you cannot do with extension tubes or +diopter screw in lenses.

Canon makes a specific adapter for this lens to go to 1:1, but the adapter costs more than the lens

Here are some comments from the B&H cheerleaders (You have to click on the Reviews button)

This lens is inexpensive, and feels light, small and plasticky, but takes great pictures. I was convinced by Marc of its utility.

I have standard macros from a EOS 100 f2.8, a Tamron 180 f3.5, and a Sigma 150 f2.8. The 50f2.5 costs less than 1/2 of any of them or less, and weighs a lot less and takes up less space in your bag as well. It takes 52mm filters, but a 52->58mm adapter is only about $7.95 The 50mm f2.5 Macro works lovely on full frame cameras, as my image demonstrated, I thought.

The 90mm f2.8 Tamron is excellent also, but long for an APS based camera, unless you are wanting a "144"mm prime telephoto.

ChatKat

50 2.5...
I don't know how I ended up buying that lens when I was shooting film, but, it was always my favorite portrait lens. I actually went full frame with that lens when I had my 20d and it was time to step up.

It's a wonderful lens for wedding work. It's half the price of the 100 2.8 macro and half the size. I love that lens as much as some of the L glass I have. It focuses a bit slower than the 50 1.4 or 50 1.2 but it is still one of my favorite lenses.

jeffreaux2

pathfinder wrote:

Yes, it will shoot at 1/2 of life size without any adapters, and then turn right around at shoot at inifinity, wich you cannot do with extension tubes or +diopter screw in lenses.

Canon makes a specific adapter for this lens to go to 1:1, but the adapter costs more than the lens

Here are some comments from the B&H cheerleaders (You have to click on the Reviews button)

This lens is inexpensive, and feels light, small and plasticky, but takes great pictures. I was convinced by Marc of its utility.

I have standard macros from a EOS 100 f2.8, a Tamron 180 f3.5, and a Sigma 150 f2.8. The 50f2.5 costs less than 1/2 of any of them or less, and weighs a lot less and takes up less space in your bag as well. It takes 52mm filters, but a 52->58mm adapter is only about $7.95 The 50mm f2.5 Macro works lovely on full frame cameras, as my image demonstrated, I thought.

The 90mm f2.8 Tamron is excellent also, but long for an APS based camera, unless you are wanting a "144"mm prime telephoto.

Thanks for the extra info...

...and sure enough, the sample photo you linked for me was sharp and crisp.

I appreciate you taking the time!

jeffreaux2

ChatKat wrote:

I don't know how I ended up buying that lens when I was shooting film, but, it was always my favorite portrait lens. I actually went full frame with that lens when I had my 20d and it was time to step up.

It's a wonderful lens for wedding work. It's half the price of the 100 2.8 macro and half the size. I love that lens as much as some of the L glass I have. It focuses a bit slower than the 50 1.4 or 50 1.2 but it is still one of my favorite lenses.

Thanks for weighing-in Cathy. I was primarily wanting something for photographing rings and other small details at weddings and events. I know that you also do that same type of work on a routine basis. Do you, by chance have any samples from that lens in macro use? Just curious.

Did you use it in that capacity?

jogle

I've talked to a couple of wedding shooters who use the larger extension tube from the Kenko set on the 50mm 1.4 for precisely this kind of stuff, saves them carrying another lens and it's still blindingly sharp on any of the Canon 50's