The 100L 2.8 macro for weddings

On the 100 non-L and with the Nikon 24-70 with tubes AF is useless at macro distances. Either that or i'm too impatient. I have a feeling the AF in the camera body, not the lens.

Peacefield wrote in post #13132339
I've found that the AF at macro distances to be very effective on the L version (after very careful microadjustments). That said, I'm not in super-crazy close, just enough to do things with the rings, etc. I'm sure there's a limit to when you need to switch over to MF, but I haven't hit it yet for my purposes.

Ditto, i certainly don't do the whole tripod/live view/mf at weddings.
i'll take a few shots of the same composition though to accomodate my inability to stay still. one out of three or four is usually how i wanted it!

Tubes for me. I rarely shoot macro shots...and really despise ring shots...there's no way that I could bring myself to drop $900 on a lens that I would use for 1 or 2 (ultimately minor) shots throughout the day.

Though, I do like what Nick is doing with it. Very well done.

I find the 100mm a little too long.

Without a doubt. I sold my 100 and 85 1.8 to finance the 100L. Very sharp and IS. Sweet. I never looked back.

Another sample...

nicksan wrote in post #13136681
Another sample...

Nick, you got me wanting to spend a little more time with my 100L during getting-ready work. I was thinking of selling it to fund a 135L, but maybe I'll hold off...

bigarchi wrote in post #13135012
i'll take a few shots of the same composition though to accomodate my inability to stay still. one out of three or four is usually how i wanted it!

That is definitely the case as the margin of error is so tiny with macro. I'll shoot as many as 8 of the same composition, but also do it at varying apertures just to make sure I've got what I'm looking for.

Peacefield wrote in post #13138354
That is definitely the case as the margin of error is so tiny with macro. I'll shoot as many as 8 of the same composition, but also do it at varying apertures just to make sure I've got what I'm looking for.

yeah, sometimes I do that too.

Nice ring shot BTW.

nicksan wrote in post #13139536
Nice ring shot BTW.

thanks, i had some other tighter shots of those rings too,
but i didn't realize how much pollen the rings picked up!
the pulled out shot doesn't show the pollen as much, and since I was lazy
and didn't want to bring this into ps, i went with the wider field of view

btw changed my mind and decided to buy a imac.

Downs Photography wrote in post #13141173
btw changed my mind and decided to buy a imac.

Wow talk about an answer way out of left field. hahaha

I was thinking of buying a house, but I bought a croissant instead. LOL

Anyhow, for others who may still be interested in macro talk, I had trouble justifying spending cash for a lens that I'd rarely use. I use it for a couple ring shots. Feels almost like a waste to have a lens just for a couple shots a day. Which is why I don't have a fisheye.

For that reason, I bought the EF-S 60 macro. Why? Purely because it's SMALL and light. It's like half the size of the 100 macro. If I'm going to have a lens that is almost never used, I sure don't want it to take up much room in my bag. It won't mount on half my bodies, but who cares? Like I said, for one or two shots a day... who needs multi-body compatibiliy?

I breifly tried a friend's Canon 50mm compact macro. That's a great lens! I would have probably gotten that instead if I tried it before I bought the 60. Most ring shots are nowhere near 1:1, so the 50mm 1:2 ratio would be more than adequate. The bonus is, it's wide! You could get some seriously unique macro ring shots with such a wide perspective. Environmental macros? Sounds awesome! And the bonus is that it's super cheap and super small. It's about as small as the set of three kenko extension tubes.

picturecrazy wrote in post #13141476
Wow talk about an answer way out of left field. hahaha

I was thinking of buying a house, but I bought a croissant instead. LOL

Anyhow, for others who may still be interested in macro talk, I had trouble justifying spending cash for a lens that I'd rarely use. I use it for a couple ring shots. Feels almost like a waste to have a lens just for a couple shots a day. Which is why I don't have a fisheye.

For that reason, I bought the EF-S 60 macro. Why? Purely because it's SMALL and light. It's like half the size of the 100 macro. If I'm going to have a lens that is almost never used, I sure don't want it to take up much room in my bag. It won't mount on half my bodies, but who cares? Like I said, for one or two shots a day... who needs multi-body compatibiliy?

I breifly tried a friend's Canon 50mm compact macro. That's a great lens! I would have probably gotten that instead if I tried it before I bought the 60. Most ring shots are nowhere near 1:1, so the 50mm 1:2 ratio would be more than adequate. The bonus is, it's wide! You could get some seriously unique macro ring shots with such a wide perspective. Environmental macros? Sounds awesome! And the bonus is that it's super cheap and super small. It's about as small as the set of three kenko extension tubes.

That EF-S 60 macro is a must have for croppers. Its one of canon's hidden gems. Stunning results straight off the camera and it doubles as a great portrait lens......miss it alot.

We use a macro. We got the sigma. very sharp but focus is slower than the 100L,, but not bad enough to be a concern. We use it for rings, shoe shots, detail stuff. I like it a lot. Tried tubes and im with tim,,,too slow. Liked the results better with the macro. Its not a necessity. But i like the results we get so we stick with it.

This is straight off the camera with a sigma 105

I used tubes on Hasselblads for years - fantastic results. Fast forward to DSLR's, have not got tubes but am just about to buy one for ring shots. In my book, they are lighter - cheaper - smaller - and manual focus for macro shots is always how I used to do it so I have no qualms.

VERY nice shot Mike.