Macro Lens Needed for Wedding Shots

I am doing more and more wedding shots of rings, cufflinks etc and have tried my existing lenses with and without extensions tubes but the shots are not crisp and clear.

So a macro comes to mind, I will only be using the macro for these shots, not insects, plants etc.

5D MKIII and 1DX
24-70 2.8
24-105 4
70-200 2.8
50 1.2

The less I spend on this the better but I want a crisp shot as I won't be using this lens enough to justify big bucks.

Thanks

I'd def go for the 100mm 2.8. I have the 100mm 2.8L and while the IS is nice, optically they are indistinguishable. The 50mm 2.5 may work too!

Was hoping to not spend $1K on a this lens...

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …o_Extension_Tub​e_Set.html

You'll be able to get a close as you'd ever want to taking photos of rings with these and the lenses you already have. There is no optical glass so there is no reason that they wouldn't be clear.

I have the Tamon 90mm macro. It's sharp, but the color temp is a bit cooler than Canon.

facedodge wrote in post #16395825
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …o_Extension_Tub​e_Set.html

You'll be able to get a close as you'd ever want to taking photos of rings with these and the lenses you already have. There is no optical glass so there is no reason that they wouldn't be clear.

I have 2 EF12 but for some reason the shots are fuzzy, all other shots I take with all my lenses are tack sharp so I know its not the lens.

the 100mm 2.8 can be had for about $350 used.

Some lenses work better than others with extension tubes. I would try all of your lenses in the 50-150mm range and see if they aren't satisfactory first.

I have the 100L and it would do the job quite nicely and can be had for under $900 used.

I've used 24-70/2.8 (Mark I) with macro extension tubes with good success.

In fact it's very close focusing even without any extension:

On 5D MkII...

The Canon 100 non L is basically just as sharp as the L at half the price.

Macro tubes with electronic connectors will give you metering and AF for 1/10th the price of the 100L and you can use them on any lens. You'll be stopping down whatever lens you use with them so if it is sharp from f8 and slower, it will be sharp with tubes. They're the least expensive choice without the hassle of dumb tubes that require you to do the extra steps to stop down your lenses before putting them on.

100 f/2.8 (non-L) would be the new option. Extension tubes shouldn't have glass in them so they shouldn't be affecting the sharpness of the lens. I have to assume based on your gear you know about depth of field and are shooting these from a tripod at f/8+

Any macro lenses with Image Stabilization is a MUST for weddings in my opinion. I use a 100mm f2.8L IS.

The 100s are fantastic. I rolled the 50 2.5 a while. works great if you're on a budget, just be prepared to crop each photo to get closer like the pics you are thinking of.

protege wrote in post #16398278
Any macro lenses with Image Stabilization is a MUST for weddings in my opinion. I use a 100mm f2.8L IS.

Not sure why image stabilization would be a MUST (in my opinion), the OP just wants ring and cuff link shots which normally don't require long exposures.

my vote would be for one of the versions of theTamron 90mm 2.8 macro lens, the non-di is only around $225

not a ring but ....

XSi /450D
Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro non-di