Any Wedding Photogs Use lens Converter?

tim wrote in post #16407256
I use tubes to make my 24-70 into a macro. Cheaper than a full macro lens, which I use for about 3 photos per wedding day. Not quite as nice to use but good enough. I find the medium tube enough, I don't use small or large. I can find lengths for you if you like.

Thanks for the offer, Tim.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16410974
As an aside-what tube would you recommend for converting a (canon) 50mm or 70-200 to a macro ?

An extender. It has a little lens in it, whereas a tube is just a spacer.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16410974
As an aside-what tube would you recommend for converting a (canon) 50mm or 70-200 to a macro ?

One of the most popular ones is the Kenko set:

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

The middle one is 20mm and works well with the Canon 50mm. You can find off-brand sets for cheaper (probably not of the same build quality but these are just hollow tubes anyway).

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …o_extension_tub​e_set.html

Michelle

I would not go anything bigger than a 1.4 extended and that will put you at 280 MM FOV at F/4 on your 70-200

So in dark venues you may have to pop that up to 6400-8000 ISO at F/4....something to think about

We purchased the Sigma 120-300F/2.8. having 300MM at F/2.8 has been a nice luxury this year. I set it up on a tripod and i can get in the middle of most churches and zoom in to get the shots. I actually have a big wedding next summer and I will need a lot of reach inside. So the 1.4 TC will get me to 420MM at F/4

I had a 100-400 and it was just to slow for inside work, even on a tripod so it was sold

I guess my hole point to all of this is 280 MM is not enough in some venues and your gonna be at F/4.......If its dark your screwed

I've never had to use an extender. Even when we're require to stay at the back of the church, a 200mm 2.8 does just fine. I wouldn't consider the 70-200 2.8 a sharp lens, so degrading it even more isnt an option for me.

Trent Gillespie wrote in post #16411619
I've never had to use an extender. Even when we're require to stay at the back of the church, a 200mm 2.8 does just fine. I wouldn't consider the 70-200 2.8 a sharp lens, so degrading it even more isnt an option for me.

The 70-200mm 2.8VR II is fantastically sharp.

I used a 300 2.8 from the back of churches as a Canon shooter. With IS, I could hand hold at 1/100th with very sharp results.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16411637
The 70-200mm 2.8VR II is fantastically sharp.

I used a 300 2.8 from the back of churches as a Canon shooter. With IS, I could hand hold at 1/100th with very sharp results.

I guess I should have clarified the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mark I... The Mark II is shown to be sharper... and as usual, the Nikon equiv is even sharper :P

Trent Gillespie wrote in post #16411653
I guess I should have clarified the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mark I... The Mark II is shown to be sharper... and as usual, the Nikon equiv is even sharper :P

100% agree,

That said, who wants to buy my 70-200 2.8L IS I that is probably as sharp as that lens can get.