Which macro lens for weddings

technics100

technics100

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,989
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I have been asked to do a few weddings and currently have the following lenses Nikon 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 and 70-200mm VRII also a Cosina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 just in case I need something wide and it isn't too bad.. I found detail shots slightly awkward not having a macro. I was thinking a 60mm mm as it sits in between my current focal lengths.. would it be long enough for ring shots etc and also could it be used for general shooting? thinking the Nikon 60mm f/2.8.. using a D700 and D3 body.. or would a 105mm make more sense? could it be used for portraits and ditch the 85mm?

Thanks
 
technics100 said:
I have been asked to do a few weddings
Click to expand...

Then do you really want to go spending on new kit for them?

Unless you really want to shoot a lot of macros then I wouldn't bother buying a specialist macro lens.

If you want to take close up photos of rings, then pretty much any macro lens will be more than capable. As will plenty of non-macro lenses.

It is, of course, perfectly possible to shoot a wedding without taking macro shots of jewellery.
 
Just get a cheap supplementary close-up lens, say +2 dioptres (otherwise known as a close-up filter) and pop it on your lens of choice.
 
If you absolutely need one, then I'd go with the 105mm and ditch the 70-200.
 
I use my Sigma 105mm OS lens, it's also a superb portrait lens and very sharp wide open so useful in wedding scenarios. As above you might even be able to change out the 70-200 using the 105?
 
I use the older tamron 90mm. It's a really good lens sharp throughout doesn't take a lot of room in bag and costs not a lot over £200 new if you go grey, I got mine from digital rev. It is a good focal length for tight portraits, though focusing is a bit slow for general use on the wedding day. I had a set of macro tubes originally that took up the same space in my bag, cost about £60 and were a pain in the balls to use. Personally there's no way I'd give up my 700-200 for a macro but everyone shoots differently.
 
odd jim said:
I use my Sigma 105mm OS lens, it's also a superb portrait lens and very sharp wide open so useful in wedding scenarios. As above you might even be able to change out the 70-200 using the 105?
Click to expand...

Cheers, would you ditch the 85mm in favour of it? the 70-200mm is my dads so I just borrow when I need it..
 
technics100 said:
Cheers, would you ditch the 85mm in favour of it? the 70-200mm is my dads so I just borrow when I need it..
Click to expand...
Hmmm, not sure. I do love my 85mm. That's a while separate quandary!
 
technics100 said:
Cheers, would you ditch the 85mm in favour of it? the 70-200mm is my dads so I just borrow when I need it..
Click to expand...

No, the 85 is very useful for weddings, pairs nicely with the 35 as well. It's very rare that you need 200 for a wedding and it's a heavy lens to carry around all day "just in case".
 
I use 200 all the time, if I'm in a church with restricted access from minister I can keep out way and still get nice close ups. I shoot all my formals with 70 -200, can go from full length to close up for groups a lot easier. And it gives useable depth of field with awesome compression if you're shooting small groups outdoors. Admittedly it rarely goes on the camera during the evening reception.

I admit I'm by no means a seasoned, renowned wedding photographer but there's lots who are who use it as their main workhorse. Everyone has different approaches, just cause you don't use a technique doesn't mean it isn't valid.
 
I agree, I borrowed the 70-200mm and used it for one wedding, when checking shots in lightroom about 65% where done with that lens..
 
Right.. I have been looking at close up filters vs macro tubes, and macro tubes seem to be better as they don't alter the optics (put extra glass between lens and subject) anyone any comments? Also what lens would you use? 35mm or 85mm?
 
technics100 said:
Right.. I have been looking at close up filters vs macro tubes, and macro tubes seem to be better as they don't alter the optics (put extra glass between lens and subject) anyone any comments? Also what lens would you use? 35mm or 85mm?
Click to expand...

They would be far less use than a macro lens at a wedding, and harder to use.

FWIW though I've used a Raynox DCR250 nicely on my 85mm.
 
technics100 said:
Right.. I have been looking at close up filters vs macro tubes, and macro tubes seem to be better as they don't alter the optics (put extra glass between lens and subject) anyone any comments? Also what lens would you use? 35mm or 85mm?
Click to expand...

Your 85mm lens only needs a bit of help to get close enough. The easy answer there is a supplementary close-up lens, maybe +2 dioptres (that's a guess). Or a short extension tube but they're more of a fiddle in the heat of the moment and a close-up lens just fits in your shirt pocket. Either will do the job.

Raynox DCR250 is +8 dioptres - far too strong, unless you want to read the hall marks...
 
HoppyUK said:
Your 85mm lens only needs a bit of help to get close enough. The easy answer there is a supplementary close-up lens, maybe +2 dioptres (that's a guess). Or a short extension tube but they're more of a fiddle in the heat of the moment and a close-up lens just fits in your shirt pocket. Either will do the job.

Raynox DCR250 is +8 dioptres - far too strong, unless you want to read the hall marks...
Click to expand...

Yes likely, I only used that setup for traditional
Macro, but it was very good.
 
Jayst84 said:
It is, of course, perfectly possible to shoot a wedding without taking macro shots of jewellery.
Click to expand...

Or macro shots of anything else, come to that.

When we first started shooting weddings, I too used to do snaps of the rings. Then two things dawned on me. One was that the concept is actually silly. And the other was that doing a rings shot took up time I could use to take a far more sensible picture.

So I stopped doing them, and out of the 400+ weddings we did subsequently, we were never once asked to do a ring shot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dkh
grab yourself a nice lightweight 40mm macro..very sharp! Ah and i have one for sale lol:exit::coat:
 
On the ring shot thing... If the happy couple want one wouldn't quite a few cameras these days have enough resolution to provide a decent crop? I suppose it depends how the final image is going to displayed but I'd have thought that even a relatively heavy crop from many of todays cameras might be good enough.
 
I would recommend the 60mm 2.8G for FX - it is a fantastic and underrated lens.

I think that for weddings and interior pictures the shorter fl macro is actually better. It can add a bit of context to your macro pictures. Great for wedding rings, flowers, gifts, decoration, interior details, food, etc. It can also do great not too tight group or individual portraits when needed.

The 105mm is much tighter and more specialised for macro, especially indoors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top