Macro lens for newborn and wedding photography

gercam

gercam

Messages
420
Name
Gerry
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking to get a new macro lens for my Canon 5d MK11. I have been looking at 60mm and 100mm - any advise on which one to go for would be greatly received Thanks
 
So
Yv said:
If you could explain your thinking why you specifically want a macro lens for baby/wedding photography, then people might be able to point you at what your options are and what would be the best for your needs. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry of course. I want the lens for all the lovely baby close up shots - feet, hands, eyelashes etc. For wedding it is all the detail shots like rings, flowers etc
 
I highly doubt you need a macro lens for the type of shots you're talking about.

On the other hand, you might just "want" one, nothing wrong with that :)
 
The only two 60mm macros I can think of (Canon EF-S and Tamron 60/2) are not suitable for full-frame cameras. But all macro lenses are excellent - seriously, no bad ones out there.
 
Somebody ought to say the shorter the focal length, the closer you will be to the subject at a given magnification, whilst we aren't talking specifics, if you were for instance shooting a toe at close to max magnification, you will be very close with a 60mm macro lens, too close for an average flash gun, you'd need a ringflash or something designed for use with macro lenses.
A 100mm macro lens gives a greater working distance and may not require specialist flash, but you have to talk specifics to be certain.
 
I've used these three:
  1. The Canon EF-S 60mm is good but won't work on your camera
  2. The Canon EF 100mm Macro is good
  3. The Canon EF 100 L IS is unbelievably good
I hope that helps.
 
Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 lens has been a great lens for me and worth every penny. It is my most-used lens.

It is not stabilised, if you want stabilisation you pay double. In which case the Canon L option starts to sound appealing.

I have an extra one so willing to sell it if you want to get one cheaper than usual.
 
You don't need a macro lens to shoot any of the things you mentioned, unless you want fingerprints and detailed images of the hallmarks on the rings, a 70-200 would do the job perfectly and you wouldn't have to be on top of your subject to get the required shot. If you are shooting weddings you should already have one of these.
 
Muzzieman said:
You don't need a macro lens to shoot any of the things you mentioned, unless you want fingerprints and detailed images of the hallmarks on the rings, a 70-200 would do the job perfectly and you wouldn't have to be on top of your subject to get the required shot. If you are shooting weddings you should already have one of these.
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference to what a macro lens can do. P.S. You need to wipe the rings with the cloth and use appropriate light if you are getting such problems.
 
Unfortunately, Muzzieman, you are implying macro is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, Muzzieman you are wrong.

A 90mm f2.8 macro lens can give you a wonderful portrait, a nice shot of a couple from a distance including an interesting cut of the background (nature, sunset, waterfall, you frame it), a wonderful baby shot (I have LLLLOADS of my son), very nice details with baby shots (fingers, hands, feet, mouth, eyes, which are quite desirable), or interlocking bride/groom hands, details on location, and DID I MENTION DETAILS ON THEIR CLOTHES... oh... and amazing photos of wedding rings, provided you know how to take good product/still life shots.

A 70-200mm can only give you two of the options above. I'm not saying it is a bad lens, far be from it; but horses for courses.


Avoid short-focal length macro lenses like a plague they are not for weddings or people. You need to be very very close, uncomfortably close to frame a shot, and you will get more barrel distortion on somebody's face if you use one.

I recommend 90 to 105 mm macro lenses as all rounders, or 150mm macro lenses for distant macro shots but I seriously doubt you will do any of those in a wedding/portrait/baby session.

That said, I just realised I have on top of the extra Tamron 90mm, I also have a Sigma 150mm macro lenses that I do not use. Time to advertise those lol
 
Why don't you try and visit a dealer to try out the various offerings and focal lengths of len's Sigma have a excellent range of macro lens 50mm 105mm & 180mm to name just three they also offer a number of other focal length macro primes.
Tamron also have some good macro lens and of course canon have some excellent offerings.
And of course there is always the extension tube or screw in close up lens that might just fit the bill with one of your existing lens.
 
KingRoach said:
Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 lens has been a great lens for me and worth every penny. It is my most-used lens.

It is not stabilised, if you want stabilisation you pay double. In which case the Canon L option starts to sound appealing.

I have an extra one so willing to sell it if you want to get one cheaper than usual.
Click to expand...
You don't pay through the nose for stabilisation with the Sigma 105.

Did I mention it's the pick of the bunch ;)
 
Last edited:
KingRoach said:
Unfortunately, Muzzieman, you are implying macro is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, Muzzieman you are wrong.

A 90mm f2.8 macro lens can give you a wonderful portrait, a nice shot of a couple from a distance including an interesting cut of the background (nature, sunset, waterfall, you frame it), a wonderful baby shot (I have LLLLOADS of my son), very nice details with baby shots (fingers, hands, feet, mouth, eyes, which are quite desirable), or interlocking bride/groom hands, details on location, and DID I MENTION DETAILS ON THEIR CLOTHES... oh... and amazing photos of wedding rings, provided you know how to take good product/still life shots.

A 70-200mm can only give you two of the options above. I'm not saying it is a bad lens, far be from it; but horses for courses.


Avoid short-focal length macro lenses like a plague they are not for weddings or people. You need to be very very close, uncomfortably close to frame a shot, and you will get more barrel distortion on somebody's face if you use one.

I recommend 90 to 105 mm macro lenses as all rounders, or 150mm macro lenses for distant macro shots but I seriously doubt you will do any of those in a wedding/portrait/baby session.

That said, I just realised I have on top of the extra Tamron 90mm, I also have a Sigma 150mm macro lenses that I do not use. Time to advertise those lol
Click to expand...
I was not saying macro is wrong i was saying it it not necessary for what the op stated they wished to do, if they want to buy a macro then do it but they could manage perfectly without.
 
Muzzieman said:
You don't need a macro lens to shoot any of the things you mentioned, unless you want fingerprints and detailed images of the hallmarks on the rings, a 70-200 would do the job perfectly and you wouldn't have to be on top of your subject to get the required shot. If you are shooting weddings you should already have one of these.
Click to expand...
The closer minimum focus distance alone makes a massive difference with newborn photography. I have been cropping shots of my new son from my 85mm as I simply can't get the frame filling images I want a macro lens would instantly correct this and is what a lot of newborn pro's do to keep working distance to a minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top