Marumi Ring Flash

[Peter10d]

Is the Marumi ring flash any good? At nearly £300 cheaper than the canon one I suspect there must be a good reason for the price gap.

Also for those that have a Canon macro 100 IS, do you find macro shots possible without a ring flash due to the extra stops available or is a ring flash a must?

 

[Mike Jackson]

I don't have the L version but if you are looking at insect photography IS isn't a great deal of help anyway as you need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the movement of the insect. I don't think I could manage without my ring flash. I've got the sigma ring flash which has very similar features to the Canon one. From the reviews it looks as though the Marumi one isn't as customisable as the others and has slightly suspect build quality but looks a good deal for the money.

 

[Peter10d]

I don't have the L version but if you are looking at insect photography IS isn't a great deal of help anyway as you need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the movement of the insect. I don't think I could manage without my ring flash. I've got the sigma ring flash which has very similar features to the Canon one. From the reviews it looks as though the Marumi one isn't as customisable as the others and has slightly suspect build quality but looks a good deal for the money.

Thanks Mike for the reply. Still unsure what macro lens to look at as there appears to be conflicting thoughts on the values of the IS version for macro work.
Big decisions to make with the ring flashes also, but I think the Marumi might get scored off the list

 

[Mike Jackson]

What are you looking at photographing? I've seen a lot of nonsense spouted about macro at times. You always seem to get someone saying you always need a tripod because of the narrow apertures required. That's fine for still life but no good for insects. If you're looking at shooting objects that remain stationary for a reasonable time then IS is useful. For anything that moves then it's not worth it as you'll need extra lighting.

Have a look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike_jackson/sets/72157619205909934/

Most of the insect and plant shots were taken with the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro, most also using the Sigma ring flash.

 

[Peter10d]

What are you looking at photographing? I've seen a lot of nonsense spouted about macro at times. You always seem to get someone saying you always need a tripod because of the narrow apertures required. That's fine for still life but no good for insects. If you're looking at shooting objects that remain stationary for a reasonable time then IS is useful. For anything that moves then it's not worth it as you'll need extra lighting.

Have a look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike_jackson/sets/72157619205909934/

Most of the insect and plant shots were taken with the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro, most also using the Sigma ring flash.

Mike, thanks for the link. Some great macro shots there.
I am looking for a general macro lens for trying a wide range of things.
If I thought I could get the majority of things hand held with the IS version, then I would be tempted. If however most macro shots require a tripod, then I think I would look at the non IS Canon version.
I should add that I normally shoot landscapes, which I use a tripod most of the time, therefore the macro world is new to me. I just feel the flexability of non tripod macro shots sounds appealing.

 

[TCR4x4]

The canon IS system is worlds beyond any other Macro IS system. It actually works down to about 1:2. At 1:1 its not so good, buy further back it really does work.
Of course its no subsitute to light, but it means you can get shots handheld at close distance that you couldnt otherwise.