How important is a macro lens to your photographic style?

Could you live without using a macro lens while still achieving most

or all of your wedding photography goals? How important is the use

of a macro lens for interpreting your artistic vision?

Macro lenses are very sharp just from it's definition. For wedding style more accurate are portrait lenses. Thera are slight differences in construction. Efect is simple: instead of anazingly sharp pictures, you get soft ang "light" portraits / images. It's hard to achieve using macro lens with softener filter (a or b). Sharpness is not the only reason - bokeh gives You lot of changes in scene. I suggest You to compare Nikon Nikkor 105 f/2 (DC) or f/2.5 with Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105 f/2.8

 

Best regards

Martin

Never necessary; unless you want to record tattoos on the Groo's fist that spell w-i-t-h L-O-V-E.

To me it's not neccessary either. However, I do use my macro as a wide open as a portrait lens. It'll be too sharp if I stop down :)

Macro lenses are generally highly corrected for close-up work, but not necessarily as great

at longer distances. They often offer superior flatness of field at short distances, and often

a stop or 2 more range at the smaller aperture end to provide more depth of field ( Nikon's

85mm/2.8PC Macro offers f/45 and is the best 35mm macro I've ever used).

 

As far as weddings are concerned, they are useful to me for detail shots like a ring close-

up, or zeroing in and isolating items that define a wedding's overall fabric like table gifts,

the groom's lapel flower, special name/table cards, or close-ups of flowers. The Bride

paid special attention in selecting these items, so a record of them is nice to have.

I managed to live without one for quite some time, then got one when i realised people do like the ring photos etc. If you are shooting for profit, keep in mind the ROI (Return on Investment) for your lenses. I got my AF 60mm 2.8 for about AUD$50 through a very good deal with a body, which I sold. So the ROI is very low. However if I had to pay the full AUD$900, I couldn't have justified it.

 

BTW I had initially intended it could back up the 50mm, however the bokeh is sooo bad you really can't use it for people shots wide open

The one shot that could work with macro: a picture of a single rose which could be placed

in the porthole of the front of the wedding album.

Macro... macro... hmmm, oh you mean that lens for shooting bugs and such?

Actually, there are close up filters available that are an economical and space conserving

alternative. Canon and others make a 2 element filter in a couple of popular sizes. They

don't cut the light, and provide surprisingly good image quality.

I don't think it is clear in which direction your question is going. Would you like to talk about using macro lenses (on the 90-100 focal length) as portrait lens or using a dedicated macro lens for detail shots of rings, flower arrangements, service details and even the food...??? Personally I find my EF 100f/2.8 a great lens for portraits with a very attractive bokeh (open to 4-4.5). I serve both purposes very good but take my words with a grain of salt as I do weddings just for friends and family (and last time I said I don't do it again). I really admire all of you that do this for a living!<br>-regards,<br>Gerard.<div></div>