Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro vs. Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Macro Recommendation

[peter_j2]

<p>To minimize a collection of lenses and from your hands-on experience with the subject lenses, would the macro function at f/4 with the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM be acceptable to photograph wedding bands for wedding assignments versus the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro? Principally, centre sharpness at f/4 for both lenses is the comparison. Bokeh is secondary.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Although many longer-range telephotos have a labeled "macro" setting, these are not, by any real sense of the term, actually "macro".<br>

They are "close-focus" only as a rule. For wedding band photography, a real macro like the Canon EF 100mm Macro would be necessary if you're trying to show just the ring as opposed to the hand and ring sort of thing.</p>

<p>However, a simple close-up diopter screwed into the front of some other lens, or a short extension tube might be all you really need for the occasional ring shot.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Peter, as JDM mentions, the 24-70 for the hands shot is fine for showing the rings. For just the rings, I wouldn't use anything other than a macro.</p>

<p>Here is a 24-70 (on a 5D3)...</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Server timeout...again...<sigh>.</p>

 

[mbkissel]

<p>Sorry, Peter. I can't upload the image. <Grrrrr></p>

[mbkissel]

<p>One last try...</p>

<div></div>

[peter_j2]

<p>I understand fully now guys. The macro it will be. Thank you.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>With a maximum magnification of ×0.7 the 24~70/4L IS USM would provide enough magnification for showing the entire ring even on FF, and more than enough on 1.6-factor. That's not the problem. The 24~70/4 is a fat lens with a very short working distance at its extreme macro setting. In principle there is a real problem here with lighting (an issue that is greatly exaggerated with regard to many short macro lenses, incidentally, but may apply here). I have not yet seen any reports assessing the 24~70/4 in depth as a lens for close-up/macro work. You may not want to be the one that finds out the hard way!</p>

<p>But in any event photographing jewellery not being worn is a studio task, surely something you would do in advance by arrangement with the bridegroom or best man, so there should be no extra lens to carry at the wedding itself. And the best lens is probably the TS90, if necessary with an extension tube, so that you have proper control over what is in focus.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Thanks Robin.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>I had the 24-70 f/4L IS very briefly (it had problems, and I decided to go with the 24-70 f/2.8L II), and the working distance at the macro setting is way too short to be useful. The lens shades the subject. Even with flash, it comes at such a strong angle that you have very little control in lighting. </p>

<p>The options mentioned by others are better choices.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Thank you John.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<blockquote>

<p>I had the 24-70 f/4L IS very briefly (it had problems, and I decided to go with the 24-70 f/2.8L II), and the working distance at the macro setting is way too short to be useful. The lens shades the subject. Even with flash, it comes at such a strong angle that you have very little control in lighting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, that is useful feedback, the first I have seen from anyone who has tried to use this lens for close-up work. It is as I suspected.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I'm a little lost. To minimize a collection of lenses a zoom like the 24-70 is a better option as it contains many focal lengths in one lens. To photograph wedding bands ( large groups) the wide angle of the 24-70 again is a better option. These lenses are quite different. I would lok at the 100 as a specialized lens where as the 24-70 is a multifunction lens. IMOP the 24-70 is my main lens for weddings and just about everything else I do. For that reason I would recommend the 24-70 in a F2.8 (If you really need IS in this range the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR) is a great option and would be rated higher to me than an 24-70 F4. Also, the 24-105 F4 IS may be even a better option as it cover the 100 range of the macro then you only loose 1 stop not the range as well.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>I'm glad my failed experiment helped someone. I pre-ordered the 24-70 f/4L based on the MTF, expecting it would make an excellent landscape and family-outing lens. My copy just wasn't sharp and it was hard to focus even with live view at 10x (I never had that problem before, it was such a strange sensation). For reference, my 50D with 15-85 was much better than my copy of the 24-70 f/4L on a 5D3. I was really put off, returned the f/4, and ordered the more expensive zoom instead. I couldn't be happier with the mark II. </p>

<p>I have a 100mm macro (USM) so I didn't care about the macro mode of the zoom, but of course had to try it while I had it. As Robin said, with a fat lens and short working distance, it just isn't very practical. I really appreciate the slimmer 58mm filter of the 100 macro. </p>

<p>I think for wedding use, where the only real "macro" would be of the rings, a closeup lens (diopter) would be a handy option. That is what how my wedding photographer handled our ring shot. In fact, he just held it over the lens. The setup was mere seconds.</p>