Macro lens for wedding shot details - under $500?

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>".....the tamron. it can double as a soft focus portrait lens at 2.8.."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are we talking about the same lens? There's nothing soft about mine at f/2.8, or any other aperture until diffraction kicks in.<br /> Use it as a portrait lens by all means, but expect every pore and blemish on the subject to be painfully revealed.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Agreed that the Tamron isn't "soft focus". It <i>is</i> fast enough to pass as a portrait lens in that it can give you some subject separation, although it didn't take me long to get an 85mm f/1.4 Samyang, and then an f/1.8 Nikkor (which has much worse LoCA than the Tamron) for short portraits.<br />

<br />

Tom: The LoCA on the Tamron isn't terrible (like the 135 DC), but it's there. I wouldn't mention it if I didn't think you might be shooting jewelry, which tends to show this kind of thing up. The issue is longitudinal/axial chromatic aberration (spherochromatism), not lateral/radial chromatic aberration - things in front of and behind the focal plane go different colours. Software does often offer ways to fix this, but it's heuristic and limited (it looks for purple and green fringes and assumes this is the cause); because the image captures no 3D data, it can't be fixed perfectly. Axial chromatic aberration, on the other hand, can be fixed much better - it's caused by different colours producing images of different sizes, so scaling the red, green and blue differently (and not necessarily linearly) fixes this very well. I wouldn't sweat it too much, but I just wanted to warn you that you might see it. It does go away as you stop down, but probably not as much as you'd like at macro distances.<br />

<br />

Supposedly the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/269-tokina-af-100mm-f28-at-x-pro-d-macro-review--test-report">100mm Tokina</a> is a bit better in this respect, although possibly slightly less sharp than the Tamron. I went for the 90mm partly because I already had a 135mm lens at the time, and was trying to make it double as a short portrait lens. (Ironically, the 135mm has now been replaced by a 150mm Sigma macro lens - and a 200 f/2.) The Tokina is, I believe, screw-focus, so if you can still find one it's probably going to be cheap - because unlike the Tamron, it won't autofocus on the D3x00 and D5x00 series. I've not checked, though, so I've no idea whether it's a collectors' item.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and probably don't over-think it. There aren't many bad macro lenses out there.<br />

<br />

Agreed about the merits of a 70-200 for weddings, by the way. I can't speak for sticking a diopter on it - I've only used cheap diopters, and not on this lens.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Yep, a Canon 500D will degrade the shot. I wouldn't use a 500D to shoot lens test charts for pixel peepers. But in my experience, it works great for real world photography, and my customers seem happy with the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely agree. You will probably have a 70-200mm already and the diopters work great for this and they take up no room. No one will notice the difference between this and a real macro lens for this kind of shot. If you were focus stacking, or shooting book pages or an object at f22 to get everything sharp, then you would notice. The advantage of them over extension tubes is that there is no light loss either. I assume Nikon make one like Canon? These diopters are not cheap junk: they are fully coated doublets optimized for the focal lengths in question - think of them more like extenders.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Robin I am also curious about the Nikon close-up filter situation. There are a lot of T series close up filters on the used market, but I don't think Nikon has continued to produce most of them. I searched and I see a close up filter for the 1 Series and maybe a current 52mm version. I use a Canon 500D on my Nikkors and I think it is good photo karma - the gods like to see some variety.</p>

[dan_beauvais]

<p>I own the Nikon 5T and 6T, as well as the Canon 500D. All yield high quality results. <br /><br />The Nikons are long discontinued. The Canon 500D has recently again become available new after being unavailable for a few years.<br /><br />The Nikon 5T and 6T only came in 62mm diameter, while 4T and 5T were only 52mm. The Canon 500D is available in 52, 58, 72, and 77mm thread mounts.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"I currently own the 35mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8 primes, nothing larger in a zoom or prime for now."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's all the OP says he has. No mention of a 70-200mm zoom. But even if he had, spending well over 100 bucks US on a 77mm CU filter to fit it isn't money well-spent given his budget. When for a little more he says he can get a proper macro lens.</p>

<p>FWIW I just measured the lens-subject clearance difference between my 105mm AF Micro-Nikkor and my Tamron 172E. At 1:1 the Nikkor gives 5.25" between subject and filter rim while the Tamron allows 4". At 1:2 the Nikkor allows just over 7.5" clearance and the Tamron about an inch less. This is almost entirely due to the deep recess of the Tamron lens within its barrel.</p>

<p>I also did a quick head-to-head of IQ wide open and the Nikkor loses out to the Tamron both on sharpness and contrast at around 1 metre subject distance. The Nikkor is a worse performer at long subject distances at open aperture as well. However the Nikkor shows a bit less "blooming" around high contrast highlights, although both lenses have about the same amount of LoCA; except the Nikkor shows red/cyan as expected while the Tamron shows blue/green, which is a bit strange.</p>

[tom_dubowski]

<p>Correct people .. I don't have a 70-200mm (yet). <br>

I know a lot of guys that dont have a 70-200m, or a 200mm prime and shoot weddings just fine. Plus, at the price of $1000+ for that depth is a lot of cash. I prefer to Get a 100mm/105mm (or 90mm) for detailed shots before getting a long lengs. Maybe it's just me, or my style, but for now I'm happy with my 2 fast primes for weddings.<br>

@Rodeo Joe - 4" compared to 5.25" doesnt seem like a huge difference to me ... is it? I could still get a flash in there and light so I'm definitely leaning towards that tamron at $140.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>This is almost entirely due to the deep recess of the Tamron lens within its barrel.</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes. Annoying, isn't it? Given that the lens comes with a hood, I've no idea why it does that. I've no idea why all Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 lenses since the E series have the same need to be an inch longer than they have to be. (Ergonomics is probably some of it, but there's a lot to be said for not doubling the thickness of the camera, too!) It's not the end of the world, especially since you probably won't actually be at 1:1 all that much, but working distance helps - especially if you're trying not to take too much time over it.</p>

 

<blockquote>The Nikkor is a worse performer at long subject distances at open aperture as well.</blockquote>

 

<p>If it's like the VR version, this <i>might</i> be because it was genuinely optimised for macro use. Roger Cicala <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/imatest-macro-results-with-apologies-to-the-nikon-105-vr-micro">did some comparative tests</a> and found several macro lenses are better at short range. So much for floating elements compensating for focus distance!</p>

 

<blockquote>except the Nikkor shows red/cyan as expected while the Tamron shows blue/green, which is a bit strange</blockquote>

 

<p>Most LoCA I've seen is magenta/green (usually with green in the background, presumably in the hope that it makes foliage look better). I assumed that's because the green wavelengths are focussed at one distance and, in an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens">achromatic lens</a>, red and blue are at another. This is very much what the 135DC does. I'll admit the Tamron seems particularly blue - maybe there's some offset between the red and blue correction. Maybe the Nikkor is apochromatic? If so, I'm surprised that there are reports of visible issues at all.<br />

<br />

Tom: You don't have to have a 70-200 to work here, but it helps. :-) It's certainly possible to use smaller equipment (and larger - I've used both a 150-500 and a 200 f/2 at weddings). For flexibility in getting candids, a 70-200 is very valuable; I even relented and hired a 24-70 for a second body at a recent wedding, and have to admit it was useful. But if you've happy with planned shots and getting in close - and mostly I've shot weddings as a guest and wanted <i>not</i> to intrude in the kind of way that an official photographer can do less offensively - there's nothing inherently wrong with shooting a wedding with primes. So long as your clients are happy with your look, don't let us tell you otherwise.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Are we talking about the same lens? There's nothing soft about mine at f/2.8, or any other aperture until diffraction kicks in.<br />Use it as a portrait lens by all means, but expect every pore and blemish on the subject to be painfully revealed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>when i was in the market for a macro lens, i considered the tamron 90 as well as the tokina 100. i ended up going with the tokina because it had noticeably better performance at 2.8, but it was very close overall, and the tamron might have better edges. the lenstip <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/22.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_90_mm_f_2.8_Di_Macro_Image_resolution.html">review</a>, for example, shows the situation wide open, but goes on to note, <em>"It is really difficult to point out any serious fault of this lens. The mentioned „softness” with the f/2.8 disappears even with slight stopping down. And still it can be even desirable by the portraitists. "</em><br>

<br>

one review, of course, is not an absolute measure of optical performance, and could easily be attributable to sample variation. some other reviews noted better 2.8 results, but the tokina outscored the tamron in several other reviews wide open as well. in any event, this may well be a non-issue, so i don't want to belabor it or blow this out of proportion. i was actually putting in a vote for the tamron. i doubt one can do better at that price.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>I know a lot of guys that dont have a 70-200m, or a 200mm prime and shoot weddings just fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also know a lot of guys who don't use a 70-200 zoom for weddings - by choice might I add, not by lack of funds. If you are a prime shooter a f2.8 zoom is not really what you want. </p>

<p>Hopefully Nikon comes out with a new 135 f2 someday. Canon's 135 f2 is a kickass lens. A favorite long lens for many wedding shooters.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been searching around and need a hand (<strong>and samples would be good too</strong>) of a macro lens for those<strong> detail shots while shooting weddings</strong> . . .<strong> auto [focus] would be a bonus</strong>. . . <strong>I currently own the 35mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8 primes</strong>, <strong>nothing larger</strong> in a zoom or prime . . . <strong>mixed reviews about extension tubes</strong> and the results of shots . . . I've read that I really <strong>want a lens with length - 90/105mm since I wont have to get as close as with a 55/60mm lens</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suggest that you consider this purchase as an addition to your <strong><em>whole</em></strong> Wedding Kit, as well as considering the worth of the purchase for only <em><strong>a very small portion of the whole job</strong> </em>(only 15 to 20 frames, you mention).</p>

<p>Whilst I use a 35/85 Prime combination often, at events, if I had a kit with nothing longer than 85 in it, I would seriously consider the worth of adding <em><strong>only</strong></em> a 90mm lens specifically to make only 15 to 20 frames at each function. Certainly it might be very good lens and certainly it might be great value for money for a macro lens, but from what has been disclosed, it seems that from <em><strong>a business perspective</strong></em> that it will be money wasted to buy that Tamron lens.</p>

<p>On the other hand a Nikkor 105/2.8 provides 20mm more reach than your 85mm lens and (if my memory is correct) the Nikkor 105/2.8 does allow the use of the Nikkor Tele-Extenders. (Long time since I used Nikon but I am sure experts here will correct that if that statement is incorrect). Thus, although just over twice the price, I see the Nikkor 105/2.8 having the advantage of being <strong>a better all round asset as an addition to your whole Wedding Kit.</strong><br /> <br /> Alternatively, and as budget is always a consideration, I endorse the consideration of buying an Extension Tube (or set of three). I use the Kenko set of three and would recommend them as an excellent value for money choice. (Probably less than $CAN 100?).</p>

<p>Such a set (individually or combined) could be used with your existing 85mm lens (or 35mm lens) and I assume will keep AF with your lenses and your bodies. You won’t get 1:1 on your 85mm lens, but really do you need that? With Tubes, you’d be using the existing optics of the lenses (as opposed to a Close-Up Diopter Lens). I think that carrying a small LED torch (flashlight) in your wedding kit is also a very good and a very practical idea - as this tool can be used for illumination of C/U shots and also as a Focus assist tool. </p>

<p>Whilst doing several hundred wedding jobs, I found that I did not need much more than the magnification which a 12mm tube and a 50mm lens provided to me: I haven’t really ever bothered taking a dedicated Macro Lens to a wedding. You’d get a facsimile of that magnification with Kenko 20mm tube and your 85mm lens, I think that the Kenko 20mm is available as an individual purchase.</p>

<p>Others will have different protocols, but, for a Wedding and Social Event Coverage, I like traveling <strong>light</strong> and <strong>flexible</strong> and (importantly) with <strong>System Redundancy</strong> – the technological advances in (zoom) lenses and generally digital technology allows one to do that now with comparative ease - it is not like carrying two medium format bodies and four or five prime lenses, which we used to do.</p>

<p>I also have a set of Close-Up Diopter Lenses (an high quality set). I don’t use them very much at all compared to using an extension tube: an extension tube will fit any lens, but a Diopter C/U Lens will only fit to one filter thread size.</p>

<p>You asked for an examples - this is an example made during a weekend workshop. Each Student was asked to bring their own Photography Bag comprising their ‘wedding kit’, just as they would take to a real job. The exercise was:<br /> <em>‘We are at the Wedding Reception and the Guests are eating, you have about three to five minutes, with the props provided make a close up ring shot for the Wedding Album – BUT – all your flashes have just been broken and if you brought a macro lens, it is now smashed.’</em></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18089849-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="485" /></p>

<p><strong>TECHNICAL: Canon EOS 5D; EF50 F/1.4; Kenko 12mm Extension Tube; Tripod Mounted </strong><br /> <strong>SHOOTING: F/13 @ 20s @ ISO 50, LED Torch (Flashlight) was used for 'Light Painting'</strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"I also know a lot of guys who don't use a 70-200 zoom for weddings"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me. A lens that was not all that often used for Weddings by me. From 2004~2011, our studio shared one 70 to 200 lens, within four wedding kits. Carrying an EF 135/2 and a x1.4 Extender EF was my preference.</p>

<p>A lot depends upon the general protocol and culture of the Wedding's format - we tended to have jobs where we could roam discretely, my view is that a closer shooting distance and the resultant intimate perspective, is preferable. A 135mm Lens on a 135 Format DSLR (i.e 'full frame DSLR') is about as long as I really want, if I can roam.</p>

<p>Also, from a technical standpoint, using a shorter lens, rather than a longer lens, is always easier and quicker as it allows shorter movements to frame and shot whilst avoiding interfering moving people between the Camera and Subject.</p>

<p>There's lots of favour for the 24 to 105/120 IS/OS/VR as the now 'Standard Main Zoom Lens' for wedding and social events work, which is taking over from the (traditional) 24 to 70/2.8 lens. Better quality, Higher ISO cameras, allow to acceptably lose the one stop of lens speed, but on the other hand with a 24 to 105/120 you pick up an extra bit of reach; and also get lens stabilization.</p>

<p>There is not that much difference between F/2.8 and F/4 for Shallow DoF for Portraiture, for most of the typically used Shooting Distances - for those fans of Very shallow DoF and Bokeh, there is some argument to stick with a 24 to 70/2.8, but, IMO, a fast Prime (usually a 85/1.8) fixes that.</p>

<p>Relating all these comments and the discussion about a 70 to 200 lens, to the OP's question - it would bode well for him to, at this point in time, think about and plan the kit that HE really wants and to have and consider HIS reasons why HE wants that kit and how HE would use it - and not just be drawn into "must haves' simply because those "must have lenses" are re-iterated as 'must haves' on many internet forums.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Kiron 105/2.8 AKA Lester Dine 105/2.8.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>...a better all round asset as an addition to your whole Wedding Kit.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As William pointed out above, and perhaps some us didn't consider, is how everything works as a system. One aspect of a system is redundancy. The OP has redundancy in camera bodies so if one goes down he can keep on shooting with the other. But if he only has two prime lenses he has <strong>no redundancy when it comes to lenses</strong>. One broken lens, for instance the 35mm, will render him unable to do his job. It's impossible to shoot an entire wedding with just a 85mm.</p>

<p>So in that vain I'll offer another lens up for consideration. The Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-f4 AF-D. It's optically about the same as Nikon's other 24-85 lenses (it comes in slightly better than the others on Dxomark, mounted on D750/D610). More important however is that it has a very decent macro mode - 1:2 reproduction. Which makes it unique among the other 24-85mm lenses.</p>

<p>As an asset to the kit it would offer three things:<br /> 1) macro capability for ring shots and other detail shots (1:2 ratio)<br /> 2) wide angle capability over the 35mm prime (24mm)<br /> 3) backup focal length for both the 35mm and 85mm primes</p>

<p>It's $700 or so new but can be had for a lot less used as it's an AF-D lens and wont work on the cheaper Nikons. AF speed is very decent. People seem to like it. <br /> http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B00005LE74</p>

<p>PS.<br>

Another lens that would offer something as well would be a longer macro. 105 is pretty close to 85mm but if you pick something like Sigmas 150mm f2.8 OS you get both a macro and a very good long prime. Even used it can probably not be had for $500 though.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Pete, I was really torn as to whether to make that exact point about the 35mm Prime going U/S and being left with only an 85mm lens - and I do think it is good you made it, thanks.</p>

<p>It's probably more likely for a (digital) camera to stuff up than a lens - at least that's my experience, then next, after a DSLR is the likelihood of a Flash to die (or fry or hot-shoe to break-off as the result of an impact injury).</p>

<p>But a lens can be dropped. In any case, I am not really keen on recommending a MANUAL FOCUS Lens for the kit, because any lens added should provide some system redundancy: that's my view. And MF Lenses are fine and dandy but there's no arguing that AF is a great bonus when covering Weddings.</p>

<p>I am no longer au fait with the detailed nuances Nikon Lenses, but I do think that Tom should have some lens to cover his 35 Prime, should that 35mm Lens fail - my feeling is that system redundancy is more needed than a dedicated macro lens. It seems to me a "standard zoom", which you recommend would make that redundancy.</p>

<p>On the other hand, a simple (and inexpensive) 50mm Prime with AF would do the trick . . . I'd still use Tubes for the odd close up that is required.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[tom_dubowski]

<p>Gents - thank you so much for the advice. I was ready to pull the trigger on the tamron lens when in fact I too thought, why would i need another lens with a similar focal length. I should go up in length or try a diopter or a kenko tube. For now I'm leaning towards the tube.<br>

@William - i tried to find the 20mm extension tube but it looks like they all come in sets of 3 - the cheapest I could find was about $120 CND on ebay shipped.<br>

I saw a post here, which makes me think the tubes are decent and will produce the types of shots i'm after.<br>

https://photography life. com/reviews/vello-auto-extension-tube-set-nikon<br>

It will make my wedding bag much lighter too.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_dubowski]

<p>I found some polaroid ones for $80 shipped on amazon. I might try those as reviews are good and save my money for a longer focal length lens in the near future</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I am not familiar with the Polariod Extension Tubes.<br /> I look at the following criteria concerning tubes:</p>

<ol>

<li>Must allow the necessary <strong>electric connection</strong> from lens to camera. <strong>N.B. </strong>There are tubes available that do not have these connections and thus render an AF Lens, inoperable</li>

<li>Must have strong, robust and well engineered <strong>mounts</strong></li>

<li>Must have strong, robust and well engineered <strong>locking mechanism, </strong>on both the mounts (have seen one fail)</li>

<li>Must have an efficient, well designed internal <strong>light baffle</strong> (can affect Image Quality)</li>

</ol>

<p>WW</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Tom, extension tubes that are only mechanical means you need to focus and set the exposure manually. Some of these don't have the mechanical aperture linkage that Nikon uses. That means you can only use lenses that have aperture rings on them because you have to set the aperture on the lens, not in the camera.<br /> Extension tubes that have electrical contacts will work transparently.</p>

<p>If you want an electronic one you should also have a look at Kenko. I don't have any of their tubes but I have one of their extenders and it's very well made. Kenko is the same company as Tokina.<br /> More info on the extension tubes:<br /> http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/lens_accessories/extension_tube/teleplus_dg_auto_extension_tube_set.html<br /> On amazon:<br /> http://www.amazon.com/Kenko-Extension-Nikon-Lenses--EXTUBEDG-N/dp/B000MT1FNU/</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Well if you want redundancy, then obviously you don't need any labor saving, space-saving items at all, and the more lenses you get the merrier. I only shoot weddings for fun when I attend them, so this side of the argument I had missed. Personally I dislike redundancy as it adds bulk and increases pointless mind work as you have to decide what to use and when.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I bought a set of "Kooka" branded extension tubes a short while ago, because they offered both electronic AF contacts and the old screwdriver AF coupling. Build quality is so-so, but they work OK. They weren't very expensive. I can't remember how much I paid offhand; it certainly wasn't the £80-100 that some cheeky sellers are asking. I think I got them off Amazon for around £40 ($82 CND).</p>

<p>Anyhow such tubes work OK, even though they're less quick and convenient to use than a macro lens. You're effectively changing lenses twice because you'll have to bayonet the prime lens onto the tubes and then bayonet the combination onto the camera. Then reverse the procedure to get the prime lens back into use. It can be a bit of a juggling act if you don't have anywhere to lay the camera down.</p>

<p> The Kooka set comprises 12, 20 and 36mm long tubes, which is fairly typical. With an 85mm focal-length lens the 12mm tube gets you from around 690mm to 450mm from the subject (assuming the prime lens focuses to 1 metre). The 20mm tube allows a working distance of 450mm to ~350mm. The 36mm tube goes from 286mm down to around 250mm. Again the closest distance depends on how close the prime lens focuses unaided. You'll also lose some effective aperture, by about a stop from the lens's marked aperture I estimate. Tubes can be combined to get even closer.</p>

[tom_dubowski]

<p>So after a couple of months, I'm coming back to give my findings and ask for some more help ...<br>

I bought the extension tubes from Kenko, and used them at one wedding. I felt them too cumbersome and a bit of a pain really to put on and off of a dedicated lens (85mm) that I was using for the day. That said, I have since sold the kenko tubes and am not after a zoom for better distances from my subjects.<br>

I realize that having a 200mm focal length is a huge bonus, but paying $1500 for the 70-200 f2.8 is definitely out of my budget. So, i think my best value at this point is to try and get the 70-200 f4 Nikon for around $1000. <br>

Then try and pick up a super cheap macro (50mm Sigma, or similar) for around $150 or less for those 10-20 shots I plan on taking during a wedding. <br>

Thoughts?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For weddings, I think you are better off with a third-party (e.g. Sigma) 70-200mm/f2.8 for around the same price range as the Nikkor 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Having f2.8 is a pretty big advantage indoors.</p>

[tom_dubowski]

<p>ya but its heavy! I've heard the weight for the extra stops isnt worth it. Especially if its on the D750 with great DR</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Although you found it cumbersome to use the extension tubes, you seem to remain comfortable using Prime Lenses. In this case I think you should consider this comment: <em>"I realize that having a 200mm focal length is a huge bonus"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Addressing (literally) what you've written would be satisfied with a 200 Prime (or a 135 Prime and a x1.4 or 1.5 extender) - and that would be less weight and just as fast Lens Speed, or possible faster than F/2.8 if you wanted to pay a bit more. As I mentioned previously:<em>"From 2004~2011, our studio shared one 70 to 200 lens, within four wedding kits. Carrying an EF 135/2 and a x1.4 Extender EF was my preference." </em><br>

<em><br /></em>The point is there is little reason buying a zoom lens if one is predominately to use it at the longest FL - especially if weight is a major consideration. <br>

<em><br /></em>BTW<em>,</em> for the few close-ups that I found necessary at Weddings, an 85mm Lens with tubes would not have been my choice - because I would have required too much extension for 85mm - a 50mm Lens was much better for me. <br /><br /><br>

WW</p>