I'm not kidding. If you're a wedding photographer and you use a macro lens (or extension tubes or close up filters), just dump them. If you're a macro enthusiast and like to take close-ups of flowers and bugs and things on a tripod, with your macro focusing rail and macro ring flash etc, then I'm not talking about you - keep your macro.  But for wedding photographers who just need to take a few quick closeups of rings, jewelry and other details, then there is a better way.

A MUCH better way.

Use a high quality point-and-shoot!

I've been writing about the Panasonic LX3.  After doing some macro nature shots with my LX3, I became curious enough to try using it at my latest wedding for the ring shots. Wow! It was 10x easier to get great macro shots using the LX3 than using my 5D w/100mm f2.8 macro.  Here are the shots:

1. LX3, ISO 200, 32mm equivalent, f4.0, 1/50 sec

2. LX3, ISO 100, 37mm equivalent, f3.2, 1/250 sec

So why is a point-and-shoot a better tool for ring shots than a DSLR + dedicated macro lens?

First, people don't realize how difficult it is to nail a macro shot with a 100mm macro lens. The lens has such a tiny depth of field that it requires stopping down to f6.3-f8 to get any reasonable percentage of your rings in focus. Look at the two shots above. The diamonds on the side plus the red jewel in the center are all in focus. With the Canon 100mm macro lens, you'd probably need f16 to get that depth of field. Okay, you can go shallower, but even at f6.3 getting just getting the center stone sharp edge to edge is tough.

It also requires going to very high ISOs with slow shutter speeds due to the narrow dof. Sure, I can get great macro ring shots, but it usually means taking 15-20 shots just to ensure that at least one or two are in focus. You get a lot of blurry shots with a macro lens, even if you're being careful. And using a tripod in the middle of a fast paced wedding is just not an option.

Nikon users have an advantage because the Nikon 105mm macro lens (Nikon calls these "micro lenses") has VR. But even so, Nikon users will attest to how difficult it is to get sharp ring shots. And the lens cost $740.

So why use a point-n-shoot instead?  

(1) Nailing sharp images is much easier. As usual, at my last wedding I took more than a dozen ring shots just to make sure one was sharp. Guess what? EVERY SINGLE IMAGE I made with the LX3 was tack sharp. So with a p&s, you can save time and just take a couple frames.  

(2) Much greater depth of field means using much larger apertures = a lower ISO and faster shutter speeds = better image quality.

(3) Very effective image stabilization.

(4) My LX3 is lighter and takes no more space in my camera bag than my Canon 100mm macro.

The bottom line - a good point-and-shoot is lighter, faster, easier to use and simply takes better macro shots than hand-holding a dedicated macro lens on a dslr. It costs about the same as the Canon macro lens and about $300 less than the Nikon.  And you can use it for other stuff too, like great landscapes, snapshots of your kids, high-speed flash sync, and movies.

Get one today and use it at your next wedding. Finance the purchase by putting your macro lens on eBay. Life is good.