# Review: Canon MR-14EX II Macro Ring Flash



## e17paul (Nov 25, 2014)

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/11/25/review-canon-mr-14ex-ii-macro-ring-flash/#more-67864 

I have a 50 macro, and I'm planning to buy a 100L as soon as funds allow. Should I be tempted by this as both a macro flash, and also for use as a standard (albeit low powered) flash to save me buying another?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2014)

GN = 14. As a regular flash, a 270EX II is more powerful and can be bounced. 

What sort of macro do you shoot? The MR-14 provides rather flat lighting. It's great for documentary shooting, medical images, etc., not as good for creative stuff.


----------



## LDS (Nov 25, 2014)

e17paul said:


> also for use as a standard (albeit low powered) flash to save me buying another?



Although some photographers now use some (larger and more powerful) ring light units for some kind of potraiture/fashion shots, they are still not versatile flash units able to cover different needs. You can't bounce this one, nor mount any kind of light modifier to obtain a "better" light. And being designed for macro, this one has a relative low power but for close subjects.
Anyway, as usual, it depends on your needs and the type of images you do most.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2014)

e17paul said:


> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/11/25/review-canon-mr-14ex-ii-macro-ring-flash/#more-67864
> 
> I have a 50 macro, and I'm planning to buy a 100L as soon as funds allow. Should I be tempted by this as both a macro flash, and also for use as a standard (albeit low powered) flash to save me buying another?



NO. It is no substitute for a more versatile flash, indeed I have always found it much easier to make big and powerful smaller and less powerful than the other way around.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 25, 2014)

I like my MR-14EX and I enjoy my images I get with it. 

A feature I often use is changing the flash power between the left and right tubes, which does give dimension to the lighting. 

I shoot with a 100mm L macro and often in combination with extension tubes. 

I'm not a flash fundi and I'm sure you may get different answers to mine but I do enjoy the results from my ringflash.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> GN = 14. As a regular flash, a 270EX II is more powerful and can be bounced.
> 
> What sort of macro do you shoot? The MR-14 provides rather flat lighting. It's great for documentary shooting, medical images, etc., not as good for creative stuff.



My typical photography is architecture, interiors, close up details (probably not quite macro, but closer than a 50/1.4 could go). I tend to not like adding light, because one of the things I am recording is the design by the architect, interior designer and lighting designer. There are however times when extra light, or more even light, would be beneficial for a close up. Full macro will come with the 100L sometime in 2015.

The second time I might find flash beneficial is at the monthly computer group where I take the event photos. This is held in a nightclub, with the expected high contrast lighting design. We also have a projector running, so the beam complicates things further. On its own, the 6D copes well providing I stick to manual settings of ISo 6400 / Aperture f/2.8 and shutter 1/30, giving the light meter no opportunity to be confused by point sources of. Typically I would only need a flash to illuminate to a distance of 5-10m/15-30ft, probably never more than 15m/45ft. This would be at ISO 6400, not 100, so I don't know if a 14m range at ISO 100 would give the range. Obviously a 270EX/430EX/420EX would be more effective, but would not cover the close up and macro. 

I may ultimately end up buying both as I progressively build my kit, but it would be great if a macro flash could also cover for portrait distances. That is probably what I will buy first for the close up work, but if it can cover for both it will become a bigger spending priority over lenses and other tech.

My history with OM-10 and 6D has not involved flash so far, so I'm a total newbie to the subject (apart from the built in flashes on compact cameras and phones).


----------



## e17paul (Nov 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/11/25/review-canon-mr-14ex-ii-macro-ring-flash/#more-67864
> ...



It looks like both may be in my future....


----------



## e17paul (Nov 26, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I like my MR-14EX and I enjoy my images I get with it.
> 
> A feature I often use is changing the flash power between the left and right tubes, which does give dimension to the lighting.
> 
> ...



That's great to hear, it sounds like I would get full benefit only when I have both the 100 macro and ring flash. maybe I should bring that day closer by going without the red ring and IS, and putting the saving into the MR-14.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2014)

e17paul said:


> [Obviously a 270EX/430EX/420EX would be more effective, but would not cover the close up and macro.
> 
> I may ultimately end up buying both as I progressively build my kit, but it would be great if a macro flash could also cover for portrait distances.



The dedicated macro flashes are really suitable only for macro use. However, regular Speedlites such as the 430EX II can be very useful for close-up and macro work. The trick is to get the flash off your camera and out over the subject. If your camera is on a tripod, that can be as simple as an OC-E3 cord (3rd party versions are much cheaper) and handholding the flash. 

If you're shooting handheld, you'll need the off-camera cord and a bracket. A small softbox is optional, it can be useful with larger close-up subjects. The Manfrotto 233B bracket with a Giottos MH-1004 mini ball head works well for that, offering good positioning flexibility. A Lumiquest Softbox III or Lastolite Ezybox Hotshoe are options for a softbox. The same setup can be used for flash portraits when there's no ceiling/wall suitable for bouncing, as it gets the flash off axis and softens the light as long as the subject is reasonably close. A 430EX II, 233B bracket, Mh-1004, 3rd party cord and small softbox would cover macro, portraits, and general fill flash, and cost less than the MR-14 EX II. 

Here's an example of how the rig would look for portraits (the 233B telescopes, it's extended on the right). The arm can be tilted forward to sit over a macro subject close to the lens. 







Hope that helps!


----------



## e17paul (Nov 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hope that helps!



Yes it does. Greatly. A new world of discovery (and spending) awaits. I think that a 320EX or 430EX may come ahead of the MR-14EX. Where the ring may excel is on a construction site where it may not always be practical to place a flash off camera.

When I returned to SLR photography, I thought no film, no processing, I just need to buy the camera and I have a free hobby ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Where the ring may excel is on a construction site where it may not always be practical to place a flash off camera.



Perhaps. With the Manfrotto bracket, I often positioned it so the flash (with the head tilted vertical to the flash body) was flat along the top of the lens. The bracket sticks out a little on the left side of the body, but the 'business end' was no larger (perhaps a little smaller) than a lens with the MR-14 on the end. The ring flash adds a fair bit of bulk, as does the power pack in the hotshoe. 




e17paul said:


> When I returned to SLR photography, I thought no film, no processing, I just need to buy the camera and I have a free hobby ...



LOL. ;D


----------



## LDS (Nov 26, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Where the ring may excel is on a construction site where it may not always be practical to place a flash off camera.


The ring flash is less bulky and quick to use - but if it is not your main flash solution but for close-ups you may also check for some third party cheaper options. Savings can go into buying arms/modifiers or the 100L.

Anyway design/architectural subjects may need a different light - depending on the subject (size, shape, material, texture, colors, etc.) - than the flat one from a ring flash (although models which allows to control each side separately are better). The MT-24EX is more versatile for such subjects but also expensive. A flash + arm + light modifier can give the versatility you need to light a subject the way you need.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 26, 2014)

LDB & Neuroatomist, is this the one?
http://www.manfrotto.com/macro-bracket-support


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2014)

e17paul said:


> LDB & Neuroatomist, is this the one?
> http://www.manfrotto.com/macro-bracket-support



This one: http://www.manfrotto.com/camera-flash-bracket-with-telescopic-column


----------



## Vivid Color (Nov 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > [Obviously a 270EX/430EX/420EX would be more effective, but would not cover the close up and macro.
> ...



Thank you, Neuro, this is very helpful to me too. --Vivid


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2014)

How about this for a macro rig?








That's an MT-24EX with the twin heads on a pair Wimberley F-2 brackets, with an optically-slaved 600EX-RT on a RRS B91-QR with FA-QREX2 extender.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 26, 2014)

Just to make sure I fully understand, this uses flash tubes - not just a series of LED's right?

I've seen a lot of LED ring flashes lately. The diffuser that they've built into this flash doesn't let me see the actual flash tubes, so I wanted to be sure.

What looks nice is how the controls are very similar to the 600 ex-rt that I've gotten used to using (and will be adding more of imminently).

I'd have to think about whether I'd find this more useful than Canon's twin flash with some sort of diffuser taped on it - as the twin flash could be used for more than just macro.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Just to make sure I fully understand, this uses flash tubes - not just a series of LED's right?
> 
> I'd have to think about whether I'd find this more useful than Canon's twin flash with some sort of diffuser taped on it - as the twin flash could be used for more than just macro.



The main lights of the MR-14 are xenon flash tubes (same as used in Speedlites). The modeling lights of the MR-14EX II are LED (are incandescent lights on the original version).

RE other uses for the twin lite, it's still pretty weak. The GN 24 is for both heads combined, each head has the same power as a typical on-camera popup flash. 

FYI, StoFen makes an OmniBounce diffuser set for the MT-24EX (they're on my rig above).


----------



## Joey (Nov 27, 2014)

e17paul said:


> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/11/25/review-canon-mr-14ex-ii-macro-ring-flash/#more-67864
> 
> I have a 50 macro, and I'm planning to buy a 100L as soon as funds allow. Should I be tempted by this as both a macro flash, and also for use as a standard (albeit low powered) flash to save me buying another?


Buy a conventional flash, you can use it with a diffusing screen for macro work, and it'll be much more useful for other stuff than a ringflash would be. Other comments about lack of power apply here.

The review you've linked to in my view is poor. Awful. I have the camera, lens and flash they've used and could have written a much better review. The writing style's dreadful, for a start, and their repeated statement that the flash would have given better results with a better lens is nonsense - the 60mm efs lens they used is superb, optically comparable to the 100mm L. 

In my view you can do without a ringflash but you can't do without a conventional speedlite such as the 430EXII.


----------

