MACRO - Do I need the 100mm f/2.8L or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Aside from novelty very shallow depth of field stuff, i find tht with macro I'm almost always at at least f/11.

---

And- as you probably know, Colin- it's worse than that. At 1:1, f/11 becomes an effective f/22 when it comes to light gathering.

I didn't know, in fact, other than something about a bellows effect causing you to get screwed on the light.


My macro flashes are just my regular flashes. Between a couple of diffusing umbrellas, they seem to work well. At that point, I just go into manual mode, and try to do what I can metering wise with the histogram, and I know the histogram is wrong for raw, but.... I muddle by. Light gathering with an effective f/22, wow. Pretty harsh. Somebody should be punished! Oh, wait, that's US!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

Hey there.....thanx for bringing this post back....

---

No problem [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

For instance...would it not be even close to try macro with my current stuff given the wow factor of this 100mm.....or do I get the 80 for the 20 per se?


I'm gonna get the 300mm 2,8 eventually....but was wondering what macro "wow factor" I may be missing along the way without a dedicated macro lense.

---

Well just my idea: you probably won't use the 100mm for other purposes than real macro like 1:2-1:1. The advantage of the IS system is a lot smaller in those cases and you probably want to use a tripod or flash anyways. So thinking of that I wouldn't see why you would pay more for IS system over the IS-less 100mm macro if you can't take the full advantage of it.


The macro lens could also be used for other occasions like portraits, but you've got good other lenses for that. And I heard the 300mm 2.8 is also a killer-portraitlens [A]


For the close-ups of flowers your lens collection is sufficient, you don't really NEED a very expensive macro L-lens for that. The only question remaining is the fact that you need or would love the real macroexperience. I can't say that for you. I guess the best way to find out is just to try the 100mm macro out in a local store and see for yourself [;)]


I know I use the IS-less 100mm macro lens and for real macro capabilities I don't miss the IS, I use flash anyway, so it wouldn't really matter. I know I coulnd't justify the extra money for the new L-macro lens myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

I'm making this clear as mud aren't I?

---

I hope I didn't this way [:P]


Jan

You guys rock!....and so does this site!


I think I'll save for the 300 2.8 and see along the way if I feel I'm deficient in macro capabilities then I'll decide. Right now....I'm not taking macro shots....and may find that my macro experience would only be a weekend....in which case it would be silly to spend the extra coin for this macro lense. If I were to go with a macro....I probably couldn't resist the "L" as I seem to have a dangerous addiction.....and a costly one.


Cheers,


Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weclickyoupick.com

If I were to go with a macro....I probably couldn't resist the "L" as I seem to have a dangerous addiction.....and a costly one.

---

Totally understandable situation [:P]


Good luck Jeff!