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

[Sheiky]

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

No problem []

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.

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

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


Jan