Hello Canoneers,
I'm thinking about adding to my line up of lenses and was considering delving into macro photography. I have a few L lenses now and have taken some "close-up" shots in the garden etc.. but wasn't sure what I'm missing by not having a Macro lense per se.
Will I see a big difference in these type of shots if I use a dedicated macro lense? if so...how big a difference? Do I shoot for the 100mm f/2.8L IS or the non IS 100mm f/2.8 which isn't a beloved "L" lense?
Any suggestions after seeing what I have now? Can I get decent enough macro shots with my lenses below?....or would I be "wowed" by this "L Macro"? IfI can get "good enough" macro for one of these lenses below....then I was just going to keep saving for my 300mm 2.8L. Shall I keep saving?
Cheers, Jeff
I have the following now:
16-35mm 2.8L II
24-70mm 2.8L
70-200mm 2.8L IS ver. 1 (took some neat closeups with this one)
135mm 2L
85mm 1.2L
50mm 1.4
70-300mm f4-5.6