Canon lens conundrum

[chapin333]

Hello, I am considering buying either a 24-105mm lens or 100 mm f/2.8 Macro IS USM for my Canon and I'm not sure which to go for. 24-105 is an all rounder and used often by a particular photographer I follow, but would it give me true macro or should I buy a macro lens specifically for macro photography, obviously both lenses are costly so only buying one is an option currently.

Any suggestions?

Many thanks in advance.


Sue

[inkista]

No, a 24-105 won't give you "true" 1:1 macro capability. It can get within 0.45m of a subject and still focus, but this is why we like macro lenses.

Which one it's better to go for is really up to you, though. You're the one who's going to have to prioritize one over the other, and spend the cash, so you're the only one who can decide what's "worth it."

I would ask, though, if budget is that great a concern, is there a specific reason you have to go for the L lenses? The EF 100/2.8 USM Macro and EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro are also very nice lenses, and costs quite a bit less than the 100/2.8L IS. They may not be as nice, but they can get the job done and macro lenses are always super-sharp. And if you're shooting on a crop body, then maybe the EF-S 15-85 IS USM is a better fit than the 24-105L.

[chapin333]

No, a 24-105 won't give you "true" 1:1 macro capability. It can get within 0.45m of a subject and still focus, but this is why we like macro lenses.

Which one it's better to go for is really up to you, though. You're the one who's going to have to prioritize one over the other, and spend the cash, so you're the only one who can decide what's "worth it."

I would ask, though, if budget is that great a concern, is there a specific reason you have to go for the L lenses? The EF 100/2.8 USM Macro and EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro are also very nice lenses, and costs quite a bit less than the 100/2.8L IS. They may not be as nice, but they can get the job done and macro lenses are always super-sharp. And if you're shooting on a crop body, then maybe the EF-S 15-85 IS USM is a better fit than the 24-105L.

[chapin333]

Thank you that's helpful and there is a really big difference in the price as you say

[Traveller46]

I agree with most comments about what do you photograph and this normally dictates your choice couple with the financial restricitions you may have.
I have a 400D and was debating for months on getting a new camera but after reading blogs, forums etc went for a more expensive lens. I bought the canon 135mm F2 L as I wanted to get more pictures of my family (though this very difficult) but have been amazed at the quality of the image it produces, as I only ever had the EF-S kit lenses before.
So my advice would be to get the best possible lens you can for your money, you will be surprised.

[chauncey]

I remember years ago I caught a lot of flak because I spent 8 grand on a Canon Ds3 when I wasn't that good of a photographer...my terse response was that it was none of their business how I spent my money. Turns out that we were both right, I wasn't that good and, the fact that I spent that obscene amount forced me to improve my skills, to deserve that body in my mind.

Lenses, as with other gear, always boils down to a want/need scenario...we all have bought glass that down the line we don't use/need. Eventually, I came upon the "MTF Characteristics" site http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/...ork_iii_en.asp ...it now serves as a base for all my glass purchases.
In spite of have a lot of "L" glass, 99% of the time I use but two lenses, a 180 macro and a 300 f/2.8...when more FOV is needed, photo-merge is my answer.

the more experience you have with gear, the less the gear begins to matter

What Kathy is suggesting that, if you learn your gear, you can work-around any of the perceived deficiencies. I just prefer to have those deficiencies between my ears and not in my gear.

FWIW, in my excursion around the local park last evening there were no less than three portrait photographers...all three were using 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.