should I steep up?

[Sirrick]

HI everyone

I'm just starting with Macro photography, and I'm enjoying A LOT!!!.
I have a 550D, canon 15 85 IS, 70 200 f/4 L IS, canon 1.4X II, 500D filter with an adapter ring from 72mm to 67mm and a Kenko extension tubes set.

then here it comes my question, should I step up and buy a real macro lens? of course this is a not objective question, but I just want to hear some opinions from more (much more actually) experiences users.

About what I would like to do, it's mostly nature macro photography, A LOT of bugs, and some flowers and because the lenses I have now are really sharp, I think I would only use a macro lens for macro work, other important point is that I'm lazy and I hate to use tripods, that's why I was thinking in the canon 100 2.8 L IS, but on other hand most of the people here shooting bugs are using flash then maybe the IS is not that important and I can get the canon 100 2.8 only?.

maybe a Nifty Fifty just because it's so cheap and I already have the tubes set?

right now I'm getting 0.65X only with the 70 200 at 200 with the 500D filter, and I get more than 1.0X magnification with the extension tubes.

Then what would I gain with a real macro lens? maybe I should just wait till I learn more? how far can I get with the gear I have now? in terms of quality and general possibilities?.

thanks!!!!

 

[tomhooper]

I personally like having a dedicated macro lens. You can use the extension tubes with your other lenses and they will work very well. I've never used a 500D filter or any filter for that matter so I can't speak as to the quality of images you can get with it. I don't know why but for some reason I would think your DOF would be affected with the filters. Nothing wrong with the IS form of the 100mm but I have the regular version and like it fine. I always manual focus my macro shots and try to use a tripod or mono-pod whenever I can. Flash is something else that I almost always try to use. Even in bright lights, fill flash helps the shot. I normally start shooting my macros at ISO 200, f/11, 1/250sec. and adjust from there. The key is to find something that works for you and practice, practice, practice. I will tell you that macro is very addicting so consider yourself warned. It can also be very expensive. Price a MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite flash unit if you think I'm kidding.

 

[D-B-J]

i love my dedicated macro. Granted, i shoot nikon, but its the same idea. I got a 105mm 2.8D micro, and it was worth every penny. Like tomhooper says, macro can be really addicting.

 

[Sirrick]

Thanks for the advices tomhooper, you are right, I really need to practice more before take a decision about another lens, they are not cheap!!!
and about the 500D filter, I think oyu are right too, I haven't noticed this but I get much thinner DOF with the 500D, here you can see an example, but anyway I think the quality it's not bad right?

the first one is the 70 200 with the 500D filter at 192mm
the second one is the 70 200 with the full set of kenko tubes at 144mm

i love my dedicated macro. Granted, i shoot nikon, but its the same idea. I got a 105mm 2.8D micro, and it was worth every penny. Like tomhooper says, macro can be really addicting.

hehe, don't tell me about addiction, I just started with Macro like a month ago and I can't stop thinking about it hehe, about your choice for macro lens, aren't you worry about IS or VR Nikon? I'm asking because I hate to carry a tripod cheers! and thanks for your comment