100mm Macro Rather 17-40L ??

Awais Yaqub

:huh
Okay now i cannot decided between both i know comparison is Apple and Oranges.
I love to shoot what falls in 17-40 Range i also love shooting macros. I have money for one i can save 100$ if i get the macro lens.

The one advantage of 100mm will be that i can shoot portraits , but i don't know how it performs there :scratch

I already have 18-55 kit lens and nifty fifty.

:rolleyes

Richard

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Okay now i cannot decided between both i know comparison is Apple and Oranges.
I love to shoot what falls in 17-40 Range i also love shooting macros. I have money for one i can save 100$ if i get the macro lens.

The one advantage of 100mm will be that i can shoot portraits , but i don't know how it performs there

I already have 18-55 kit lens and nifty fifty.

The 17-40 will not widen the range of shots you can take with your current gear, but it will vastly improve the quality of them over the kit lens. The 100 macro will permit you to get shots that you cannot get with your current gear. Don't know how it performs for portraits. What can I say? It's up to you to decide what is more important to you.

Scott_Quier

For macro work, the 100 is a great lens. For portraits, on a 1.6x crop body, it's a bit long unless you have lots of room in which to work.

As alternative might be the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 - just depends on what you want for working space between you and your macro subjects. The 60mm will, I think, be a better alternative for portraits.

Awais Yaqub

Btw i also have sony H5 from what i do macros with reverse lens on it.

Photoskipper

I have both lens and tried on both XT and 5D.

The 17-40 is very similar to the 18 -55, so there is not much advantage.

The 100 mm F2,8 marco is a great lens for both portrait and macro. the F2.8 give a very good short DOF. But it is a fix focus lens and you need to move around to do the composition.

For portrait, the 100 mm on a 1.6X crop body becomes 160, it may be a bit too long.

ziggy53

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Btw i also have sony H5 from what i do macros with reverse lens on it.

Awais,

I do think that the H5 is sufficient for the occasional macro:

(Your own gallery as a reminder and invitation to others who may not know)
http://www.awaisyaqub.com/gallery/988631_Jn9BY/3/183601571_paBZR#P-1-15

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/macro%2Csonyh5
http://www.pbase.com/helenpb/image/87171375
http://www.pbase.com/digitalbcon/image/80600288


I do think the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM has the quality you would appreciate for landscapes and some architectural photography.

Another lens you might consider, which might be close to your price range, is the EF 70-200mm, f4L USM. This is not a range you currently cover and it is a very high quality zoom. The 70mm can be used for portraits although the f4 aperture means that you need to watch the background, especially indoors.

Fitted with an appropriate adapter and adding the 500D close focus diopter and you get pretty good close focus capabilities. Our own Dalantech has used this arrangement:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/708248681/

Awais Yaqub

Thanks for the insight Ziggy !!
I agree about 70-200 f4 and i just love it but if i got that i have to update bag for carry it !
Waiting for 70-200 2.8 version infect

darkdragon

I have the 17-40 f4L and love it. I don't use it a ton because I suck at landscapes, but you are awesome at landscapes and I think you would appreciate the 17-40 and get more use out of it than you would the 100mm

For portraits, you seem to do great with the 50mm and most times (for me anyway) even a 70mm is too long for a portrait.

You can get some extention tubes and use your 17-40 for macro too , I haven't tried macro with that lens but I use tubes on every other lens and love that I only need one set to make all my lenses macro (or close).