Want to try some macro photographs. Just wondering if it is worthwhile to learn with a 500D on the EF 24-105mmL or should I spend an additional $200+ and get the 100mm macro instead. Would like to hear your opinions.

Only you can answer that because only you know how much you'll enjoy macro photography and the value of $200 to you and your financial situation may be far different than someone elses value of $200

Interesting question...

I find that I can get acceptable images using one of these with my 70-200L IS (its actually kind of cool - you can handhold because of the IS, and the lens can
focus faster than any of my macro lenses) - the downside is that you can't do
any work between the minimum focus range of the lens w/o the 500D and the
maximum working distance of the lens with the 500D (which can be really annoying at times). Now that I have a flock of real macro lenses, I still leave a 500D in my bag just in case I'm out shooting w/o a macro lens along and find I want to do a closeup shot (great for travel when you're already space/weight limited).

I've also tried it a couple of times on my 17-55L, but I think they really shine on longer lenses.

However, on the cost, unless you're looking at a used sigma 105 or something, you're looking at more like $300+ more as the price of admission...

If you've got the cash to spare and are serious about macro photography, you might want to consider going for a "real" macro lens - you can always sell it
(often at little loss if you get a "popular" lens) if you decide you aren't that serious, and you don't have that working range gap to have to deal with - but that's just me, and I do a lot of macro work, so YMMV....

Best,

rkg
(Richard George)
http://www.rkgphotos.com



Good Luck on your choice,

No reason not to consider extension tubes. You'll cut down a small bit on light but you won't introduce another lense into the light path. This is better for over all image quality.

Honest answer? I'd say bite the bullet and buy the Macro.

I probably spent more in stop-gap measures that didn't do the job on the way to that decision, than I'd have spent on the lens in the first place.

Filters, reversing rings, tubes, etc. Still ended up buying the Macro anyway.

The good news is, the Canon 100mm Macro is likely to be the sharpest Canon lens you'll ever own - mine beats all three of my L series lenses!

I'm not sure that the 500D will give you the results you're looking for on the 24-105. (partly because I don't know how decent of a start you get with close focus distance with that particular lens).

I had great luck with extension tubes an a 70-200 or 50mm. I didn't enjoy using the 500D as much. Of course I eventually broke down and got a dedicated macro lens anyway.

It's actually a pretty handy piece of glass. I have used it with the 24-105 as well as the 90mm TS-E and the 70-200 2.8 IS.

With the 24-105....

I have used both the 500d and tubes and I prefer the tubes. I just found them easier to work with.

wow, the flame picture is gorgeous.

I bought a used 500D a year or so ago and found I rarely used it. I bought the Canon 100 f/2.8 macro and use it all the time (and not just for macro work).

Cheers
Sheila

Canon 100mm Macro... google up Blackie the jumping spider they are all mine with the 100 buy it you will love it!-Rich

Edited by Rich Swanner on Feb 26, 2007 at 05:44 AM GMT

I like the 500D on a zoom lens it gives you differrent magnifications depending on FL. I used it on ad 70-300 DO. It would probably work fine on the 24-105 in the longer range.

I have both the 500D and 100/2.8 Macro USM. The 500D and a B+W KSM Circular Polarizer filter are screwed together between a set of filter caps and kept in the small waist bag that I virtually always have (it also has a notebook, CF dards, battery & cap set). I use the 100/2.8 by preference, but when I don't have it with me I can use the 500D on a 70-200/2.8 L IS or 24-70L and still get good results.

Welcome to the forum...
I'll still use the 500D on my 24-105 IS even tho I've got the 180L. Here's a shot at 100mm
(I usually back off abit from 105 as it's sharper on my copy) It's nice to throw in the bag
when you're out and about. I've used it with the 300 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 too. I'd try one
out and see how much "macro" stuff you'll do, then decide. Any 500D's FS here are usually
gobbled up pretty quickly, if it doesn't suit you

I guess I'm one of the few that think the 500d is superb. It gives you some great options IMO, but I'm not a macro photographer.

What it does for me is gives me some great close up shots while not taking up a lens slot in my bag. It's especially good for travel where you may want to take 2-3 lenses and need more versatility than a dedicated macro lens provides.

Each to his own, but if you go to the macro forum you'll find opinions from dedicated shooters, and I think the majority are going to say "buy it"!

I also have extension tubes, but I think both are compatible. Enjoy whichever you choose.