canon 17-55 or 100mm macro help please

Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Have got my 30th coming up next month and my parents wanted to throw me a party or pay for me and the wife to go away, but after some thought I think I would rather have the money for some new glass which they are more then happy to do.
My dilemma is what one!
Im into landscapes at the mo and have a 28-135 IS but sometimes the 28 is not wide enough hence the 17-55.
But I also love my macro and have been using rings for ages but have always wanted a macro lens.
I know its two different types of photography but im after a bit of advice for which may be more beneficial and opinions from people that own either one or maybe suggestions on other lenses.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
which do you do the most?
you can get macro lenses filters (which you've tried) and also extension tubes perhaps?
I find the 17-55 a very good piece of kit personally.
how about a 10-22mm sigma or similar and a macro 105mm sigma for the same price as a 17-55?

also saturday won't get the traffic that the site gets whilst people are supposed to be working mon-fri :)
 
Last edited:
I have both. I find they do very different jobs. So as matt says. If your main interest is macro get the 105 L macro. But it will only serve as a macro or short fixed tele. The 17-55 is a very good walk about lens.
 
Last edited:
as said above, I own both the 17-55 f2.8 & the 100 f2.8l macro, both are fantastic lenses, I use the 17-55 most of the time for day to day use but when needed the macro is excellent, I have just started a thread this morning in the classified to get a price check on my 17-55 as I'm moving to full frame, but if I could I would deffo keep the 17-55, great lens.
 
Other options to consider are the 60mm ef-s macro and the 100mm non-L macro, both significantly cheaper than the L though lacking IS which has questionable use for macro. The 15-85 ef-s is another good landscape lens with extra width and close focussing so good for flower pictures but not for insects.
 
imagine said:
Other options to consider are the 60mm ef-s macro and the 100mm non-L macro, both significantly cheaper than the L though lacking IS which has questionable use for macro. The 15-85 ef-s is another good landscape lens with extra width and close focussing so good for flower pictures but not for insects.
Click to expand...

yes good point, I also had a go with my friends 15-85 and it is also a very good lens. :agree:
 
DizMatt said:
...
how about a 10-22mm sigma or similar and a macro 105mm sigma for the same price as a 17-55?

also saturday won't get the traffic that the site gets whilst people are supposed to be working mon-fri :)
Click to expand...

This looks a better plan, if you can't choose one type of photography over the other. Although you'll only get my 17-55 off me by ripping it out of my cold dead hands. ;)
 
the 105mm to which I'm referring is the sigma f2.8
nice lens. not as good as a canon L but it all depends upon your budget
great portrait lens too imho
 
Hoping to have a high budget so im looking for the best although im not saying cost is everything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top