Does there exist any fast wide macro prime for detail shots in dark?

Just be careful here... A lot of off brand (and some Canon) lenses are marketed as being "Macro"

True macro lenses will give you 1:1 reproduction or better. However, I have owned a Tamron 70-300 "Macro" which gave 1:2.8 reproduction. Not really macro, especially with a MFD of 0.95m. The 24-105/4L also purports to be a "Macro" lens.. not so much.

Agree with the above... you can't have true macro, short focal length and a wide aperture.

If you are shooting urbex aren't you using a tripod anyway? (I may be completely off base here...)

Mike

What about extension tubes on the 35 or 24 variants. Also possibly a close up filter might help.

Ok i'll give it up, i think I'll keep 35L for this
Do you think it's worth switching from the 17-40 to the 35L for the f1.4 bokeh vs f4 bokeh?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #15342572
Ok i'll give it up, i think I'll keep 35L for this
Do you think it's worth switching from the 17-40 to the 35L for the f1.4 bokeh vs f4 bokeh?

If you're talking about shallow depth of field, the 17-40 doesn't get very shallow at all.

drzenitram wrote in post #15342685
If you're talking about shallow depth of field, the 17-40 doesn't get very shallow at all.

But it does focus close.

gjl711 wrote in post #15342056
I question why the wide angle and macro. If you are at 1:1 the FL is irrelevant. A 50mm macro, 100mm macro and 180mm macro all deliver the same image. All that changes is the working distance.

So, if you really want a 1:1 lens and wide aperture, it seems to me that the FL is irrelevant.

They would frame the subject the same, but the background would be different.

Madweasel wrote in post #15342714
They would frame the subject the same, but the background would be different.

When your talking macro distances background is pretty much a non issue and At 1:1 and f/1.4 no matter what lens you use your DOF is going to be maybe a millimeter if your lucky and anything 2 or 3mm in the background is going to be blury. Even at f/2.8 DOF at 1:1 is really thin.

drzenitram wrote in post #15342685
If you're talking about shallow depth of field, the 17-40 doesn't get very shallow at all.

It does at the MFD, which is what the OP is talking about. I've never had a problem with too much DOF when shooting in the range of 1:4 or closer focus.

Shot with the Sigma 20 f/1.8. This is cropped but you get the idea. Wide OOF background with very close in-focus subject.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/hotbobs/8052222​711/

Are you sure you know what the term "macro" means? It means a lens that is capable of a reproduction ratio of 1 to 1.
If a lens doesn't do 1:1, then it is not a macro lens. So, when you ask for a wide macro lens, it gives me the idea that you don't really know what it is that you are asking for. In fact, even if there was such a thing as a 24mm macro lens, I don't think you would want one. I don't think anybody would want one.

jmcgee131 wrote in post #15342124
What about extension tubes on the 35 or 24 variants. Also possibly a close up filter might help.

Normal tubes are most likely too long for these focal lengths.
I have made a manual 8mm short extension tube:

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15343251
Are you sure you know what the term "macro" means? It means a lens that is capable of a reproduction ratio of 1 to 1.
If a lens doesn't do 1:1, then it is not a macro lens...

German DIN industry standard (No. 19040) defines 10:1 to 1:10 on sensor/film as macro.
Not sure whether other countries have a real macro definition.

The definition with object to sensor size is not the only one for "macro" definition.
Others take object to print or on screen size - in-depended from the sensor size.