advice needed for upgrade

Hi guys!

i currently owns:
T2i
Canon 10-22mm
Canon 100mm macro
Canon 50mm f1.8
Sigma 50mm f1.4

first question:
i am very into macro photography and was thinking if it is worth upgrading from the canon 100mm macro to canon 100mm L macro. since i don't use my 10-22mm that much, i will sell 10-22mm + 100mm + 50mm f1.8 for a new 100mm L and a new 430 EX II speedlite. Do you guys think that is a good choice?

second question:
i have around $1000 to spare and is looking to get one more lense to my collection. i'm open to all advice and i have these 3 lense in mind 24-105mm L, 17-55mm ef-s, 24-70mm L MK II(need to save a bit more). do you guys think the 24-70 is worth saving for? compared to the 24-105mm. the 24-105 got IS, a big range, and $1000 cheaper, but the 24-70 has a better f stop at 2.8 .

Thanks for advice in advance!! XD

one more additional info for question two, like i said i don use wide angles that much, so the wide angle part of the 17-55mm might not be as important to me as to image quality (sharpness). i also might upgrade my body to a 6D in the future. thanks

focus on efforts that will make your macro better, like lighting.

Upgrade to the 100L only if you want and need IS. You won't get any better image quality from the L version than you do from the non-L.

Best thing to do is put the 10-22 @ 22mm and see if you ever want to go wider... if not then something like the 24-70/24-105 would be fine for you... f2.8 vs f4 comes down to personal usage and whether or not you're ever likely to need the extra stop.

And as Sirrith says, IS and weather sealing are the main reasons to go for the L

I've read reviews that the non-L is pretty much just as good as the L but a lot less.

I agree with Mike. If your macro is bugs, the most important next step would be a highly diffused flash setup (mostly DIY). If you are doing stationary objects, like flowers, the most important would be a tripod, a remote release (a cheap wired release from eBay is fine), and a geared tripod head.

If your very into macro, consider the mpe-65. It's the ultimate macro lens and can do things that neither the 100 or 100l can. The drawback is that it is macro only starting at 1:1 and getting closer from there. It is also a lens that requires a different technique as it focuses by moving the whole lens/camera setup as it has no focus ring itself. On the positive side, it delivers outstanding macro images.

The 100mm Macro should be fine for most circumstances. I've got the L and it's great, but it is a lot more money for not much better quality IQ. As for improving macro shots I found the best thing was a ringflash. I've had a Marumi and an Opteka flashes but they were only TTL in auto. I've now got a Sigma EM140 DG ringflash and the difference in quality shows all day long. It makes macro shooting much easier than with a normal flashgun and lighting is the key to great macro shots.

As to getting closer, you could spend $100's on an mp-e65 and twin flash or get a set of extention tubes. I've got a set of Kenko AF tubes and coupled with the 100 L macro produce fantastic greater than life size photos. You aren't going to get it as close as with the mp-e65 but a set of tubes and a ringflash like the Sigma is going to cost you around $650 and the mp-e and flash will cost around $2000.

Thanks for the the replies guys, thinking about it, it is kinda stupid to trade 3 lense for 1 and a flash, considering no image quality improvement. so i think i will not get the 100mm L, but will still get a flash like many said. but still need help on the second question. thanks

and cuz i'm on a crop body right now, my 100mm will be like 160mm which is kinda pointless for portrait. and i do already own a remote and a good tripod

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #15073832
Best thing to do is put the 10-22 @ 22mm and see if you ever want to go wider... if not then something like the 24-70/24-105 would be fine for you... f2.8 vs f4 comes down to personal usage and whether or not you're ever likely to need the extra stop.

And as Sirrith says, IS and weather sealing are the main reasons to go for the L

That's a very good idea, setting my 10-22 to 22mm and see if I need anything wider! Thanks a lot

any1 knows the image quality between 24-105mm L and 24-70mm L MK II??? is there any image quality difference? if yes, do you think its worth the extra $1000?

jerjerjai wrote in post #15076416
any1 knows the image quality between 24-105mm L and 24-70mm L MK II??? is there any image quality difference? if yes, do you think its worth the extra $1000?

The difference is HUGE at f/2.8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=4

i the 24-70mkii is better at all apertures and comparable focal length don't know if its worth $1000. you have to be the judge of that.