Do I need a macro lens?

I'm quite tempted to buy a Canon 100mm macro lens, but...
I'm not really into macro as such although I've seen some pretty stunning shots on here. I'm looking more for close up / still life / product type capability rather than true 1:1 macro.

I don't have a huge array of lenses but what I do have are pretty reasonable, I also have extension tubes. However I care about the best image quality. So... taking any or all of the lenses in my signature used in conjuction with the extension tubes would I see a significant difference in IQ compared to a true macro lens?

With extension tubes and primes that you have, IQ is not lost at all however you do lose depending on the amount of tubes a couple stops of light. Since you say you may not need true 1:1 I would just try out your tubes with some of your primes and find the focal length that works best for your setup and if you decide its not cutting it then perhaps think about getting a macro lens. To answer your question briefly, no, IQ difference will be similar as if you were just comparing the primes normally. Keep in mind however the advantage of the macro lens will be versatility too, you can easily focus 1:1 and then turn around and focus to infinity.

Thanks Kevin. I think you're right, I'll give it a go with my existing setup for a while longer and only when/if I'm becoming limited by it go for a macro lens. I take your point about the versatility of being able to focus to infinity quickly, but as most of the shots I'm planning are studio based I don't think it will be a problem.

cheers
Bill

But also don't forget, often macro lense can be used for other things, some of my best, clearest, sharpest profile pics of my cat or dog, are with my 100mm tokina macro.

Macro lenses just tend to take excellent sharp images.

Bill Roberts,
You will get better quality macro photos with the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens then using extension tubes with your 50mm f/1.8 lens. You will also have more working room between your lens and subject with the macro lens which helps in lighting. It will also be much quicker to set up a shot and the 100mm f/2.8 makes a great portrait lens.

So if like you said:

then the Macro lens is the way to go. <-- my opinion

Hi Bill,
The 100mm macro is one of my favorite lenses...sometimes I wish I could bring it with me on my vacations but I usually don't have room for it. It's obviously great for macro work, but also useful for portrait or product work...my best eBay photos came from this lens. I haven't used it for landscape work however.

samples:
http://members.dslextr​eme.com …9/images/pocket​wizard.jpg
http://members.dslextr​eme.com/users/kfong99/​spider2.jpg
-Ken

In my opinion, EVERYBODY needs a macro lens!

My thanks to everyone who replied with advice, it's appreciated.
In the end, although logically I came to the conclusion that I didn't actually NEED a macro lens I've just pulled the trigger and bought a 100mm macro!

It wasn't the fact that it could double up as a decent portrait lens, as I've got the 85mm f/1.2 which is pretty hard to top. It wasn't even the fact that it's a true 1:1 macro lens either. In short... I think we'd better just put it down to "lens lust" as far as I can see this is a derivative of L fever, ah well...

thanks again.
Bill

Oh fantastic Bill, I am saving up for one, love macro, you will soon become addicted

Bill, just curious, but in your gear it says you already have a 100 2.8 macro. ??

Ah... that's just me being a little premature! It should turn up on Monday all being well.
But I usually forget to update the signature for ages, this time I thought I'd better do it whilst I was thinking about it. Well spotted

Just thinking about it again and realised that once you change your signature or your avatar it changes it on all your previous posts as well. That's why it would appear on the original question about me needing a macro. Yes that would look a bit odd... I only updated it once I'd actually placed the order though.

hope that makes sense?

cheers
Bill