UWA or macro?

I currently have 24-70, 70-200L, and a Sigma 50 1.4. I was going to get the 17-40L but then Canon announced the new 100 macro. I've rented UWA's on occasion but have never used a macro. So my question is this: Which would you have more use for, a UWA or a macro lens? I know that the two lenses fill two entirely different purpose and it really comes down to personal shooting styles, but since I'm having such a hard time deciding I thought that I would find out how others would choose. Thanks.

If you haven't ever found yourself wishing for a macro lens in the past but have wished for a 17-40L I think it's a bit of a no-brainer to go for the WA and investigate the macro down the track.

i have both of those lenses. I bought the macro first but didn't really get to use it that much. i find myself using more of the 17-40. I sometimes use the 100 macro for portraits.

depends what you shoot, but for now i say go wide angle.

yogibear wrote in post #8573669
I currently have 24-70, 70-200L, and a Sigma 50 1.4. I was going to get the 17-40L but then Canon announced the new 100 macro. I've rented UWA's on occasion but have never used a macro. So my question is this: Which would you have more use for, a UWA or a macro lens? I know that the two lenses fill two entirely different purpose and it really comes down to personal shooting styles, but since I'm having such a hard time deciding I thought that I would find out how others would choose. Thanks.

I would have more use for the macro since I don't shoot ultra wide that much. The new macro should be great. It's at a focal length where I like to take portraits, it will have IS, and you can do macro. BUT, none of that matters. I agree that if you were going to get the 17-40 then you should get it. If you fancy macro, look for that in the future.