Hi all, nothing new here, probably a repeat of older threads. I have spent a few hours reading reviews and following links from the stickies here, and followed CyberPet's thread, so partly what I am looking for is advice tailored to my own wants. I'll quickly go over my own experience as a photographer and my equipment, and then ask for thoughts.
I've fooled around with SLRs since about 2000, starting with a fairly simple Minolta 35mm kit (before I got married!). In 2002 I started using a compact digital and liked it well enough. After a couple years of that I felt very restricted (I was sticking it on a pair of binoculars to try to photograph distant objects 
) and wanted to go back to SLR but disliked the hassle and expense of film. This year we were expecting and I decided on an investment that would put photography more on the "important hobby" level: I bit and got a 20D (chose over a Minolta 7D and the very nice D70). I realized I wouldn't be able to justify the purchase for a couple of years, but I wanted something serious I could grow into.
With the 20D I got the EF-S 17-85mm as a general purpose lens and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II for portraits and low-light shooting. More recently, I decided on a Sigma EF-500 DG Super flash. I've done nearly 5000 shots since February just learning, one of the greatest advantages of digital. Our bundle of joy
is now four weeks old, and I find myself more and more wanting to make better and closer close-ups, hence the subject of the thread.
The first macro lens I considered was by chance of seeing it in a list of associated purchase items on the site where I ordered the 20D: the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM. As I've gathered from reviews and forum threads, this is by any standard an excellent macro lens, and is for me the leading choice. I guess it's not necessary to repeat all the things that are commonly said about it (excellent sharpness, good color, but not quite L-series build quality (meh) and AF searches in low light). I'm sufficiently impressed that this is not the WRONG lens to buy. But it is still fairly expensive, and will prevent me getting a telephoto zoom and other stuff for a while.
I've also followed with interest discussion on the EF-S 60mm f/2.8. I don't mind EF-S so much since I don't plan on ditching the 20D as long as it's still working. (Remember, I am still far removed from even justifying having it; for now I would be doing fine with a 300 or 350.) It's lighter and also enjoys good performance, and here in Switzerland is significantly cheaper: 70% of the EF 100mm cost. Size is also important, it looks like it will share room with the 17-85mm much more easily in my current camera bag, and anyway smaller is always better. I have very little experience shooting macro, so I don't know how important for my future needs the difference in distance-to-subject will be. Of course further away is better, even with realtively unshy subjects like babies. The DSLR crop factor is less important to me, more important than that is performance for portraits, so I lean toward the 100mm for portraits because it should have less distortions than the 60mm (eg, bulbous noses, fairly noticeable with the 50mm f/1.8 ). Because of my inexperience, I'm also not sure how important bokeh will become in my shots. The 60mm does also share a 52mm filter size with the 50mm 1.8 II lens, a small plus.
It's very probable that I might be led to reconsider getting a macro lens at all. What are my options in this regard? I used a close-up lens that screws on the end of one of my Minolta lenses, and it was fun though limited. On the other hand, that's my limited experience and this site (in German) pits for example the Canon Nahlinsen (close-up lenses) 250D and 500D with several Canon lenses against the Tamron 90mm/2.8 DI Macro 1:1. Summary: Of course the dedicated macro lenses win out in picture quality, especially at lower f-stops, and you can only get 1:1 with telephotos above 300mm. You can get further away though with the telephoto lenses, although at the moment I still don't have one. But my options are open and I wondered if anyone here had experience or thoughts on that.
When I mentioned a macro lens to my photography buddy, he said why don't you get a telephoto zoom and use it for close-ups? The short answer is that I want to get significantly closer than he is thinking, but with a close-up lens (screwed on the filter threads) I could still at least make macro shots and also have a telephoto lens to boot. (Time for a new bag, though.) It's a tempting thought, because without the kiddo I would possibly prefer a telephoto over a macro lens.
I saw someone recommend a low-cost Sigma zoom macro lens. What are its advantages, besides a very attractive low price? Other fixed-length lenses such as the SIGMA 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro are just as expensive as the Canon 100mm here.
If I do get a macro lens, I am wondering what accessories will become indispensable in the future. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about extenders or extension tubes, except that they increase magnification and you can only use the latter with the EF-S 60mm. I suppose if I really start getting into macro I will quickly want a macro flash bracket and will also need a tripod ring. A hood too, no doubt.
If you've read all this, thanks a bundle. 8)
