Macro Lens - Important or not in your kit

You sound like you're doing just fine without a macro lens, but may find one useful. Looking at your pictures, I'd add a 28/1.8, 35/2 or 35/1.4L to your kit.

Luis you are right, those lens might help me a lot to capture subjects. But the difficulty comes, when I feel like getting close to subject for some specific reason or to try something different. In this case macro might help....

I only contemplate a new lens purchase when I find that my creativity is limited by the lens collection I already have. If you enjoyed your experiment with the borrowed macro lens, and you are not able to create those same images with the equipment you now own, then perhaps a macro lens is right for you.

Hey Adam - if you have never felt the need for a macro lens, and never missed having one, then you probably don't need to listen to someone else telling you that you should add one to your kit!

However, while I am the polar opposite of an equipment fondler (I use my photographic equipment to make a living, but see my gear as tools as opposed to precious objects to be admired, cleaned and revered), I do believe that you should never be limited by your equipment - technically or creatively. If I want to take a shot a certain way I need to know I have the best tools to hand and that I don't have to compromise. For that reason I have a wide range of lenses, bodies, specialist lenses, equipment and a high level of redundancy so that I can do the best job for my clients.

If I were you therefore, I would explore buying a macro lens (the original 100mm f2.8 is inexpensive and a wonderful lens with your 5D MkII) so that you are prepared if some great close-up image comes "in front of your eyes" during your travels. You may develop a taste for it - it can change the way you look at things when you know you can shoot 1:1 macro without having to hassle with tubes, etc. It's also a very good general purpose and portrait lens, although you have that area covered with your 85mm and 70-200mm zoom.

A critic who tells you to add a lens to your kit is a critic not worth listening to. The only reason to buy a lens is because you need it to do something you want to do and can't do well without it. I have two macro lenses, but only because macro is a large part of what I shoot. If you want to devote time to macro, buy a macro lens. John's suggestion of a lens is a good one for a lens to consider. If you don't want to do a lot of macro, save your money.

Adam,

I always used to carry one, now I never do. If you have the 70-200 f2.8 IS zoom then do what I do, just buy a set of tubes and use them when the macro urge bites. They are cheap, useful, they don't take up much space and weigh very little. They would work very well on your 50, 85 and longer zoom. If you really get into macro then you will still use them with a dedicated macro lens too so it is money never wasted.

100% agree with Dan, unless you shoot a lot of macro subject matter, not a big reason to have one. What if the same critic said 'you should really have a 500mm lens', though you may not shoot much wildlife?

Cheaper and more versatile than a macro lens -- buy an extension tube set. Get one with the electrical contacts. Kenko makes a nice set. It will work beautifully with all primes and most zooms.

Here's one I took yesterday with my 100/2 on a 20mm tube:

"Left Behind"

My 100mm macro is really important when I shoot macro, and it doubles as a good portrait lens. I tend not to carry it all the time. The 85mm f/1.8 is lighter and a fine lens for portraits and events. When I go out to shoot macro, I take my macro kit with a macro flash, tripod, etc. It seems obvious, but if I was not shooting macro, I would not buy one.