Looking to get a 2nd lens...

[g8ina]

Thanks, and yes, all my own work... Both of those were just lazing in mid afternoon sun so was a LOT easier than some of my macro shots (see my Flickr for more if you like Saracen)

You certainly start seeing the world in a different light once you start on macro too ! Folk around my local haunt have got used to seeing me on my hands and knees

[Bobster]

forget tripod for Macro work, use flash instead

hell don't even need a dedicated Macro

[GeorgeStorm]

Why would a flash replace the need for a tripod?

And so what lens is that you're using?

[kalniel]

Why would a flash replace the need for a tripod?

All other things being equal you need a certain amount of light packets for a correct exposure. Having reduced your aperture to get large enough d.o.f. you need to compensate either by holding the shutter open a longish time (and using a tripod to steady the shot) or by increasing the available light in the same time frame (use a flash).

[Saracen]

Why would a flash replace the need for a tripod?

And so what lens is that you're using?

Kalneil is right, and a flash doesn't exactly replace the need for a tripod, but as a critical problem with macro is that light is often restricted, and because a critical part of photo composition is often selecting the aperture to give the required effect in depth of field (i.e. blurring out a distracting background) you're going to have a limited range of shutter speed options and in some lighting conditions, restrictive to to the point of impossibility.

There are, then, two ways of dealing with that, as kal said. Add more time, or add light.

In the first case, you'll end up with shutter speeds that effectively are too slow for hand-held, or to get a crisp shot if the subject can move. In which case, you need to add light. There are several ways of doing that, like as home macro studio on a table by a window, and then using anything from dedicated reflectors, to bits of white card, or cardboard covered with tinfoil, to add reflected light. And, perhaps, crinkle the tinfoil to soften the effect.

Bob is also right, you don't need a macro flash. It can be done without. But conventional flash is often too powerful, even at minimal output settings, for macro, because you can end up burning out the subject matter because you are simply so close. But, you can affect that by adding a "softener" to the flash, be it a commercially made item, or a home brew made with grease-proof paper, or some card and an old handkerchief, or whatever.

The benefit of a dedicated macro flash is that of any high-quality, purpose-made tool - it's designed for the job. The MT-24 flash is referred to is actually twin flash heads, mounted on a versatile ring that goes on the end of the lens. You can one one head, or the other, or both, and you can can set the ratio of power output between them, as well as the power level. It also acts as a master for a multi-flash Canon system, so you can have other flashguns also controlled by the MT-24, and you can still use ETTL metering. In addition, you have considerable control over exactly where the flash heads are, because they move around the axis of the lens to a considerable degree, and move on the axis between lens and subject. In other words, you have a vast degree of control over how much light you add, and exactly where you add it from. And the whole contraption is camera-mounted, so you usually don't have to worry about extra reflectors, bits of card, etc.

That is, it is very versatile, very effective and very easy to use and cart about. It's also pretty damned expensive.

And, because it's a flash, you have the option of using pretty much (within reason) whatever aperture you want for depth of field, without ending up with an extremely low shutter speed, and the problems that produces.

So Bobster is right, you can do a lot with flash without needing a dedicated flash, and there are ways of enhancing a general flash, but for versatility and portability and ease of use, nothing matches a flash designed for the job. And if you're doing a LOT of macro work, that's the convincer for me.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Tripods are useful if you want to use natural light and also for situations like timelapse Macro photography,ie, like following a flower bud opening.

[pc_monkey]

Macro lens will be nice during summer, so I recommend the Canon 100 MAcro IS, or the Canon 100 Macro non IS. You need good light especially at smaller appertures so I also recommend at least a 430 EX II.
Forget the other non canon macro lenses, they are slower, and in future may not be compatible with new Canon bodies. Same is true with flashes. Been there done that, and I paid the price. Also the old adage is true : Buy cheap buy twice!

[pc_monkey]

Why would a flash replace the need for a tripod?

And so what lens is that you're using?

A flash will freeze movement which is very usefull when doing macro hand held... eg.. flowers... the tripod will not freeze movement... though a combination of both is sure win!

[Bobster]

Why would a flash replace the need for a tripod?

And so what lens is that you're using?

flash is a fraction of a second, so freezing movement (as long as ambient is dark enough)

lenses i use - 28-75 2.8 with x2 tele converter @ 150mm with a 50mm reversed (means that i can get really close to the subject)

[HSK]

This is prob not what you're after, but the 50mm f1.8 is a good lens (for the cost). Not without it's faults, but you could get an adapter of ebay, reverse the lens and use it for macros

And you have a little prime for portraits.