Sorry Bosman, I haven't been on here the past couple weeks so I just saw your post. Thankfully Neuro stepped in. Yeah I'm still a little up in the air about this lens for general photography. No doubt about it, it's a nice lens but perhaps it's just not my style for most shots. But for macro, now that's a totally different story.
It's not a macro replacement for sure, but for my level right now it's a great alternative. I'll probably get the 100 IS L eventually but I'm thinking one of the 70-200 models is more important at this stage. So until then, this will be my go to for macro (in combination with the 70-200 IS II with extension tubes as well.
Thanks for posting. If i want tight it will be with the 25mm tube but i prefer a wider perspective adding surrounding elements so I think ill use the 12mm tube most. I may use both if the rings are stellar and I want the details of that but usually i like added interest to tell more of a story. I also often like more color in the shot so blurry or not bold colors can be pretty sweet!
As far as macros go, i personally want to try and keep my setup simple. and the pocket-ability of the 40 with a tube is perfect! I have owned most of the best lenses and have changed my style with time but at the moment I am shooting mainly 24L and 85L. Sports however i shoot 70-200 or 24-70 but i sold the 24-70 and so if i do get another lens that needs to focus fast it will prob be a 35mm since i used that focal length when shooting finish line sports. Maybe the F2 is one. We'll see but with wedding work i want it simpler and focussed on powerful sharp primes. Sure the 24-70 is more practical and i have used the h out of it over the years with great results. The new 24-70 is stellar i hear and see from some posters but this is just the direction i am going at the moment.