msadiqali
05-06 04:23 PM
Stock Markets Gamblers beware..DOW drops 998 points intra day..
wallpaper pictures Birthday Cake Picture
gregspirited
08-19 09:17 PM
I thought labor cert is tied to a specific position and once I change my profile completely (say from software engineer to product management) I need to re-apply PERM eventhough I work for the same company.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
jliechty
June 18th, 2005, 04:14 AM
In general, macro lenses around 100mm are good for most kinds of macro photography. They have too much working distance for use on a copy stand, and not quite enough for skittish and/or dangerous insects or small animals. For general purpose stuff, the angle of view is such that you get enough background isolation to be worthwhile (you can rotate around your subject just a bit to get a highlight out of the background, while a 50mm macro takes in more background and makes this difficult).
I got a used Tamron 90mm, and let's just say that the build quality does not inspire confidence - however, the image quality is excellent. From what little I've seen of the Sigma 105mm macro (and from the many images that the members here have posted), it appears to have a bit better build quality and fine image quality as well. The Nikon macro is not going to be much better, if at all, in image quality than these, and you will pay dearly for the brand name. The one macro lens to avoid, however, is a "Phoenix" macro that only goes to 1:2 (that means that you can't get enough magnification for most small insects and flowers to fill the frame) and is most likely more cheaply built than my Tamron. Almost every other macro lens goes to 1:1 these days, and you can get the nicer ones used from KEH for not much more, so there's no reason to buy not-so-ideal lenses that you'll outgrow in no time anyway.
I got a used Tamron 90mm, and let's just say that the build quality does not inspire confidence - however, the image quality is excellent. From what little I've seen of the Sigma 105mm macro (and from the many images that the members here have posted), it appears to have a bit better build quality and fine image quality as well. The Nikon macro is not going to be much better, if at all, in image quality than these, and you will pay dearly for the brand name. The one macro lens to avoid, however, is a "Phoenix" macro that only goes to 1:2 (that means that you can't get enough magnification for most small insects and flowers to fill the frame) and is most likely more cheaply built than my Tamron. Almost every other macro lens goes to 1:1 these days, and you can get the nicer ones used from KEH for not much more, so there's no reason to buy not-so-ideal lenses that you'll outgrow in no time anyway.