let me know when you have some FA 200 f4 macro shots. i am thinking about that lens for my macro too. i am also interested in your opinions on alternatives. also on the FA 100 f2.8 macro and alternatives for it. the cost isn't as big a factor as how good the lenses are. even on the *istD, there are enough times where i need macro and my 50 f2.8 isn't long enough. i have been compromising with extension tubes on my FA* 80-200, but with a 25mm tube, there isn't any overlap on focus range between with and without the tubes. same when i put the Canon 500D multielement closeup lens, although the closeup lens appears to mate well with the 80-200.
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:51 AM Subject: Re: *istD - Hmmmmm > For a lot of subjects, the trade offs that come with digital work better > than those in film. It depends on the visual cues in the image that the > viewer picks up. My *ist-D came too late for me to do any bug macros, but I > expect that it will produce close ups of insects as good or better than the > best film. I say this in part because I've been able to get excellent > closeups using a 3.3 megapixel digtal up to this point. For that kind of > work, higher acutance (at the cost of resolution) works. If you think about > the visual cues that define a bug, it generally is about edges. I expect > the *ist-D to really rock with snowflakes this winter - because snowflakes > are nothing but edges.
