I have a feather from annother bird. On this the "hair" on this one also have "hair", which kinda "glue" the larger hair together. So, your pictuer really has - as you're gussing - a limited resolution, even though it looks great. Jens
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. februar 2005 19:02 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Opinions about Tokinas (Was Sigmas) I posted this before (over a year ago), but I think it's an interesting illustration of what is being discussed in terms of how lenses differ between film and digital: http://www.markcassino.com/temp/robin/ This shot was taken with the Tokina 400mm ATX, handheld. In the actual pixel shot, the degree of apparent detail in the birds breast is remarkable. But I have found this lens to be pretty mediocre with film in the past. I guess I'd have to find a bird and hold it in my hand to know for sure, but I really question the detail in the feathers. They look like hairs, not feathers. My conclusion was that a low resolving lens with low CA and high edge sharpness - which is what my tests showed the ATX 400 to be - will create an image with clean edges and a high degree of _apparent_ detail. I say apparent detail because I don't think the birds breast feathers would really look like that, I think that the primary ribs of the feathers have been exaggerated and the connecting fibers have been all but lost in this shot. Psychologically, one looks at that and thinks "Wow - what detail!" but I really question that. Maybe I can find a natural history museum with a robin specimen and can confirm my suspicions... - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mark Cassino" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Opinions about Sigmas >> Lastly, I briefly owned the Sigma 400 f5.6 macro, but wound up switching >> to the Tokina ATX 400 f5.6. I don't know about build quality (the >> Tokina is built like a tank) but the Sigma was better optically. > > I was never (optically) impressed with the AT-X 400/5.6, either. > > Fred > > >
