Nice pics Nick. I'm surprised you could discern a difference in sharpness between your new 200mm and the Tamron as I'd have thought both would be capable of outresolving the camera's sensor.NickB wrote:Nice one! I too have a Tamron 90mm and find it it difficult to fault! (I always use a 1.4 TC too). I have just picked-up a 2nd hand 200mm Nikkor f4 macro - and that is (marginally) sharper. Here's a dragonfly (not sure which) I took this weekend and a damselfly....
N
@Lee, there is often a lot of confusion on what a 'macro' lens actually is. Technically, it is a lens that will produce at least a 1:1 image, i.e. an image on the sensor that is the same size as the original. Therefore with an APS-C size sensor being approximately 1" across, a 1" long bug would fill the frame. Many zooms are called macros because they can focus close enough to provide a significant percentage of the magic 1:1 although some can only do as little as 1:4 and are still called macro. This is not to say that they are bad, indeed many of them can produce high quality images. In any case you don't always need to fill the frame with the subject, and most photos posted on UKB are nowhere near macro size even though they might have been taken using a macro lens.
Lens lust is a terrible thing, and I have succumbed yet again, this time buying a used but immaculate Minolta 200mm f2.8 HS G. This lens is so revered amongst Alpha mount users that when it came up for sale I had to have it, even though I haven't got a clue yet what I'll use it for as I don't usually shoot sports and it's a bit short for wildlife. Dragons taken with it look nice although it is another 'wrong' lens for such subjects. I snapped these two common darters, male and female, yesterday.
Mike.