to me they dont look all that sharp, and the dof is too small imo
still great pics tho

wrong topic :/

This post was edited by bialator on Nov 15 2010 04:52pm

I like the first image. The color is beautiful ad the texture also.
Nice shots on them.

I certainly don't miss this part of the summer

Filthy blood sucker.

says the Nikon user.

These aren't macro, but it's about as close to macro as I can get with my current lens setup These were taken with my 55-250 @ 250mm. And yes, I know the focus is off on the dragon fly shot. I really like the colors and background in that photo though.





This post was edited by bergmann on Nov 16 2010 07:35am

So I have yet to get into macro but I am looking into getting a macro lens. However from looking on POTN's sample photo archives, it seems like many people shooting with the 100mm f/2.8L are shooting with extension tubes. I'm not too sure of the ones that don't, but ti seems like for a lot of them, I can get the same result by using a sharp lens and cropping my subject of interest.

What is there to convince me into getting the 100mm 2.8L rather than a 70-200 f/4IS, which are the two lenses I am considering next. I know they are for different purposes, but as of now, I don't have much use for general telephoto but at that price range, I might opt for the 70-200 than having to pay for the 100mm+extension tubes. As for the 100mm, I was considering getting into that since it would be easier to find subjects to shoot rather than having actual people and it seems like a lot of fun but in terms of usefulness, the only other use I can see for it would be unflattering portraits and I already have enough trouble trying to find photogenic friends to shoot.

Hiho.

I can tell you my experience:

I started with a 70-200 IS f4, grand lens, but it was too big in size for me. Then I owned a 100 f2, again grand lens, light, sharp, fast. Now I have a 100 macro F2.8 IS.

I like macro lenses for general use as you can focus closed to things, also if not doing serious macro photography.

My suggestions are:

For macro works you must decide if you are serious or not. If you want to do serious macro shots you need a > 100 lens, I suggest sigma 150 f2.8 a tripod and a ring flash (hope the name in English is correct).

If you like doing normal pictures, portrait and as I do amateur macro shots sometimes than I would suggest a 60-100 macro lens. Shorter working distance but easy to handle with no tripod and good for general purpose shots.

the size isn't a big deal to me so right now, I don't see what the advantage is of the macro compared to having a sharp copy of the 70-200 and cropping. I know it wont be as sharp as the macro, but then I would still have a lens with a faster AF and a zoom than having to use the range limiter on the macro