By "psuedo-macro" I meant that this is one of many lenses that claim to be macro but really aren't (IMHO) since they are not designed for a flat field of focus, they are not optimized for the close rather than distant subjects, and they don't focus all that close anyway. An ok alternative to using a close-up filter on some other lens, but not a total substitute for a "real" macro lens.
BTW, I had the FA 100/2.8, sold it when I was able to get the A version. I think that the M-100/2.8 or /4 is a far better portrait lens; the 100mm macros are too sharp and the highlights can tend to be somewhat harsh. For a really good macro, get the FA100/2.8. For a rally good portrait lens, get the FA85/1.4. the FA77 Limited, or one of the older 100mm A or M lenses. If you are going to try to get one lens that does double duty for macro and portrait, the FA 28-105/4-5.6 is probably about as good as you can do. IMHO <g> Stan on 12/02/03 7:16 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Stan! I DID check your website, and that is WHY I purchased it! <grins>. > OT - your website seems to be down right at the moment, or is it just at my > end? > > Thanks heaps for your comments, I mainly purchased this lens to "get me > through" until I got my Tamron 28-200mm back,... > What does "psuedo" macro mean? And how exactly does it work? > > tan. >
