Hi Mark, Here's a robin I shot a few weeks ago. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3095297&size=lg It's not as sharp as your pic. It's handheld with the a 400/5.6 and the A2X-S converter at 5.6, 1/500. But you can get some idea of the feather texture. The branch he's perched on provides somewhat of a gauge for relative sharpness and detail. Paul
> 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 > > > > > > >
