Since I asked the original question, allow me to jump in, not so much to Rob's defense (he can do that himself) but from my perspective. I don't mind that the effect is a bit exaggerated as it better shows what's happening when using a dedicated macro v a regular lens. I recognize that there will be differences to a greater or lesser degree depending on a number of factors, but just to ~see~ Rob's point in such a clear way was very helpful.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To provide an example I just produced a pair of > > shots at f5.6, one with my A50/1.2 + tube and the > > next with my A50/2.8 macro lens > > I can't help but feel that the quality of the two pictures presented > are somewhat exaggerated given that you're comparing a dedicated 50mm > macro lens vs a 50mm f/1.2 lens. I suspect that you'd see much less > difference with the far more commonly used 50mm f/1.7 or f/2 lens. > > Godfrey
