I suspect Boris may want AF for when he is using the lens for normal work.
I have things the wrong way around. My 100mm macro is the FA 100 2.8, and
for a smaller, more portable, 100mm lens, I have the M 2.8.
It would be better if the M was AF, and vice-versa.
John
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:46:17 -0000, Don Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Boris,
I've tested the Sigma 50/2.8 EX Macro with a Tokina Doubler and have
posted a picture here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/hold/EX50X2.tif
Make of it what you will.
It's Rob Studdert's printable version of the USAF test chart and I
personally don't know what to make of it either. The print starts off
being lousy because my printer is crap. The chart is 146cm from the
sensor plane and I used a flash.
This is not the way one usually employs these charts, but it may give
you some useful information.
Don
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
A Russian Penta Club member approached me asking to sell him my Tamron
90/2.5 lens. I agreed. Same reason - unfortunately the lens is manual
focus.
I am thinking of replacement. KEH has now very good variety of macro
lenses at rather reasonable prices. Say, Sigma 50/2.8 EX macro goes for
$144.
Though this may appear rather heretic I am thinking of lowly SMCP FA
100/3.5 (with attachment, which I believe is just a close up filter).
Why - because the darn thing is small.
Anyone here who owns such a beast - how it performs between f/3.5 and
f/5.6?
I realize that SMCP FA 100/2.8 is better, probably far better, but it
is big and most probably I will not use too often, because of its size.
Any feedback will be appreciated.
Thanks.
Boris
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
