On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Aahz Maruch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >> That's quite a leap for someone who has apparently shot with neither >> . The 16-50 renders beautifully and can achieve focus at close >> range. For moderately small subjects like flowers or leaves I opt for >> it in place of my macro. > > The reason I went with the 100mm macro for my cruise instead of the 35mm > macro was because during my test drive with the 16-50, I found myself > constantly wishing for more macro, and by the time I switched over to the > 35mm macro, I had to drastically shift my positioning to get the closeup > I wanted. You can get reasonably close with the 16-50, but I really > prefer true macro. > --
Of course. I didn't say the DA* 16-50 could replace a macro. I was responding to Zoe's leaps of logo regarding it's rendering and it's ability to focus closely. Paul > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ > <*> <*> <*> > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
