| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#Tiny-Worlds-Photo
#photographyISpoetry
#Raw-Nature
#PhotoInvertebrates
#crazy4MACRO
#ColoursOfNature
#MacrosWorld
#MarvelousMacro
| Photography / Animals, Plants & Nature / Invertebrates | ©2012-2013 *s-kmp |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `ChewedKandi has certainly gone out of her way to keep the vector community on the right path. Always making sure that her talents are infinitely scalable, Sharon has put her bezier curves to excellent use, and firmly anchored herself as an inspirational leader. We're absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for June 2013 to `ChewedKandi. Congratulations, Sharon! Read More
|
Sta.sh
However, it does also depend upon what you want to photograph. If the subject is likely to fly away when approached then obviously a longer focal length lens would be appropriate but if you can get very close without losing the shot then the smaller focal length would do just as well.
I find that I can get very close with my 100mm lens but even then I have to approach very slowly if I am to be successful.
Hope this helps, it's a difficult decision but in the end I found that the more expensive option was actually the best
Actually, what so special about macro lens and make it so sharp? it seem like no way for my 200mm normal lens to achive same effect and sharpmess of a 105mm macro lens.
What swung it for me were the staff at my local camera shop, who explained that it could be used as a normal 100mm lens as well. So if I didn't carry on using it as a macro lens I would still have an excellent 100mm lens, it does great portraits see [link] .
As to it's sharpness, it's a good quality prime lens and as such it's sole function is to get a crisp clear image, which it does at all distances