Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="desmobob" data-source="post: 727106" data-attributes="member: 45742">I always figure that if I'm going to be doing any &quot;serious&quot; macro shooting, it will certainly be off a tripod.I just received one of the old-style Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 lenses yesterday.&nbsp; My other two macro lenses are both Nikkor MF models... the 55mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkors.&nbsp; When I was interested in macro shooting years ago, I tended to use reversed wide-angle lenses and a PB-4 set-up.&nbsp; I wanted something more convenient for practical use now.I haven't had a chance to do anything other than test it for function.&nbsp; I have a couple of third-party lenses in focal lengths or styles I rarely use, like a cheap Russian fish-eye, but this Tokina is my first main-stream third party lens I've owned since I had a Sigma 300mm APO back in the 1980s.If I had any thoughts of doing hand-held macro, I would certainly choose the Sigma.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="desmobob, post: 727106, member: 45742"] I always figure that if I'm going to be doing any "serious" macro shooting, it will certainly be off a tripod. I just received one of the old-style Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 lenses yesterday. My other two macro lenses are both Nikkor MF models... the 55mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkors. When I was interested in macro shooting years ago, I tended to use reversed wide-angle lenses and a PB-4 set-up. I wanted something more convenient for practical use now. I haven't had a chance to do anything other than test it for function. I have a couple of third-party lenses in focal lengths or styles I rarely use, like a cheap Russian fish-eye, but this Tokina is my first main-stream third party lens I've owned since I had a Sigma 300mm APO back in the 1980s. If I had any thoughts of doing hand-held macro, I would certainly choose the Sigma. [/QUOTE]

Verification