Doh!!! Yes, I did mean to say 105mm. I'm quite good at transposing numbers and letters. Seems to run in the family as my kids and grandkids have also mastered the art! LOL!!There's a large planter filled with lavender flowers in the park across the street from my house. So far I've taken well over 500+ images and have only gone thru about 1/4 of them. I love pressing the button alot more than I do culling the library.And my name is Dave. It's nice to meet you all. I've not been on the forum that long but have really enjoyed myself here.DW...this is really a wonderful image! Excellent on the composition and exposure (and several other things!). PS. I think you meant to say the lens was the 105mm and not 150mm (apologies if this is incorrect).PPS. Do you have a first name?
Fabulous shot! Do you like your 105 focal length for non-macro shots? This could be a very versatile lens that I hadn't considered yet. I don't shoot a lot of macro, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to try occasionally.
Yes, the 105mm is an excellent prime lens as well as a nice portrait lens, which was what attracted me to it in the first place. You do not get that distorted facial "look" (I think there's a name for that look, no?) when filling the frame with a face. It was only later that I started playing with the macro aspect of the lens. Mind you, this is the older 105mm w/o VR that's built like a tank and dates back to when they were still being made in Japan. I have a friend with the newer, more expensive and heavier modern 105mm macro lens who complains about the extra weight of the newer model. I assume the optics are the same or at the least very similar, but I don't know this for a fact.