what magnification? if just under the minimum focus distance of the 105mm lens it might be too bad but there is going to be more and more differences as you get closer and closer.
A lot of lenses have their minimum focus distance not because it wasn't easily possible to make the focus mount extend more, they have their minimum focus distance because the image quality falls off and they do not want to design the lens to cover that range with a minimum level of quality up to their standards.... JCO -----Original Message----- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses Try it yourself and then comment. I've done it and the differences don't seem to be that great - hardly noticeable at all in some situations, not at all in others. Camera was mounted on a Pentax macro copy stand, same camera used, same film, and a refconverter used @ 2X to check focusing accuracy. While there may be some differences that become obvious at some point, they were not obvious in a 5x7 print. I don't think the 100/2.8 macro in any way "crushed" the K105/2.8 when the subject was a three dimensional object. Results may be substantially different when photographing a two dimensional object. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In the close up range shorter than what the 105 mm normally focuses to > (i.e. resorting to put tubes on the 105mm) I would expect the 100mm > Macro to absolutely crush the 105 performance.
