More Cricket?

[Mike.P®]

Taken with 2 different lenses, both touched up with photoshop (colour, sharpness etc).

One taken with a up to date Tamron 28-135mm fully automatic lens and the other with a old screw mount fully manual Vivitar 90mm F2/8 Macro lens.

Which do you prefer?

 

[GYRODEC1]

When you gave the name More Cricket as your title thread, I thought Oh Boy!, someone who is actually mad on cricket like myself.

But I was sadly disappointed. Only after reading the thread about how good the photo quality is. In my opinion, I can't tell .

GYRODEC1

 

[Biscuit761]

Where's the pads, bat and ball - thought I had someone to compare to there.

Nice macro shot anyway.

Bill

 

[teejay38]

I'd say No 1 is sharper than the other two. Colour rendition is clearly different but I don't know which is more "true to life".

Tom

 

[Strobe]

No.1 is clearly the sharpest but I find the out of focus areas a bit messy and distracting. Prefer 1 to 2 and 3 though. Focus on 2 and 3 looks to be out, not helped by the fact that the twig is in front of the bug.

Which pics were taken with which lens?

 

[onefivenine]

I would say #1 seems to produce better a quality image, well, considering this isn't really a scientific test it's hard to quantify 'better' from what you've posted.

Roughly how big is the cricket in these shots?

 

[Mike.P®]

I would say #1 seems to produce better a quality image, well, considering this isn't really a scientific test it's hard to quantify 'better' from what you've posted.

Roughly how big is the cricket in these shots?

Sorry, been back in the UK for a few days and only just returned tonight.
I wasn't asking which was better, just which one was preferred.
The item in question, which I have been informed from another forum is a locust was probably around 5/6" long.

No 1 was the older Vivitar
No 2 and 3 were the Tamron.

Have returned with a 90mm Tamron F2/8 Macro lens and 1.4x teleconverter to play with.