wynston

<p>I am a New Zealander and find that for landscapes I use my 70-200 almost as much as my 24-70, especially with the autumn (fall) colours and light around Queenstown. Unless you are really in to natural history photography, and will have the time to put into it, I don't think you will have much use for the 100 macro here.<br>

Enjoy your visit.<br>

Cheers<br>

Wynston</p>

<div></div>

<p>Soory folks. Hopefully I got it right this time.</p><div></div>

<p>Oops! Forgot to say that there is also the lasting power of slides. The attached scan is an extremely accurate rendition of the original slide which I took on Ektachrome X 40 years ago and scanned a few months ago.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Because I still enjoy "making the photo in the camera" and not having to muck about with post production processing just to get the colours anywhere near accurate. (In this respect it was most interesting to hear the many comments by newer (digital user) members of my camera club after a recent showing of the results of the "100% Pure" national slide competition that we run. They just couldn't get over the colours and quality of the work shown!)<br>

I do use digital for some work (especially like a Polaroid to sort out the composition etc before reverting to film) but prefer slide film (Velvia 100F) for my 'serious' photography. The only draw back is the cost - up to $1.50 every time one presses the shutter.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Scanned from a 35mm slide<div></div>

Scanned from a 35mm slide<div></div>

Scanned from a 35mm slide<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>