andy garcia
02-18 02:25 PM
Canada has been using this for skilled worker program, where individuals can apply for Canadian permanent residency independently if they fullfill the passmark. Other countries like Australia, UK and New Zealand also follow suit with different types of difficulties.
How about US? Would US adopt this?
G.
NOOOOOOOOO WAY
There are too many people who want to come here.
How about US? Would US adopt this?
G.
NOOOOOOOOO WAY
There are too many people who want to come here.
wallpaper Mum you#39;re the best so today
jliechty
June 18th, 2005, 04:14 AM
In general, macro lenses around 100mm are good for most kinds of macro photography. They have too much working distance for use on a copy stand, and not quite enough for skittish and/or dangerous insects or small animals. For general purpose stuff, the angle of view is such that you get enough background isolation to be worthwhile (you can rotate around your subject just a bit to get a highlight out of the background, while a 50mm macro takes in more background and makes this difficult).
I got a used Tamron 90mm, and let's just say that the build quality does not inspire confidence - however, the image quality is excellent. From what little I've seen of the Sigma 105mm macro (and from the many images that the members here have posted), it appears to have a bit better build quality and fine image quality as well. The Nikon macro is not going to be much better, if at all, in image quality than these, and you will pay dearly for the brand name. The one macro lens to avoid, however, is a "Phoenix" macro that only goes to 1:2 (that means that you can't get enough magnification for most small insects and flowers to fill the frame) and is most likely more cheaply built than my Tamron. Almost every other macro lens goes to 1:1 these days, and you can get the nicer ones used from KEH for not much more, so there's no reason to buy not-so-ideal lenses that you'll outgrow in no time anyway.
I got a used Tamron 90mm, and let's just say that the build quality does not inspire confidence - however, the image quality is excellent. From what little I've seen of the Sigma 105mm macro (and from the many images that the members here have posted), it appears to have a bit better build quality and fine image quality as well. The Nikon macro is not going to be much better, if at all, in image quality than these, and you will pay dearly for the brand name. The one macro lens to avoid, however, is a "Phoenix" macro that only goes to 1:2 (that means that you can't get enough magnification for most small insects and flowers to fill the frame) and is most likely more cheaply built than my Tamron. Almost every other macro lens goes to 1:1 these days, and you can get the nicer ones used from KEH for not much more, so there's no reason to buy not-so-ideal lenses that you'll outgrow in no time anyway.