Oh great Just what I needed to hear
Maybe I'll have a quick look, no harm in looking right?
Anyway, nice work.

Thanks, I can't remember what I took that with. Probably the 100. Sometimes I put a Raynox on the end, other times on extension tubes.

I found the Sigma looked good at shoots, giving an air of authority, but was too heavy and large to carry for hobby shooting. It seemed to miss focus quite often. I didn't give it a very fair shot as I sold it after 6 months, but the 77 just hit the mark right away and is such a little gem it's always with me. I bought an LX film body just to work with the 77, I'm so taken with it.

Ha ha, good for you Nigel.
I'm stunned by the rudeness and arrogance in this thread. I'm an illustrator, and in the 80s we routinely painted 'super real' images with more and finer detail than a photograph. Some 'superior' people sneared at that, but I would like to see them try. I haven't the patience to paint like that any more
I thought that within the genre of push-button effects and commercial 'art', some of these were pretty effective and definitely the right subject matter. I can imagine lots of customers; they will undoubtedly own cats (just a generalisation, but I bet I'm right

Ah, 'variable', I didn't know such things existed, sounds really handy. More kit I have to have
Gwing, thanks, I knew the principle, I just assumed he was talking about a gradient filter. Not much of a gear freak me
I think it's essential to use a large light modifier here, and gentler flash, maybe gelled with a warm colour to simulate reflected light.

Incidentally, have you tried the Metz' high-speed sync Fletch? maybe with a TTL cord at arm's length. I appreciate that's wasn't the objective here, just wondering. I find it very effective, especially at outdoor events where I can shoot into the sun and get shots the hoards of point-and-shooters can't.

Interesting light. Looks like a studio shot.
So I'm assuming the dark part if the filter is coming down from the top. Don't people end up with dark heads?

Right Steve. You are now the man with a mission (should you choose to accept).
It has to be a moon shot, using the DA*300 with and without the convertor.
Tripod.
Mirror up.
ISO 100
f5.6 to f8
Please supply two raw files for us to do our own thing with

We can then compare directly with our own efforts.
Failing that, a rooftop and tv aerial, same thing, tripod, mirror up, raw files

Pushy? moi?

This message will self destruct in 5...

I totally agree that local sharpening and a light touch is better and I wouldn't normally sharpen everything, I'm normally really pedantic about this
That's the trouble with allowing Photoshop to sharpen on resize; uncontrollable.
I'm wishing I'd done it properly now
Personally, I was just quickly discovering if I could get the whole shot onto a web-sized image and retain the detail. Here they are side by side. You're definitely right about the eye, looks like both Matt and I overlooked the tonal range lost there.
I prefer Matt's example

Original image:


My attempt:


Matt's attempt:


looks like we need a combination of all three!

By the way, I think that birds and macro are two genres where sharpness and detail are paramount.
If the lovely subtle plumage of this bird isn't revealed in all it's amazing intricacy then Danny's superb image is only half what it could be.
My concern with my own image for the web is that the silhouette is a little false after the bicubic sharpening had taken effect. I normally have sharpening turned off, on image resize; I left this as an example that it needed something but that method can be a bit clumsy.

I agree a lot of images nowadays are over sharpened. After reading the first comments, my objective, apart from playing, was to get that whopping great file onto here with as much detail as possible. As the original was a little soft with some detail missing.
Printing also requires a stronger image. I guess in some cases that work flow is filtering through to web images and making them a little too harsh on modern monitors.

There will often be someone in the way with long lenses. It's worth having if you're stuck at the back, or if you discover you can get some sneaky candids, but as John says, a standard zoom will be invaluable. Out of my kit, I think the Tamron 17-50, would be a must.