vivek_k
05-07 03:25 PM
Thanks guys. I would appreciate to know if the nationally known attorneys like Rajiv Khanna, Murthy, Ron, Shustermann are actually worth the money they charge?
wallpaper Kids Msn Backgrounds
kode
10-12 04:24 AM
maybe importing your swf or swft exported from swift into flash? :sleep:
Sushana
01-15 11:47 AM
To the best of my knowledge and what I have heard from our international office and immigration lawyers: Once you are counted (Baptised!!!), you do not need to worry about cap-subject ceiling.
For making it doubly sure, always check with recruiting firm's lawyers and your non-profit company's lawyers. They will be doing the paper work. If confusions previal, you can give advise, counsel or consult attorney.
My guess is: this is well known fact and may not need attorney. See what others say.
Thanks M for your timely reply. It is helpful to know that I don't have to again go through the "H1-B lottery" for 2008-09
For making it doubly sure, always check with recruiting firm's lawyers and your non-profit company's lawyers. They will be doing the paper work. If confusions previal, you can give advise, counsel or consult attorney.
My guess is: this is well known fact and may not need attorney. See what others say.
Thanks M for your timely reply. It is helpful to know that I don't have to again go through the "H1-B lottery" for 2008-09
2011 Shades MSN Backgrounds
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.