When does photography become macrophotography? The official definition is when the subject is reproduced to the same size on the film or sensor, i.e, a 1:1 ratio. But this isn't really terribly relevant, when you come to think more deeply about it. Back in the days of yore when cameras often took 10" x 8" photographs, an image of anything from a baby's head down could qualify as a "macro" photograph under this definition. Now, with sensors being much smaller, a baby's eye would fill the sensor. So, the size of the sensor is much more relevant to what you can include on it.

And anyway, is macrophotography a misnomer? Macro comes from the Greek "makros" meaning large. What exeactly is "large" here. Certainly not the subject, which must be small if it is to be reproduced full size on the itty bitty sensor of even a full frame camera. And when does macrophotography become microphotography? I bet there's some definition for that somewhere. Nikon deem their lenses "micro Nikkors" which they most certainly aren't. And many so-called macro lenses cannot reproduce subjects full size without the use of extension tubes or some such additional equipment.

I guess what I am saying is that we shouldn't get too hung up with the pourists' definition of what macrophotography is or isn't. The image on the sensor should be exactly the size that it needs to be to produce a good photograph, and if it needs cropping, then so be it. A lens is just a means to an end - that of recording a satisfactory image for potserity, or whatever.

Try it again at F8 and see if that is sharper most are not tack sharp at F2.8