Does Counsel's initial decision not to call an identification expert to testify establish incompetence?

In light of all of the circumstances, particularly counsel's decision, based on experience, to focus on vigorous cross-examination, as well as on closing argument, to question the eyewitness identifications of appellant (see pt. I.B., ante), we cannot say that counsel's initial decision not to call an identification expert to testify establishes incompetence. (See Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 688; see also People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 334 ["Whether to call certain witnesses is . . . a matter of trial tactics, unless the decision results from unreasonable failure to investigate"].)