On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 08:43:17 -0500, you wrote: >Margaret Jeffcoat wrote: > >> Hi! I'm thinking about adding the 100 F2.8 to my kit. It would be used for >> making >> images of newborns hand and feet-showing size relation to that of a parents >> hand. >> I will shot these in b/w for the most part and they will be done in a more >> soft grainy >> look that is very popular right now. Does anyone have any experience with >> this lens, >> or would the 180/ F3.4 be a better choice? >> Cheers Wilber Jeffcoat >> > >I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro and it is a great lens. Very sharp. Mine is the >version before the 100mm f/2.8 USM so the focus isn't very fast by comparison. >But then, I usually use MF when shooting with it. > >I have never shot hands and feet, just bugs and flowers. I wonder if you will >need the macro for your shooting. If the subjects are side by side and you >want the entire hand of the parent I think you won't be doing a lot of macro >work. > >Bob
That's what I was thinking, why macro? If I understand the question about the preferability of the 180 to be about working distance, seems to me that a short tele would be the ticket - a 135 or a 200. Both among the best EF lenses. Or maybe the 28-135 IS, as you might be in low light and it sounds to me like flash would be obtrusive, and the IS could come in handy. OTOH, if your other interests include true macro, this lens would probably suit you just fine. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
