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 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 Ken Durling wrote >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.
Babies hands are pretty small - Having tried to take such shots with a 28-135, I found it didn't really have enough magnification for what I wanted to acheive (just a parents finger and babies hand holding it). Working distance in my case was limited by the fact that the parents hand was mine. I'd suggest you need at least 1:2 but probably not 1:1 * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
