On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:48:34 -0600, "Tom Pfeiffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
> >Jim, I don't think a flash would have conveyed the same mood here, for >example: True, the candid amateur quality maybe not, but a true pro would have used several lights to get a natural effect that looks way better than your candid. Folks, I'm not saying there is no scene that a large aperture 50mm lens isn't ideal for, but what I'm saying is that the average photographer lusting over such a lens more often than not doesn't really need it. This may be a place where an amateur can make better use of a more expensive lens. I mean the photographer who likes to hand hold available light without flash. Perhaps a news reporter or a documentary photographer too. There's all kinds of situations where one lens is best, no other will do. But I've never found one yet that I couldn't work around with my zoom, or just do in a different way. I took out my 50/1.4 many times after getting it, went shooting with it, and got some so so shots. But nothing that a zoom set at 50mm wouldn't have done just as well. Unless such a lens is an important part of your style, I'd rather not carry it around just in case I need it. I'd rather have a lighter bag, less lens changing, more room in my bag, and use a flash with my zoom at f4 to capture available light with a natural look. YMMV -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography: http://easternbeaver.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
