Bill go grab a wedding magazine
>Where did you get that information? I can barely understand that it >might be popular with fashion photographers (they'll try and/or do >anything to be different) but I cannot figure out where a wedding >photographer would find a use for any 200mm lens. > >I worked as an assistant to a wedding photographer back when I was in >college (longer ago that I'd like to remember) and more than 90% of our >shots were with the slightly wider than normal 90mm lens (on a 6x7 >Koni-Omega). We'd shoot a few portraits with a 150mm on a Hasselblad, >but never anything longer. perhaps fashion has moved on > >With the change to 35mm, I can't imagine using lenses longer than >85-100mm for anything. In addition, I really can't imagine investing I found my 100-300 (effectively a 200-500) on my 20D gave me some good shots of the ring being put on the finger, close ups of faces, and 'kiss the bride' shots through out the ceremony at tables without putting my face in the way. of course I don't need to sell you on the use of the 50mm and the 90mm for other stuff >the money for a lens as expensive as the EF 200mm f/1.8 to be used for >as few shallow-depth-of-field shots as you might want to take in the >average wedding. A very bad business decision on the part of the >wedding photographer. > >In addition, it was really only the digital era that drove medium format >out of the wedding business and most wedding photographers that I know >are using 10D-20D-30D (NOT 1D or 1Ds) so the 200/1.8 becomes a 320/1.8, >even LESS useful for wedding photographer. > >Mr. Bill * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
