Using the istD, I might consider a 200mm lens, which
would give me an effective focal length of 300mm.
What are peoples' opinions of the SMC-A 200mm lens?
My only "somewhat long" tele lens is the 120 f/2.8,
which I think I will give a try for this gentleman.
Thanks for all the suggestions! Keep 'em coming...
--- Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Another advantage of using a long focal length is
> the smaller view angle.
> You'll capture less of a noisy background (such as
> tree branches) providing
> a simpler final image. The viewer's eye will stay on
> the main subject and
> won't get distracted by irrelevant data in the
> background.
>
> Tim
>
> On 12/10/04 13:00, Fred wrote:
>
> > Not that I shoot "glamor photography" (<g>), but,
> when outdoors, I
> > generally like to use a long lens for portraits.
> Not only does
> > doing so make for pleasing enough (to me) facial
> features (although
> > some might argue that a moderate telephoto makes
> for more "natural"
> > features), but using a long lens (more
> importantly) also helps make
> > for more "candid" portraits (since the subject is
> generally much
> > less aware of being photographed). Most often I'd
> be using a
> > 100-300/4, a 300/4, or a 300/4.5 (typically at
> about f/8, if I can
> > get enough light).
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
