> the trend in glamour photography today is to shoot loong lenses > (300mm) to reduce the sizes of facial features like noses, etc.
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). Indoors, it's a different story. Usually, there's not enough room available for such a long lens for portraiture, and/or the flash won't "reach" far enough, and I'd be more likely to be using a moderate telephoto, e.g., 80-200/2.8, 60-120/2.8, or an 85 or 135 prime (often at f/4 or f/5.6). Since I'm a total amateur, I offer the above, not as any sort of learned advice, but simply as what works for me with my particular "style" (or maybe I should not use the term "style" for my shooting, which might falsely imply quality, but instead use "modus operandi" - <g>). Fred
