I didn't see the information that a specific request was made until after my post. So for that, I can see the need. From a practical perspective, I stand by what I said.
-- Best regards, Bruce Friday, March 6, 2009, 7:54:31 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "Bruce Dayton" WR> Subject: Re: Damage Waiver for Lens Rental? >> When I was shooting film for weddings, I had the fisheye zoom. I >> found it to be useful for about 2 or 3 shots in the whole wedding. >> And if I had not shown those images, the client wouldn't have noticed. >> >> These days, shooting digital APS-C, the 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8 are >> the perfect pair for focal length and size to do weddings. The old >> 70-200/2.8's are >> big and heavy and difficult to hand hold for long periods of time. >> >> I rarely have need or desire to go wider than 16mm rectilinear when >> shooting weddings. I side with Paul that if you don't have the 16-50/2.8, >> rent it instead of the fisheye. You'll use it about 200:1 compared to >> the fisheye. WR> For myself, I have yet to use a fisheye at a wedding but.... WR> The OP says she has a specific use for the thing, what's the problem with WR> respecting that need? WR> For myself, I still shoot primes at weddings, I just can't seem to bring WR> myself to shoot with slow zoom lenses. WR> William Robb WR> -- WR> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List WR> [email protected] WR> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net WR> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
