On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, tom wrote: > Good strategy my man, I employed it quite a bit myself when I was > married.
Oh, it'll be even harder when I get married, right now she's just watching how I spend money on "junk" instead of bills. Frankly, I need that sort of approach, which is why I don't complain, but it sure is no fun. > Huh? Is this the lens sold with the MEF? Soft is good for portraits > (according to some), not candids.... This it is, yes. I've used it in the past and never noticed it being unbearably soft, but I figured in a situation that I'm envisioning (I'm being asked to take candid photos of guests at a reception, there is no ceremony, it was held overseas) that any softness it may have wouldn't be a drawback. > Unlikely. Receptions are usually dark, and if you're not using flash > you'll be lucky to get decent exposure wide-open. > Is this thing going to be outside during daylight? Outdoors, but not until later in the evening.. I figure I'll have waning hours of daylight. I think they also would like me to take a few photos of bride and groom (well, husband and wife, now) somewhere ahead of time, as well. > 70mm is long enough, you just need to brave enough to get up close to > people. 135mm isn't really long enough to be all that sneaky, though > it gives good compression if you want it. I've noticed that many of my nicer photos of people tend to be profiles from furhter away, its what I gravitate to because I think I can take decent photograph of someone in that situation better than head on.. Then again, its not my film or processing costs, so who knows how adventurous I'll become. :) > About 90% of my reception shots are done with a 28-70/2.8. I do > sometimes sneak the 200mm out (the 135 disappeared), but generally > it's just for a few headshots of close family and friends. Honestly, > those shots are kind of boring - I much prefer to go wide and get > close: I actually like those shots, so perhaps I can attempt to get some of that nature, as well. However, I don't really have any good, faster, wide angles.. hey, this seems like an opportune time to sneak one of those in, too. I was giving serious thought to either a 24 or 28 at 2.8 or quicker. (I admit I'm not really activly pursuing any one given lens, either now or overall.. OK, its a pretty bad strategy to take, but I'd rahter not get hung up on mindless details, plus, with no net connection outside of work, its a bit tough to really hunt!) > Those were from my first reception using the 200. I have to say that I think I would prefer to attempt to get more of a feeling akin to your wides... > One thing to watch out for when using a flash on a bracket....you can > get too close and black out the eye-sockets: > In this pic the flash is basically hanging over her head and I should > have backed out to 35mm instead of 28. This is one of ht emany reasons why I'm not going to run out and buy a flash.. I wouldn't have the slightest clue on how to properly, and effectily, use it without annihilating any detail. Fill flash? Yeah, I know WHAT it is, but now HOW it is.. y'know? > Also, if you have no flash, shorter lenses allow you to handhold at > shorter shutter speeds. The longest lens I use for available light at > receptions is the 85/1.4 (this is the lens you really want). I can't This is one of the lenses I want, but I don't think I could afford it, nor really justify it as I find myself steering away from 35mm in my casual shooting (and I have no desire to pursue any sort of portrait/wedding/formals career). > rememeber ever shooting the 135 at a reception without a flash. > Certainly not the 200. Ceremonies yes, receptions no. Supposedly this is a laid back affair, and I've already made it abundantly clear that I can't take posed, formal pictures. > If I were in your shoes I'd get a flash. With a week and a half to go, I'd never get it down. Besides, I'd rarely use it when I haul the cameras out for fun, so I won't buy one until I feel I'd use it. I'm an available light junky. Thanks to EVERYONE for your input, I'd meant to respond to many of the posts, but I have to.. I've just been digesting the information. -G. -- http://www.infotainment.org "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin
