in article 2008021301034175249-adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael at
adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 13/2/08 06:03:
> On 2008-02-12 11:33:56 -0500, Ben Micklem <benmicklem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>> To the OP: using a wider lens will make these "all in focus" shots a
lot
>> easier. With lenses wider than 20mm it will be easy- f/8 should be
enough,
>> unless there is something in frame very near the camera. The 300v has a
>> depth of field preview button, so you can check in the viewfinder what
will
>> be in focus (at really small apertures, it will get pretty dark, so be
>> prepared to wait a while for your eyes to adjust).
>>
>> Ben
>
> Yes, but wider than 20mm on a 35mm camera is very expensive. And I
> doubt anyone taking serious wedding pictures would be using a superwide
> angle lens on a 35mm SLR.
I picked up a brand new Tokina 17mm f3.5 Nikon AIS old stock for £65. A
wedding photographer can charge in the region of £500 an hour, so I don't
think this is a lot of money.
If you have not seen excellent superwide wedding shots, you have not seen
very many contem****ary wedding ****tfolios.
E.g. Stephen Swain's website has good examples:
http://www.stephenswain.com/wa4/index.html
The black and white confetti shots, and a couple of overhead group shots-
probably a 17mm.
I have used a 10mm lens on DX format for overhead group shots from a
ladder.
A lot of clients today want shots that don't look like those of their
guests
who use compact cameras. Compact camera zooms are lucky if they go wider
than 38mm equivalent, so it is easy to get an unusual wow factor image by
going superwide. The other end of the spectrum are very fast lenses, or
longer lenses, that reduce the DOF, something that compact cameras again
cannot do.
Ben
|
