acute

<p>I use the Tokina 11-16 on a DX body and I find it very useful. Here is a shot at 11mm taken with it on a very hot super bright day right around noon.</p><div></div>

<p>Florida Keys</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p >When it comes to lens recommendations the majority seems to lean towards lenses that are designed to overcome adverse conditions: moving, poorly lit subjects that are not readily accessible that have to be photographed from a considerable distance. Often these lenses are labeled as “professional” lenses.</p>

<p >But one might look at a lens selection from a different point of view: the criteria changes radically when shooting subjects that are not moving, not inaccessible, not poorly lit. In such cases the preferred lens will not be a fast zoom with vibration reduction, in spite of its “professional” status. <br>

So I’d say it’s a mistake to presume that some lens is better or more professional just because it can deal with adverse conditions. Often such lenses are nothing but an expensive compromise and they are readily outperformed by much cheaper lenses.</p>

<p>When I asked a similar question recently, folks were suggesting I'd need a 200mm or even a 300mm because I'd be compelled to shoot from a considerable distance. It is curious how fickle the advice can be on this forum. You never know what to make of it.</p>

<p >Sexual union could be described as an exchange whereby two individuals make a mutual gift of themselves to each other. It becomes impure, or unchaste, when one is treated as an object of satisfaction to be consumed for self gratification. <br>

This tendency of debasing the other as an object of self-gratification is manifest everywhere in all cultures, in all societies, in all time periods. It is not anything taught or culturally conditioned: it is a fact of life: an inherent weakness of human nature, just like greed, theft, dishonesty, injustice, and any other vice. People kid themselves if they think that they can cast off their religion or cultural upbringing and be free of their selfish weaknesses. It takes some muscle to grow up and mature. The irony is that those who think that they are free of all inhibitions tend to be the most frustrated individuals.</p>

<p >I would argue that there can be such a thing as a “chaste presentation of a nude”. Many images of well known artists come to mind: one is hardly going to get aroused by viewing Michelangelo’s Last Judgment. And I think the argument that a nude body cannot be viewed without at least some degree of arousal is flawed. That depends on the artist and the viewer. </p>

<p >If the artist did not deliberately intend to stir up sexual arousal (pornography), then the image could be said to have presented the nude body for its esthetic appeal unrelated to sexual arousal. True, only the viewer knows where the line is crossed from esthetic appreciation to unchaste desire, but that does not depend on clothing alone: even well dressed bodies might stir up someone erotically. Taken to its extreme one might then argue against any representation of the human form whatsoever. But that would amount to blaming the artist for the viewer’s shortcoming.<br>

I think the presumption should lean towards a viewer who is chaste or at least neutral and not leaning towards deliberate unchastity and an artist whose work is not erotic in its objective. Then we can talk about a “chaste nude”. Why not?</p>

<p>D90 with 85mm 1.8</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>On second thought: this image is heavily cropped. It was most likely shot from a good distance. I should have taken that into consideration.</p>

<p>I like the shot but have to ask myself: doesn't it have a point-n-shoot quality about it? A D700 with a 24-70 - we're talking some serious money: and then you ask yourself: is this the best it can do? The light is nicely diffused, you're shooting down not up against the sky: so why does it look like a snapshot? Yes, it is endearing, yes, it is cute and the bride will love it for years to come, but as a photograph it is not outstanding by any means. Not trying to be mean: just giving my honest opinion.</p>

<p>Francesco Pessolano:<br>

Priceless! Here is my contribution: nothing special but it might demonstrate the capabilities of one of my favorite lens, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on a Nikon D90.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone for interesting comments and for the attached photographs.</p>

<p>WW: I'm not sure I understand your question. Ideally, one wants to get closer for detail: that's all I meant to say.</p>

<p>Personally, I woudn't pay a photographer for shooting my wedding from far away with a 400mm telephoto lens. And I have never heard of that being done before. Even if the wedding was in one of the largest churches in the world, I would expect, as a photographer, to have some decent access to shoot the wedding. If I was told to stay that far away I would just cancel the assignment. But like I say, I've never heard of such extreme restrictions before.</p>

<p>I don't understand the concept of using longer telephoto lenses at weddings. Why would anyone need to go beyond, say, 85mm on a DX body? Some say that you might be shooting from a considerable distance. But why would the photographer be restricted to shoot from such a distance where a 200mm tele might be required? After all, the distance reduces sharpness drastically, even with the best of glass. Are there any examples out there of wedding shots where someone needed to go beyond 85mm?</p>

<p >I have not seen any comparisons of the Nikkor 105mm 2.8 VR to the new Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR zoom. </p>

<p >Would the zoom outperform the prime at 105mm? Would it focus faster and be sharper? Otherwise, is it better at 105mm than the prime? Or for that matter: is it better at 85mm than the 85mm prime?</p>

<p>To be more specific: I'm thinking of getting the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 which will give me the following lineup:<br>

20mm<br>

35mm<br>

50mm<br>

85mm<br>

with the 20mm being f/2.8 and all the others f/1.8. Isn't that better (or at least just as good) as the zoom?</p>

<p>I don't think the 18-70 is a kit lens. But in any case, if that doesn't cut it, all I might need is a wide angle prime to cover any scenario and I'll do better at f/1.8 than the 17-55 at f/2.8.</p>