brian4646 wrote in post #17895780
I said "hobbyist" because I wanted everyone to know that I do not make a living doing photography. This is for personal fun. So which is more fun for portraits, UWA or 200mm 2.8
I said "hobbyist" because I wanted everyone to know that I do not make a living doing photography. This is for personal fun. So which is more fun for portraits, UWA or 200mm 2.8
The 200mm is a more conventional choice for portraiture, and it has somewhat similar qualities to your 135L. In other words, you'll notice a greater distinction between an UWA and your 35mm, as compared to the distinction between the 135L and the 200 f/2.8. Whether or not it pleases you and/or your child is a matter of personal taste. Is your interest in the UWA limited to capturing more of the environment, or are you interested in exploiting the possibilities of distortion?
