<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wedding Photography Lenses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/wedding-photography-lenses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/wedding-photography-lenses/</link>
	<description>Photography Tips &#38; Techniques</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:47:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shaun David</title>
		<link>http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/wedding-photography-lenses/#comment-12581</link>
		<dc:creator>Shaun David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.picturecorrect.com/?p=4072#comment-12581</guid>
		<description>If the lens opens up to 1.8, I would rarely shoot below 2.8.  The lens will be much sharper over all From 2.8 to 8. You loose a lot shooting wide open on any lens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the lens opens up to 1.8, I would rarely shoot below 2.8.  The lens will be much sharper over all From 2.8 to 8. You loose a lot shooting wide open on any lens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt</title>
		<link>http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/wedding-photography-lenses/#comment-902</link>
		<dc:creator>matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.picturecorrect.com/?p=4072#comment-902</guid>
		<description>Sure that inch or two will come in crisp as hell, but nothing else will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure that inch or two will come in crisp as hell, but nothing else will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leeann Marie</title>
		<link>http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/wedding-photography-lenses/#comment-901</link>
		<dc:creator>Leeann Marie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:24:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.picturecorrect.com/?p=4072#comment-901</guid>
		<description>Not necessarily, Matt. I&#039;ve shot at 1.8 before. It all depends on what you&#039;re shooting. 85 @ 1.8 can be crisp if you&#039;re shooting with it properly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not necessarily, Matt. I&#8217;ve shot at 1.8 before. It all depends on what you&#8217;re shooting. 85 @ 1.8 can be crisp if you&#8217;re shooting with it properly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt</title>
		<link>http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/wedding-photography-lenses/#comment-896</link>
		<dc:creator>matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:28:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.picturecorrect.com/?p=4072#comment-896</guid>
		<description>&quot;For example, an image that requires a 1/20th of a second shutter speed at f/2.8 will only require 1/60th of a second at f/1.8, forming a distinction between a sharp image and a blurry one.&quot;

and yet the depth of field would make it unusable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;For example, an image that requires a 1/20th of a second shutter speed at f/2.8 will only require 1/60th of a second at f/1.8, forming a distinction between a sharp image and a blurry one.&#8221;</p>
<p>and yet the depth of field would make it unusable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

