Hi--

>I have read many of your posts and have browsed your website and enjoyed
>them very much. I was hoping, if you weren't too busy and if you do this
>sort of thing for people like me who have the audacity to bother you
>directly for advice, to throw a little my way.

Thanks for the comments, and we'll give it a try (keeping my
prejudices in mind at all times...! ;-).

> I have been asked to take photos at several weddings this year due to the
>fact that I have the biggest camera system among my group of friends. I
>have a few lenses I think will be suitable for most of the shots ranging
>from a 24mm 2.8D, 50mm 1.8, 35-70 2.8D, and 80-200 2.8D (older model
>without tripod mount).

Beware the "favor" - if the folks have enough money to spend on a
photographer with experience, you are putting him/her out of work, for
free... (wedding photography is harrowing, and the pro can usually
save the situation - but if the "weddees" understand that you may
fail, and that your work will not be the standard wedding fare
[probably a great advantage! ;-], and you can afford the price
of film, processing, etc [and know where to get good work done...],
maybe........;-)

>I understand that you are not too keen on using zoom
>lenses for critical shots but in my case, I was wondering if the 35-70 and
>80-200 would be up to taking pictures suitable for enlargement up to
>perhaps the 16X20 range (tripod and cable release used of course).

I regularly use the 80-200 from the balcony/back of church, it is
fine. My complaint with shorter zooms is that they are not fast enough
and sharp enough at their "wider" stops to use for the commonly
dim church/reception interior photos, and the ceremony should NOT
be flashed! A good set of primes, like a 20mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 85mm
f1.4/1.8/2 will serve far better for low-light work. Reserve the
80-200 for the tripod only... As for 16x20's, do not expect first-rate
prints from ANY 35mm gear - that's why the traditional-type wedding
photographers lug big/heavy/expensive/awkward/feature-poor 2 1/4
gear around - and then force everyone into the "wedding album"
mode, directing everything to insure results (UGH!!!!).

> Second, for the non critical snapshot of the action as they take place,
>what do you think of using a zoom such as the 35-105D or 24-120D? I realize
>that I already have the ranges covered but I was thinking of having one
>wide range zoom on a backup F70 for the quick and dirty type shots. In
>terms of pure optical quality, which one is going to be better?

Of the samples I tried (one each), the 24-120 was better - BUT, these
are VERY awkward to use for fast shooting! I recommend the primes instead, with some footwork to make up the differences. Zooms seem convenient
in theory, but in practice they slow me down...

> Thirdly, film type. I was thinking of the standard types of the Fuji NPS
>and NPH, ISO 160 and 400 respectively. I was curious if you had experience
>with these types or the Kodak versions for large scale enlargements. Will
>they be equally suitable indoors and out?

Yes, yes, and yes..., but, depending on the printer/materials, the Fuji or
Kodak products may be preferable. Also, these are lower-saturation
films, and somewhat optimistically rated (I would rate these and the
Kodak equivalents about one stop slower). A good film, though contrasty
and saturated (harder to print) is Royal Gold 400, rated at 320 for
good measure...;-). Some people like the soft color of the pro films
(and therefore the more reliable print quality), others hate the
lack of snappy color - I've shot both, only to have the clients
want the other afterwards... Some films are ideal under harsh, clear
sunshine (the old Reala), but then look terrible under softer lighting,
etc., etc., etc. BTW, I find Fuji films in general tend toward
reddish skin-tones - not always desireable...

>Lastly, I understand you have an allergic reaction to Canon products :-)
>If so for previous products, does it still hold true for today's products?
>
>Thanks so much.
>
>Edwin Leong
>Vancouver, Canada

Actually, I like most mfgrs. older, metal-shelled, manual gear - it
is the new stuff by all mfgrs. that I dislike... But at least with
Nikon, the good old lenses can be used on the whiz-bang plastic
bodies...;-) I don't like the finder in the N90 (unsharp...), and
I stop with the 8008/F3/F5 Nikons, but the best Nikons have better viewfinders than the competition (important in fast shooting conditions),
a better selection of the best-quality lenses, and the resale value is
untouched by other makers. Justifying the Nikon choice is easy...;-)
Good luck with it!