<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 3 Best Wedding Lenses</title>
	<link>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/</link>
	<description>A Photoshop and Photography Blog focused on digital photography tips and photoshop tips</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: photographyVoter.com</title>
		<link>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-13</link>
		<author>photographyVoter.com</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-13</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;3 Best Wedding Lenses...&lt;/strong&gt;

My choice for the 3 best lenses for wedding photography....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>3 Best Wedding Lenses&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>My choice for the 3 best lenses for wedding photography&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-14</link>
		<author>Paul</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:58:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-14</guid>
					<description>Good article as always!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article as always!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Russo</title>
		<link>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-19</link>
		<author>Robert Russo</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2007 04:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-19</guid>
					<description>I've been shooting with the 70-200 F4L a 50 1.8 from 1990 and the new 17-55 2.8IS. I can't get over how sharp the 17-55 is compared to the 16-35 2.8L. I love the 70-200 for portraits, but isn't that practical for indoor candids in crowded places. The 17-55 is my favorite and replacement for my 50 for almost all crowded indoor situations. I find it sharper overall then the 50 and much more versatile.

I wish I could justify the 70-200 2.8L IS, but these three are so good, i can't see relegating the F4L to the for sale pile.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been shooting with the 70-200 F4L a 50 1.8 from 1990 and the new 17-55 2.8IS. I can&#8217;t get over how sharp the 17-55 is compared to the 16-35 2.8L. I love the 70-200 for portraits, but isn&#8217;t that practical for indoor candids in crowded places. The 17-55 is my favorite and replacement for my 50 for almost all crowded indoor situations. I find it sharper overall then the 50 and much more versatile.</p>
<p>I wish I could justify the 70-200 2.8L IS, but these three are so good, i can&#8217;t see relegating the F4L to the for sale pile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-21</link>
		<author>admin</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.pnwimages.com/ps/photography/3-best-wedding-lenses/#comment-21</guid>
					<description>I need to give the 17-55 a try, I've heard good things about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need to give the 17-55 a try, I&#8217;ve heard good things about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
