Hmmm, I am SLOWLY getting there William. My "rates" are slowly climbing, but I know for a fact that I am still the cheapest in the area by hundreds of $$$. As I said in a post yesterday, I still find myself apologising to people regularly for "being so expensive" and trying to justify the costs to them. Also, I tend to buckle when under pressure and like to make myself available to everyone regardless of their budget. I did a wedding just two weeks ago for $700. *eek*, of which, I made a grand total of $0. BUT, the couple were so happy with their pics that they have since come back and ordered double that in enlargements and gifts for their family, so I think that it does pay in the long run to be within peoples reach. OTH, I just took a booking from a lady in Brisbane, who was so excited after seeing my website that she phone me and said "i don't care what you cost, I want you and only you, and I want the works". She then offered to pay for me to stay at the Hilton Hotel in Brisbane! Woohoo, luxury baby, and not a smelly nappy in miles!! I'd do the bloody wedding for free, just to get an all expenses paid trip to BrisVegas...
In regards to the *ist D - it seems that with my line up of lenses, it would probably be unwise to NOT purchase the 18-35mm, even though I don't go wide angle very often. So, I will keep my ear to the ground and see what becomes available after Christmas. Still planning on leasing at this stage though... tan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:55 PM Subject: Re: *ist D - with no lens?!? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" > Subject: *ist D - with no lens?!? > > > Question to all of you who have it already - this is my collection of > > lenses - > > > > - Tamron Adaptall (manual focus) 135mm f2.5 (my all time favourite > lens!!), > > - Tamron AF 28-200mm Aspherical, > > - Pentax 28-105mm FA powerzoom, > > - Pentax 50mm f1.7 FA, > > - Pentax A 70-210mm macro (thanks Stan!!), > > - Sigma 35-80mm f4-5.6 AL (came on my MZ-6/ZX-L body). > > > > Ok, so my question is - how will this > > collection of lenses go with the *istD? Keeping in mind that I am > shooting > > alot of weddings, I tend to use zooms for those, and then the 135mm Tamron > > for individual shots. Should I purchase the *istD with the FAJ 18-35mm > (an > > extra au$450) or without a lens? What have most of you done? > > Forget your present lenses in terms of the ist D. > Not in terms of them working with the camera, but in terms of them working > with your pictures. > All your lenses will look like they have gained about 50% (or is it 60%) of > their focal length. > In my case, it has pushed favourite lenses into not much used, but has also > given me a few pleasant surprises, in that lenses I never had much use for > are suddenly being used lots, or have grown into something more usable. > > With your present lens set, you don't have a wide angle. This could be a > lens opportunity for you. > I have the 18-35, and it is an adequate optic. I do find it to be dim. The > 18-35 is pretty much the first zoom I have spent any time with. It's problem > is that it goes from not very wide to normal, which is a range I don't have > much use for. > It is however, optically quite good, and will cover the 35mm format, though > it isn't so good at the corners. > > My favourite lens for weddings is the standard, FWIW, and I don't have much > use for zoom lenses at the best of times. > > Did you ever raise your rates, BTW. > I'm not asking to be rude, but I thought the last time you were here that > you weren't charging near enough for your talent level. > > William Robb > >
