<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cooking with JPG Magazine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/</link>
	<description>Food Photography Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: L</title>
		<link>http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/#comment-48706</link>
		<dc:creator>L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/#comment-48706</guid>
		<description>Hi Jaden,

The 1.4 is a great lens, but I'm not sure it's all that critical. The bokeh is a bit better, and it is a bit sharper than the 1.8. But, if you've been fairly happy with the 1.8, I'd say stick with it. Maybe look at or save up for the 100mm 2.8 macro? I find that one really great for food photography. 

-L</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jaden,</p>
<p>The 1.4 is a great lens, but I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s all that critical. The bokeh is a bit better, and it is a bit sharper than the 1.8. But, if you&#8217;ve been fairly happy with the 1.8, I&#8217;d say stick with it. Maybe look at or save up for the 100mm 2.8 macro? I find that one really great for food photography. </p>
<p>-L</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steamy Kitchen</title>
		<link>http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/#comment-48703</link>
		<dc:creator>Steamy Kitchen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/#comment-48703</guid>
		<description>Hey L, a question for you. 

Anyways, I have been using a 50mm 1.8 (cheap, less than $100) and I also have a 60mm 2.8 macro. I saw that you use the 50mm 1.4. 

Do you think there would be a huge difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8? I'm doing food shots only.

Thanks!
Jaden</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey L, a question for you. </p>
<p>Anyways, I have been using a 50mm 1.8 (cheap, less than $100) and I also have a 60mm 2.8 macro. I saw that you use the 50mm 1.4. </p>
<p>Do you think there would be a huge difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8? I&#8217;m doing food shots only.</p>
<p>Thanks!<br />
Jaden</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LB</title>
		<link>http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/#comment-48204</link>
		<dc:creator>LB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stilllifewith.com/2008/04/10/cooking-with-jpg-magazine/#comment-48204</guid>
		<description>I was referred to your blog and I am wondering if you can recommend a digital camera that would be a good affordable starter for a beginner digital user. I am interested in food and nature photography.
Thank you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was referred to your blog and I am wondering if you can recommend a digital camera that would be a good affordable starter for a beginner digital user. I am interested in food and nature photography.<br />
Thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
