Canon 20D lenses: Canon vs Sigma

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alex Vilner, Sep 9, 2004.

  1. Alex Vilner

    Alex Vilner Guest

    I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    complement the body with the lens.

    Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269

    I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    trick).

    Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    are I might survive)....

    Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    DR)
    Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)

    Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    $300!)
    Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)

    Your opinions, please?

    Thank you in advance!

    --Alex
    Alex Vilner, Sep 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alex Vilner

    Böwzér Guest

    "Alex Vilner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?


    Canon. Sigma has nowhere near the quality of Canon gear, despite what test
    results may show. I've used both, and thrown Sigma gear away, one of which
    actually physically fell appart. It just doesn't last.

    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex
    Böwzér, Sep 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alex Vilner

    Jimmy Smith Guest

    Any lens besides a Canon lens MAY give you incompatibility issues. Who
    wants that headache.


    "Alex Vilner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex
    Jimmy Smith, Sep 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Alex Vilner

    Tony Guest

    IS is great, Sigma is crap. What more do you need to know?

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Alex Vilner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex
    Tony, Sep 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Alex Vilner

    John Doe Guest

    I would stick with Canon brand. Apparently Canon doesn't much like third
    party lenses and they try a little too hard to cause problems with them. I
    just bough two used lens, both Canon and will only be buying the Canon
    brand. I don't want to have to worry about compatibility issues with my new
    $1500 child.

    John


    "Alex Vilner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex
    John Doe, Sep 9, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    says...
    > I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >

    I've not seen any reviews of either lens, but take a look at
    the forums on
    http://www.dpreview.com
    There are a lot of user opinions on the Sigma, and a few
    threads on the Canon. So far, most users are happy with the
    Sigma, although it suffers from slight vignetting at 18mm, and
    some distortion at the focal length extremes. Comments about
    the Canon have so far not been that good - chromatic aberration
    is a possible concern (the Sigma is good in this respect).
    If it was up to me, and I had to choose right now, I'd get the
    Sigma since I've seen nothing to suggest it's worth paying the
    massive price hike for the Canon.
    As usual, we've got a bunch of people saying 'buy the Canon'
    without having any experience of either lens. Both companies
    make some great, and some awful, lenses and the Sigma
    compatibility issues are a pretty minor worry IMHO.
    Graeme Cogger, Sep 9, 2004
    #6
  7. Alex Vilner

    grenner Guest

    Look at Tamron. Sigma is not a good choice, minimal optics and build
    quality. Canon is excellent stuff buy pricy.
    Tamron is a nice inbetween choice. I have been using Tamron for years with
    fillm cameras first and now digital without a problem.

    Greg
    "Alex Vilner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex
    grenner, Sep 9, 2004
    #7
  8. Alex Vilner

    Mark B. Guest

    "Alex Vilner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex


    Despite the 'Sigma is junk' replies, Sigma DOES make good lenses. The
    70-200 f/2.8 EX is one of their best. In this case, however, I would
    recommend the Canon. Sigma is coming out with a 18-50 f/2.8 EX that looks
    very promising, you may want to wait a bit yet. There's a review here:
    http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/

    IS is nice, but the focus speed on the Sigma should be a little better.

    Mark
    Mark B., Sep 9, 2004
    #8
  9. Alex Vilner

    Skip M Guest

    "Graeme Cogger" <> wrote in message
    news:4140c0de$0$20247$...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > > complement the body with the lens.
    > >
    > > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    > >
    > > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > > trick).
    > >
    > > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > > are I might survive)....
    > >
    > > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > > DR)
    > > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    > >
    > > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > > $300!)
    > > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    > >
    > > Your opinions, please?
    > >

    > I've not seen any reviews of either lens, but take a look at
    > the forums on
    > http://www.dpreview.com
    > There are a lot of user opinions on the Sigma, and a few
    > threads on the Canon. So far, most users are happy with the
    > Sigma, although it suffers from slight vignetting at 18mm, and
    > some distortion at the focal length extremes. Comments about
    > the Canon have so far not been that good - chromatic aberration
    > is a possible concern (the Sigma is good in this respect).
    > If it was up to me, and I had to choose right now, I'd get the
    > Sigma since I've seen nothing to suggest it's worth paying the
    > massive price hike for the Canon.
    > As usual, we've got a bunch of people saying 'buy the Canon'
    > without having any experience of either lens. Both companies
    > make some great, and some awful, lenses and the Sigma
    > compatibility issues are a pretty minor worry IMHO.


    One thing I've been curious about, and queried those who posted negatives
    about the Canon, was how they got images with a lens that is not yet on the
    market. So far, none of them have responded to my doubts.
    In my opinion, anyone speaking negatively of the Canon is either making up
    their experience out of whole cloth, or using a preproduction version. I'd
    wait until there are actual examples being tested by the reviewers at
    DPReview, et al.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Sep 9, 2004
    #9
  10. Alex Vilner

    Skip M Guest

    "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > Despite the 'Sigma is junk' replies, Sigma DOES make good lenses. The
    > 70-200 f/2.8 EX is one of their best. In this case, however, I would
    > recommend the Canon. Sigma is coming out with a 18-50 f/2.8 EX that looks
    > very promising, you may want to wait a bit yet. There's a review here:
    > http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/
    >
    > IS is nice, but the focus speed on the Sigma should be a little better.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >

    Why would you say the focus speed on the Sigma should be better than the
    Canon? The review you cite mentions that it lacks HSM, so it probably will
    be slower.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Sep 9, 2004
    #10
  11. "grenner" <> wrote:

    > Look at Tamron. Sigma is not a good choice, minimal optics and build
    > quality. Canon is excellent stuff buy pricy.
    > Tamron is a nice inbetween choice. I have been using Tamron for years

    with
    > fillm cameras first and now digital without a problem.


    I tried that. My Tamron 28-75/2.8 has taken some killer images. Optically,
    it's great. But:

    1. The lens hood won't go on straight.
    2. It hunts during focus more than expected. (This could be mistaken
    expectations, though)
    3. Build quality isn't up to the Canon lenses I own.
    4. Less than 2 months after I bought it, it's now making grinding noises
    during AF.

    Never again.

    Note to RA:
    Randall, please accept my humble and abject appologies for thinking you were
    over the top. On both the only buy Canon and only shoot RAW points, you are
    exactly right.

    Note to Annika:
    By the way, I found a great way to rescue jpegs shot with the wrong white
    balance: convert to B&W! As you've pointed out, all B&W is great art<g>.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 9, 2004
    #11
  12. Alex Vilner

    ed Guest

    You're asking whether you want a piece of junk Sigma lens.... that's a
    troll, right? =)
    ed, Sep 9, 2004
    #12
  13. Alex Vilner

    JohnO Guest

    just another opinion ...

    Personally I wouldn't bother with the Sigma. I don't own any, never
    have but as others have mentioned, there are many negatives in buying
    other brand lenses. You're buying a great camera, buy some great
    lenses!

    Not to throw a wrench into your thoughts but ... remember that the
    17mm end of the Canon lens you mention is not a very wide angle lens
    (actually will be 27mm in 35mm comparison)

    What I did when I bught my 10D was get the EF 28-135 IS USM and THAT
    is one great lens. Not wide but a very good range and IS and excellent
    quality and it's also $200 less. (I make this suggestion not knowing
    much about the EF-S 17-85) I have added a couple "L" lenses to my
    collection but still use the 28-135 IS as much as those and never
    doubt how good the quality of my photos will be when using this lens.

    Just something else to consider.


    (Alex Vilner) wrote in message news:<>...
    > I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex
    JohnO, Sep 9, 2004
    #13
  14. Alex Vilner

    Guest

    In message <4140c9ee$0$65563$>,
    "grenner" <> wrote:

    >Look at Tamron. Sigma is not a good choice, minimal optics and build
    >quality. Canon is excellent stuff buy pricy.
    >Tamron is a nice inbetween choice. I have been using Tamron for years with
    >fillm cameras first and now digital without a problem.


    Some of Tamron's lenses are optically superior to Canon's similar
    offerings. Their macros 90mm and 180mm are sharper than the Canon 100mm
    and 180mm macros.

    I own 12 EF-mount lenses, 10 Canons including 3 Ls, a Sigma 15-30, and
    the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, and the Tamron is the second smoothest in
    manual focusing (the 300mm f4L IS is smoother), and is clearly the
    sharpest of the lot.

    The Canon macros autofocus faster than the Tamrons, though.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Sep 10, 2004
    #14
  15. Alex Vilner

    des Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I am looking to invest into Canon 20D, and, obviously, need to
    > complement the body with the lens.
    >
    > Seems that I have narrowed my choices down to two:
    > - Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM (4.0 - 5.6) $599
    > - Sigma 18-125 (3.5-5.6) $269
    >
    > I am taking the minimalistic approach in that I prefer to use one lens
    > for most of my shots (in the 35mm days, Canon 28-200 USM did the
    > trick).
    >
    > Granted the Canon's lens is new, I wanted to ask for your opinion
    > about the image qualities and how they compare between the two, the
    > true necessity of IS (I have lived without it for 20 years, chances
    > are I might survive)....
    >
    > Canon Pros: IS & brand name/model, specifically designed for D20 (and
    > DR)
    > Canon Cons: price, tele focal length (136mm in 35mm equivalent)
    >
    > Sigma Pros: Longer focal length (200mm in 35mm equivalent), price
    > $300!)
    > Sigma Cons: it is not Canon :)
    >
    > Your opinions, please?
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > --Alex
    >

    First, the 17-85 EFS IS is only $499 if you buy it with the 20D as a
    kit. There are no reviews on it yet but its bound to be a lot better
    than the Sigma.
    des, Sep 10, 2004
    #15
  16. Skip M wrote:

    > "Graeme Cogger" <> wrote in message
    > news:4140c0de$0$20247$...
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> says...


    >
    > One thing I've been curious about, and queried those who posted negatives
    > about the Canon, was how they got images with a lens that is not yet on the
    > market. So far, none of them have responded to my doubts.
    > In my opinion, anyone speaking negatively of the Canon is either making up
    > their experience out of whole cloth, or using a preproduction version. I'd
    > wait until there are actual examples being tested by the reviewers at
    > DPReview, et al.
    >

    Now that seems just downright unreasonable. Why should anyone wait for
    facts before posting an opinion???

    [If I used smileys, there'd be one some where near here.]
    --

    John McWilliams

    I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
    not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
    John McWilliams, Sep 10, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <>, Alex
    Vilner <> wrote:

    > Your opinions, please?


    Sigma = crap

    Go with the Canon. It's all made together to work together.
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 10, 2004
    #17
  18. Alex Vilner

    Skip M Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:UE60d.64518$3l3.23826@attbi_s03...
    > Skip M wrote:
    >
    > > "Graeme Cogger" <> wrote in message
    > > news:4140c0de$0$20247$...
    > >
    > >>In article <>,
    > >> says...

    >
    > >
    > > One thing I've been curious about, and queried those who posted

    negatives
    > > about the Canon, was how they got images with a lens that is not yet on

    the
    > > market. So far, none of them have responded to my doubts.
    > > In my opinion, anyone speaking negatively of the Canon is either making

    up
    > > their experience out of whole cloth, or using a preproduction version.

    I'd
    > > wait until there are actual examples being tested by the reviewers at
    > > DPReview, et al.
    > >

    > Now that seems just downright unreasonable. Why should anyone wait for
    > facts before posting an opinion???
    >
    > [If I used smileys, there'd be one some where near here.]
    > --
    >
    > John McWilliams
    >
    > I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
    > not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.


    Well, I am just an unreasonable sort of guy! ;-) ( I do use them)
    And one who ordered one of the two 20D bodies with that 17-85 IS. I figure,
    if I don't like it, I can sell it on Ebay for what I paid.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Sep 10, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <chqlv8$o8n$>, David J. Littleboy
    <> wrote:

    > Note to RA:
    > Randall, please accept my humble and abject appologies for thinking you were
    > over the top. On both the only buy Canon and only shoot RAW points, you are
    > exactly right.


    Some day everyone will agree with me. :)
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 10, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <4610d.12865$>, John Doe
    <> wrote:

    > I would stick with Canon brand. Apparently Canon doesn't much like third
    > party lenses and they try a little too hard to cause problems with them. I
    > just bough two used lens, both Canon and will only be buying the Canon
    > brand. I don't want to have to worry about compatibility issues with my new
    > $1500 child.


    No, it's cheapskate companies like Sigma that won't pay the licensing
    fees.
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 10, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steven M. Scharf
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,885
  2. rolento

    Sigma 24-60 DG compare with sigma 24-70 DG

    rolento, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    rolento
    Nov 13, 2004
  3. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    329
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  4. Chris Long

    Canon or Sigma lenses?

    Chris Long, Jan 22, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    524
  5. ob1cnob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    353
    ob1cnob
    Mar 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page