Canon 300 f/4 L IS with 2x converter test

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JohnR66, Jun 9, 2005.

  1. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg

    This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
    parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center crop.
    I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the editing
    performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.

    As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
    stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
    fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle the
    color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up the
    image.

    With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field of
    view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.

    John
     
    JohnR66, Jun 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnR66

    Guest

    JohnR66 wrote:

    > As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality.


    You need two points to draw a line.
     
    , Jun 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnR66

    SimonLW Guest

    Use a smaller radius when sharpening. It looks too much like video to me.
    -S

    "JohnR66" <> wrote in message
    news:bH3qe.923896$...
    > http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >
    > This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    > teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
    > parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center

    crop.
    > I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the editing
    > performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
    >
    > As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
    > stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
    > fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle the
    > color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up the
    > image.
    >
    > With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field

    of
    > view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
     
    SimonLW, Jun 10, 2005
    #3
  4. JohnR66

    dylan Guest

    "JohnR66" <> wrote in message
    news:bH3qe.923896$...
    > http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >
    > This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    > teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
    > parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center
    > crop. I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the
    > editing performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
    >
    > As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
    > stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
    > fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle the
    > color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up the
    > image.
    >
    > With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field
    > of view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
    >
    > John
    >
    >


    Is your wall built from polystyrene or soap ;O)
    Compared to what I would expect it doesn't look a good photo, over
    compressed ?

    some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm
    and 1.4x for comparison.
     
    dylan, Jun 10, 2005
    #4
  5. JohnR66

    Guest

    In message <bH3qe.923896$>,
    "JohnR66" <> wrote:

    >http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >
    >This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    >teleconverter.


    That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
    with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.

    What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
    1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.

    Was the lens wide open?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jun 11, 2005
    #5
  6. JohnR66

    dylan Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <bH3qe.923896$>,
    > "JohnR66" <> wrote:
    >
    >>http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >>
    >>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    >>teleconverter.

    >
    > That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
    > with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.
    >
    > What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
    > 1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.
    >
    > Was the lens wide open?


    Totally agree about the quality, 1/1000 seems a bit excessive but probably
    varies between users.
    Regards fully open, look at the examples I linked to in my earlier reply
    they are all fully open, I would expect better than they got even with fully
    open, unless the 300 f4 isn't that good ?

    Cheers
     
    dylan, Jun 11, 2005
    #6
  7. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    "dylan" <> wrote in message
    news:d8c9jg$sdk$...
    >
    > "JohnR66" <> wrote in message
    > news:bH3qe.923896$...
    >> http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >>
    >> This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    >> teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
    >> parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center
    >> crop. I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the
    >> editing performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
    >>
    >> As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
    >> stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
    >> fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle
    >> the color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned up
    >> the image.
    >>
    >> With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel, field
    >> of view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
    >>
    >> John
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Is your wall built from polystyrene or soap ;O)
    > Compared to what I would expect it doesn't look a good photo, over
    > compressed ?
    >
    > some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm
    > and 1.4x for comparison.
    >
    >

    The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday items,
    like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you concentrate on
    the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters, especially the 2x is
    always a compromise.

    I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
    to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
    play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
    John
     
    JohnR66, Jun 11, 2005
    #7
  8. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    "dylan" <> wrote in message
    news:d8e80o$kb8$...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In message <bH3qe.923896$>,
    >> "JohnR66" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >>>
    >>>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    >>>teleconverter.

    >>
    >> That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
    >> with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.
    >>
    >> What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
    >> 1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.
    >>
    >> Was the lens wide open?

    >
    > Totally agree about the quality, 1/1000 seems a bit excessive but probably
    > varies between users.
    > Regards fully open, look at the examples I linked to in my earlier reply
    > they are all fully open, I would expect better than they got even with
    > fully open, unless the 300 f4 isn't that good ?
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    >

    Yes, the lens was wide open. I think I was around 1/500 with IS on. It seems
    there is a bit vertical smear in the shat from shutter bounce or mirro slap.
    It seems IS is not as good for helping sharp movements as these, but is
    great for the slower movements from hand holding.
    John
     
    JohnR66, Jun 11, 2005
    #8
  9. JohnR66

    Celcius Guest

    Hi John!

    Sorry I'm not on subject here, but I was wondering about the benefit of
    using the 1.4 extender with the lens 17-85mm IS, USM. I was thinking it
    might boost the lens from 130mm to 180mm. With this lens, I have some zoom
    capability 28-130mm, and with the extender, I don't have a big lense, yet it
    reaches 180mm. Am I way out to lunch?

    Thanks,

    Marcel



    "JohnR66" <> wrote in message
    news:vtBqe.933739$...
    >
    > "dylan" <> wrote in message
    > news:d8c9jg$sdk$...
    > >
    > > "JohnR66" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bH3qe.923896$...
    > >> http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    > >>
    > >> This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon

    2x
    > >> teleconverter. The shot was made on the 6mp digital Rebel with all
    > >> parameters set to 0 and ISO 200. The image is a full resolution center
    > >> crop. I applied some unsharp mask (crop and unsharp mask is all the
    > >> editing performed). The shot was made with the lens wide open.
    > >>
    > >> As you can see, there is some expected loss in image quality. Sharpness
    > >> stays nearly even across the frame but there is mild to moderate color
    > >> fringing at the edges. The new Canon 2x II converter is said to handle
    > >> the color fringing better (this is the old one). Stopping down cleaned

    up
    > >> the image.
    > >>
    > >> With the 2x on the 300mm and the 1.6x cropping factor of the Rebel,

    field
    > >> of view is about the same as a 1000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
    > >>
    > >> John
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > > Is your wall built from polystyrene or soap ;O)
    > > Compared to what I would expect it doesn't look a good photo, over
    > > compressed ?
    > >
    > > some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L

    www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm
    > > and 1.4x for comparison.
    > >
    > >

    > The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday

    items,
    > like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you concentrate

    on
    > the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters, especially the 2x is
    > always a compromise.
    >
    > I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
    > to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
    > play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
    > John
    >
    >
    >
     
    Celcius, Jun 11, 2005
    #9
  10. dylan wrote:

    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>In message <bH3qe.923896$>,
    >>"JohnR66" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >>>
    >>>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon 2x
    >>>teleconverter.

    >>
    >>That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
    >>with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.
    >>
    >>What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
    >>1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.
    >>
    >>Was the lens wide open?

    >
    >
    > Totally agree about the quality, 1/1000 seems a bit excessive but probably
    > varies between users.
    > Regards fully open, look at the examples I linked to in my earlier reply
    > they are all fully open, I would expect better than they got even with fully
    > open, unless the 300 f4 isn't that good ?
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    >

    Yes, the 300mm f/4 L IS is good (at least my lens is). Here is a
    recent 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC with some full size crops:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F8962.b-700.html

    While this image was done on a tripod, the head was loose so I could follow
    the birds. IS was on.

    I have 300 f/4 + 2x TC images that are equally sharp.

    While I have quite steady hands, I find that at 300 mm and higher, I
    get a low percentage of sharp images even with IS. Perhaps that is due
    to my use of the telephotos for following animals in action, and I'm
    rapidly moving. With a head (Wimberly, full or sidekick) I find
    my movements are smoother and the IS works well, giving me
    very sharp images.

    There are Canon lenses that may not achieve good focus. For example,
    I have a 100-400 L IS zoom and it is soft at 400mm though others
    have units that are very sharp. I need to send mine back to
    Canon for recalibration.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 11, 2005
    #10
  11. JohnR66

    dylan Guest


    >>
    >> some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L
    >> www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm and 1.4x for comparison.
    >>
    >>

    > The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday
    > items, like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you
    > concentrate on the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters,
    > especially the 2x is always a compromise.
    >
    > I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
    > to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
    > play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
    > John
    >


    Agree the image with the 1.4x is slightly softer, but I'm still very happy
    with it, some on it maybe down to the 10D. I wasn't trying to say they were
    perfect I just expected some better results from your 300 + x2.

    Here's a couple more www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm

    I'll try to remember not to photo common everyday items ;O)

    Cheers
     
    dylan, Jun 11, 2005
    #11
  12. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi John!
    >
    > Sorry I'm not on subject here, but I was wondering about the benefit of
    > using the 1.4 extender with the lens 17-85mm IS, USM. I was thinking it
    > might boost the lens from 130mm to 180mm. With this lens, I have some zoom
    > capability 28-130mm, and with the extender, I don't have a big lense, yet
    > it
    > reaches 180mm. Am I way out to lunch?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Marcel
    >
    >

    Canon's teleconverters have a front element that projects into the back of
    the lens so it will not even work with that lens. It won't even fit on my
    80-200 Canon, but I knew that going in. Teleconverters are designed for use
    with long focal legth lenses, so it may not perform well if it did fit.
    John
     
    JohnR66, Jun 12, 2005
    #12
  13. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > dylan wrote:
    >
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>In message <bH3qe.923896$>,
    >>>"JohnR66" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>http://home.att.net/~jriegle/300f4L2x.jpg
    >>>>
    >>>>This is a test shot using the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the Canon
    >>>>2x
    >>>>teleconverter.
    >>>
    >>>That's pretty soft for that combo. I've had better results with mine
    >>>with a 2x and 1.4x *stacked*.
    >>>
    >>>What was your shutter speed? I wouldn't use anything less than about
    >>>1/1000 without the IS, or 1/400 with IS.
    >>>
    >>>Was the lens wide open?

    >>
    >>
    >> Totally agree about the quality, 1/1000 seems a bit excessive but
    >> probably varies between users.
    >> Regards fully open, look at the examples I linked to in my earlier reply
    >> they are all fully open, I would expect better than they got even with
    >> fully open, unless the 300 f4 isn't that good ?
    >>
    >> Cheers
    >>
    >>

    > Yes, the 300mm f/4 L IS is good (at least my lens is). Here is a
    > recent 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC with some full size crops:
    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F8962.b-700.html
    >
    > While this image was done on a tripod, the head was loose so I could
    > follow
    > the birds. IS was on.
    >
    > I have 300 f/4 + 2x TC images that are equally sharp.
    >
    > While I have quite steady hands, I find that at 300 mm and higher, I
    > get a low percentage of sharp images even with IS. Perhaps that is due
    > to my use of the telephotos for following animals in action, and I'm
    > rapidly moving. With a head (Wimberly, full or sidekick) I find
    > my movements are smoother and the IS works well, giving me
    > very sharp images.
    >
    > There are Canon lenses that may not achieve good focus. For example,
    > I have a 100-400 L IS zoom and it is soft at 400mm though others
    > have units that are very sharp. I need to send mine back to
    > Canon for recalibration.
    >
    > Roger


    Roger,
    When I was looking for a tele, I looked at the 100-400 L and kept hearing
    about the wide open aperture softness at 400. Since the purpose of buying
    such an expensive and heavy lens is it usability at 400mm, I decided forgo
    it and looked at the 300 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. I decided to go with the
    300mm f/4 L IS. On digital, the angle of view is about equal to a 500mm lens
    on 35mm film. I figured the 400mm would be too long for some situations,
    plus the 300 is a stop faster and has hand hold capability with the IS.

    Check the Luminous Landscape article:
    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

    This is the main reason I decided to go fixed focal length.

    John

    BTW, I love your site!
     
    JohnR66, Jun 12, 2005
    #13
  14. JohnR66

    Paul Furman Guest

    JohnR66 wrote:

    > "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Hi John!
    >>
    >>Sorry I'm not on subject here, but I was wondering about the benefit of
    >>using the 1.4 extender with the lens 17-85mm IS, USM. I was thinking it
    >>might boost the lens from 130mm to 180mm. With this lens, I have some zoom
    >>capability 28-130mm, and with the extender, I don't have a big lense, yet
    >>it
    >>reaches 180mm. Am I way out to lunch?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>
    >>Marcel
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Canon's teleconverters have a front element that projects into the back of
    > the lens so it will not even work with that lens.



    Same for my Nikon TC. The lens needs a big hole to recieve it.


    > It won't even fit on my
    > 80-200 Canon, but I knew that going in. Teleconverters are designed for use
    > with long focal legth lenses, so it may not perform well if it did fit.
    > John
    >
    >


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 12, 2005
    #14
  15. JohnR66

    dylan Guest

    >>
    >> some photos taken with a 400 5.6 L
    >> www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm and 1.4x for comparison.
    >>
    >>

    > The 1.4x shot looks soft to me. Showing close ups of common everyday
    > items, like the leaves, can give a false sense of sharpness. If you
    > concentrate on the edges, the image is rather soft. Teleconverters,
    > especially the 2x is always a compromise.
    >
    > I'm no wiz a sharpening. Someone told me I had probably had the radius set
    > to high in the unsharp mask causing a video like appearance. I'll have to
    > play with the lens and 2x combo to see if I can do better.
    > John
    >


    Agree the image with the 1.4x is slightly softer, but I'm still very happy
    with it, some on it maybe down to the 10D. I wasn't trying to say they were
    perfect I just expected some better results from your 300 + x2.

    Here's a couple more www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm

    I'll try to remember not to photo common everyday items ;O)

    Cheers
     
    dylan, Jun 12, 2005
    #15
  16. JohnR66

    Guest

    In message <1bMqe.309778$>,
    "JohnR66" <> wrote:

    >Roger,
    >When I was looking for a tele, I looked at the 100-400 L and kept hearing
    >about the wide open aperture softness at 400. Since the purpose of buying
    >such an expensive and heavy lens is it usability at 400mm, I decided forgo
    >it and looked at the 300 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. I decided to go with the
    >300mm f/4 L IS. On digital, the angle of view is about equal to a 500mm lens
    >on 35mm film. I figured the 400mm would be too long for some situations,
    >plus the 300 is a stop faster and has hand hold capability with the IS.


    I have both the 300 f/4L IS and the 100-400 IS, and my experience has
    been that the 400 is sharper than the 300 + 1/4x TC, but only if you
    maintain safe exposure times; the 100-400's IS leaves more
    high-frequency jitter in the image.

    If I use flash, I can stack my Tamron 2x TC and Canon 1.4x TC on the
    100-400 at 400, for a focal length of 1120mm, and still get fairly sharp
    images. Also true with shutter speeds of 1/2000.

    IMO, IS deteriorates rapidly with magnification. I suspect that the IS
    is designed to keep high-frequency jitter somewhere right near the
    threshold of visibility in normal image viewing (8*10 from full-frame),
    and rises above that threshold, as soon as you magnify it. Since this
    high-frequency jitter is circular in nature (most of the linear aspect
    is removed by the IS), a half-circle at 2x has twice the diameter of a
    full circle taken at 1x, even though the exposure is half as long in the
    former. I also suspect that some of the HF jitter is artifacts from the
    IS, and is not directly from lens shake.

    I have come to view IS as something that helps you get a reasonably
    sharp image at shutter speeds at which such would be impossible. It is
    not, in any way, like using a faster shutter speed, even for stationary
    subjects.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jun 12, 2005
    #16
  17. wrote:
    > In message <1bMqe.309778$>,
    > "JohnR66" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Roger,
    >>When I was looking for a tele, I looked at the 100-400 L and kept hearing
    >>about the wide open aperture softness at 400. Since the purpose of buying
    >>such an expensive and heavy lens is it usability at 400mm, I decided forgo
    >>it and looked at the 300 f/4 L and the 400 f/5.6 L. I decided to go with the
    >>300mm f/4 L IS. On digital, the angle of view is about equal to a 500mm lens
    >>on 35mm film. I figured the 400mm would be too long for some situations,
    >>plus the 300 is a stop faster and has hand hold capability with the IS.

    >
    >
    > I have both the 300 f/4L IS and the 100-400 IS, and my experience has
    > been that the 400 is sharper than the 300 + 1/4x TC, but only if you
    > maintain safe exposure times; the 100-400's IS leaves more
    > high-frequency jitter in the image.
    >
    > If I use flash, I can stack my Tamron 2x TC and Canon 1.4x TC on the
    > 100-400 at 400, for a focal length of 1120mm, and still get fairly sharp
    > images. Also true with shutter speeds of 1/2000.
    >
    > IMO, IS deteriorates rapidly with magnification. I suspect that the IS
    > is designed to keep high-frequency jitter somewhere right near the
    > threshold of visibility in normal image viewing (8*10 from full-frame),
    > and rises above that threshold, as soon as you magnify it. Since this
    > high-frequency jitter is circular in nature (most of the linear aspect
    > is removed by the IS), a half-circle at 2x has twice the diameter of a
    > full circle taken at 1x, even though the exposure is half as long in the
    > former. I also suspect that some of the HF jitter is artifacts from the
    > IS, and is not directly from lens shake.
    >
    > I have come to view IS as something that helps you get a reasonably
    > sharp image at shutter speeds at which such would be impossible. It is
    > not, in any way, like using a faster shutter speed, even for stationary
    > subjects.


    At high magnifications, diffraction on these lenses becomes the limiting
    factor. Consider the 20D/rebel series, which has ~ 6.4 micron
    pixel spacing. A f/4 lens with a 1.4x TC becomes f/5.6. The diffraction
    spot size at f/5.6 is 7.2 microns. At f/8 is rises to 10 microns,
    and f/11 to 14 microns, over twice the pixel pitch. If everything
    were perfect, the images would still be soft. One cameras with
    6.4 micron pixels, f/5.6 is already limiting sharpness.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 12, 2005
    #17
    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. Guest

    test test test test test test test

    Guest, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    995
    halfalifer
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. PeterH

    Canon 90-300 or Sigma 70-300 ?

    PeterH, Jan 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    5,859
    Steven M. Scharf
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. Marcel Alsemgeest

    300D + Sigma 70-300 or Canon 100-300?

    Marcel Alsemgeest, Aug 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,252
    Summitar
    Sep 5, 2004
  4. canon 70-300 v. tamron 28-300

    , Nov 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,152
    Steve Dell
    Dec 24, 2004
  5. brntkobe1

    Moyea Video Converter with iPad video converter

    brntkobe1, Apr 18, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    764
    brntkobe1
    Apr 18, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page