Good zoom-lens for Nikon?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Jun 9, 2011.

  1. Sandman

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Funny, that, because the rest of us were trying to respond to the OP's
    >> query and by that stage it was clear he had a full frame Nikon DSLR.
    >>
    >> Thank you for explaining why your reply was irrelevant to the thread.

    >
    >Do you not expect that future Nikon full-frame cameras may not have even
    >better high ISO performance? You consider that the limit has already been
    >reached?



    You seem to like moving goal posts, David.
     
    Bruce, Jun 10, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Funny, that, because the rest of us were trying to respond to the OP's
    >>> query and by that stage it was clear he had a full frame Nikon DSLR.
    >>>
    >>> Thank you for explaining why your reply was irrelevant to the thread.

    >>
    >>Do you not expect that future Nikon full-frame cameras may not have even
    >>better high ISO performance? You consider that the limit has already
    >>been
    >>reached?

    >
    >
    > You seem to like moving goal posts, David.


    You seem to like making personal points, Bruce, and avoiding the
    discussion.
    Goodbye.
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 10, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/10/2011 2:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<4df0e3ca$0$12510$-secrets.com>,
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >
    >>> So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
    >>> would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
    >>> have a larger aperture throughout.
    >>>
    >>> I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
    >>> throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
    >>> I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
    >>> course.
    >>>
    >>> What other (FX) lenses should I look at?
    >>>

    >>
    >> What type of shooting do you do?

    >
    > This would be for more or less casual shooting, where I'd normally use
    > the above Tamron. I use fixed lenses for portrait photography. This is
    > mainly just for taking nice pictures of the kids when we're out and
    > about.
    >
    >> What is your budget.

    >
    > Budget... isn't super important. Just not crazy expensive :)
    >
    >> All of my lenses are Nikon.
    >> I use the 70-200, sometimes with the 1.7 teleconverter for street,
    >> wildlife and zoos.

    >
    > Yes, I love the 70-200, use it for weddings and events mostly.
    >
    >> The 80-400 to landscape and sometimes prefocused for birds.
    >> The 18-200, which is soft, as a walk around in hot weather. (Yes, I know
    >> that is a DX lens, but Nikon FF will take it. Indeed the results are at
    >> least as good as on a good DX camera.

    >
    > 18-200 would be nice, but I would prefer a FX lens...
    >
    > Thanks!



    The 24-120 should fit your bill, but it is f4. One of my friends has one
    and he is happy with it.
    Otherwise, for a single general purpose walk about, with low light
    capability, I use my old 50mm 1.4.

    HTH

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2011
    #23
  4. Sandman

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:

    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >>>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> Funny, that, because the rest of us were trying to respond to the OP's
    >>>> query and by that stage it was clear he had a full frame Nikon DSLR.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank you for explaining why your reply was irrelevant to the thread.
    >>>
    >>>Do you not expect that future Nikon full-frame cameras may not have even
    >>>better high ISO performance? You consider that the limit has already
    >>>been
    >>>reached?

    >>
    >>
    >> You seem to like moving goal posts, David.

    >
    >You seem to like making personal points, Bruce, and avoiding the
    >discussion.



    It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
    always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
    involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
    this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.
     
    Bruce, Jun 10, 2011
    #24
  5. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
    > always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
    > involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
    > this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.


    Why do you not want to discuss what effect higher ISO might have on the
    choice of zoom lenses, especially as you appear to have good insider
    knowledge of what cameras Nikon may be about to introduce? Instead you
    resort to personal criticism and thereby lose credibility.
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 10, 2011
    #25
  6. Sandman

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
    >> always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
    >> involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
    >> this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.

    >
    >Why do you not want to discuss what effect higher ISO might have on the
    >choice of zoom lenses, especially as you appear to have good insider
    >knowledge of what cameras Nikon may be about to introduce? Instead you
    >resort to personal criticism and thereby lose credibility.



    The issue I raised was that, long after it was clear that the OP owned
    an FX body, you were off on a tangent discussing an upgrade from DX to
    FX. When I called you out on that, you moved the goal posts once more
    and started discussing something else! You might think that is
    entertaining, but it is merely tiresome. You are clearly incapable of
    sticking to the topic at hand, so any further discussion is pointless.
    I put you in my kill file for this very reason some time ago. Having
    reviewed my kill file decisions over the last few days, as I do
    periodically, in your case it was definitely the right call.

    Are you by any chance related to Mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski)?

    Ctrl-K (again!)
     
    Bruce, Jun 10, 2011
    #26
  7. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/10/2011 3:54 PM, David J Taylor wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> It is impossible to have a discussion with you David, because you are
    >> always discussing something very different to everyone else who is
    >> involved, and your contribution is therefore irrelevant. And when
    >> this is pointed out to you, you flounce off like a petulant child.

    >
    > Why do you not want to discuss what effect higher ISO might have on the
    > choice of zoom lenses, especially as you appear to have good insider
    > knowledge of what cameras Nikon may be about to introduce? Instead you
    > resort to personal criticism and thereby lose credibility.
    >
    >

    How many years ago did he have any credibility.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 10, 2011
    #27
  8. Sandman

    Jeff R. Guest

    "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:4df24e27$0$12519$-secrets.com...
    > On 6/10/2011 2:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >> In article<4df0e3ca$0$12510$-secrets.com>,
    >> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
    >>>> would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
    >>>> have a larger aperture throughout.
    >>>>
    >>>> I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
    >>>> throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
    >>>> I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
    >>>> course.

    >
    >
    > The 24-120 should fit your bill, but it is f4. One of my friends has one
    > and he is happy with it.


    I have it, and I'm distinctly *not* happy with it. Actually, I *had* it.
    Gave it away years ago.
    Way too soft and slow at all focal lengths.

    Far be it for me to cite Ken Rockwell as an authoratitive source, but he
    does get to play with lots of Nikon lenses. The 24-120 makes #3 of his
    worst 10 ever
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm
    and he outlines many good reasons for not liking it (all of which, BTW, I
    happen to agree with)
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm

    A great idea (9+ on paper) but a dog in the hand.

    I much prefer my 18-200, even though its huge and heavy - but I don't use
    the SLR for a lightweight "carry-around". That's what the P&S is for.

    HTH

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Jun 11, 2011
    #28
  9. Sandman

    Jeff R. Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2011061017323110672-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >
    > BTW; Since you value his opinion, here is Rockwell's take on the new
    > 24-120mm f/4.
    > < http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck



    Thanks all, for the correction.
    I stand (sit) chastened.

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Jun 11, 2011
    #29
  10. "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:4df2836a$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    []
    > How many years ago did he have any credibility.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Well, Bruce/Tony /seems/ to have a lot of knowledge in some areas, and
    some of his input has been useful, providing you take his biases into
    account. Quite why he doesn't want to discuss the topic here isn't clear
    to me. Of course topics do drift as can be seen from many threads here,
    but as soon as that happens with this thread he resorts to personal
    attacks and kill-filing me! His loss, I'm afraid.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 11, 2011
    #30
  11. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > The issue I raised was that, long after it was clear that the OP owned
    > an FX body, you were off on a tangent discussing an upgrade from DX to
    > FX. When I called you out on that, you moved the goal posts once more
    > and started discussing something else! You might think that is
    > entertaining, but it is merely tiresome. You are clearly incapable of
    > sticking to the topic at hand, so any further discussion is pointless.
    > I put you in my kill file for this very reason some time ago. Having
    > reviewed my kill file decisions over the last few days, as I do
    > periodically, in your case it was definitely the right call.
    >
    > Are you by any chance related to Mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski)?
    >
    > Ctrl-K (again!)


    Why does an apparently experienced newsgroup contributor not allow the
    thread to drift (as threads do)?

    No point in replying to your question if you've kill-filed me, is there?
    You better kill-file most of the contributors here if topic drift is
    intolerable to you.

    Still no comment about whether newer Nikons might have still better
    high-ISO performance?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 11, 2011
    #31
  12. []
    > Now I also use the 18-200mm as my walk-around lens on my D300s.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Same here, although the 16-85mm VR is another favourite if I might be
    indoors and wanting to photograph rooms.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 11, 2011
    #32
  13. > Along with the 18-200mm, my most used lenses are my Tokina 11-16mm
    > f/2.8; an old Nikkor 35mm f/2.0; and the new Nikkor 70-300mm VR.
    >
    > Every now and again I use the old 18-70mm from the D70. It is still a
    > strangely sharp lens given its lowly heritage.
    >
    > My least used lens is the slooooow 80-400mm.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    I like light and easy to carry, so my maximum is the 70-300mm VR, which I
    like, but which isn't wonderful at the long end. I would have got the
    Tokina, except it doesn't have the focus motor which the Tamron10-24mm
    does. For a Northern Lights trip, I got the 35mm f/1.8 which was a
    delight to use.

    How many lenses do you carry with you at any one time? My usual maximum
    is the lens on the camera plus one other.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 11, 2011
    #33
  14. > It depends on what I am doing. Mostly the 18-200mm lives on the camera.
    > I normally take a bag with the three option lenses in the car. Then I
    > have a neat Columbia vest which does not signal "PHOTOGRAPHER!"
    > < http://www.columbia.com/Men’s-Silver-Ridge™-Vest/AM1049,default,pd.html
    > >

    > with pockets large enough, so I can pocket the one most suitable of the
    > options for the job. Walking around town, or at car shows usually the
    > 11-16mm. In the field or at the race track (my local track is Laguna
    > Seca at Monterey) the 70-300mm VR, and that does a fair enough job.
    > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC5046Cfw.jpg >
    > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4995Cfw.jpg >
    > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4619ECfw.jpg >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Impressive pictures! It would be good if we could get more Formula 1
    racing in the US. Austin, Texas next year? As I don't travel by car any
    more, it does limit what I can take, but I like the idea of the Columbia
    vest so thanks for that. Wonder if you can get them or something similar
    in the UK? Yes, they are on Amazon UK. Thanks for that tip.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 11, 2011
    #34
  15. Sandman

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <isv51n$jgc$>, david-
    d says...
    >
    > > It depends on what I am doing. Mostly the 18-200mm lives on the camera.
    > > I normally take a bag with the three option lenses in the car. Then I
    > > have a neat Columbia vest which does not signal "PHOTOGRAPHER!"
    > > < http://www.columbia.com/Men?s-Silver-Ridge?-Vest/AM1049,default,pd.html
    > > >

    > > with pockets large enough, so I can pocket the one most suitable of the
    > > options for the job. Walking around town, or at car shows usually the
    > > 11-16mm. In the field or at the race track (my local track is Laguna
    > > Seca at Monterey) the 70-300mm VR, and that does a fair enough job.
    > > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC5046Cfw.jpg >
    > > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4995Cfw.jpg >
    > > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4619ECfw.jpg >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Savageduck

    >
    > Impressive pictures! It would be good if we could get more Formula 1
    > racing in the US. Austin, Texas next year? As I don't travel by car any
    > more, it does limit what I can take, but I like the idea of the Columbia
    > vest so thanks for that. Wonder if you can get them or something similar
    > in the UK? Yes, they are on Amazon UK. Thanks for that tip.


    You might want to take a look at Scott eVest
    <http://www.scottevest.com/>. Not cheap, but very good quality.
    Further, most people who've seen one have seen it on TV on one of the
    guys guarding the President of the United States, so the vibe, if there
    is one, is "bad-ass cop", not "photographer". I've carried four lenses,
    2 flashes, a 2 liter soda bottle, and a laptop computer in mine, all at
    the same time, plus the usual other junk I carry (pens, pencils, Swiss
    Army knife, flashlight, etc). And they do ship to the EU.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 11, 2011
    #35
  16. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/10/2011 7:31 PM, Jeff R. wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4df24e27$0$12519$-secrets.com...
    >> On 6/10/2011 2:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>> In article<4df0e3ca$0$12510$-secrets.com>,
    >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> So, I have this Tamron 18-200/f3.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but I
    >>>>> would love for a lens which does better in lower light conditions, and
    >>>>> have a larger aperture throughout.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I was looking at the Nikon 24-120/f4, which has a better aperture
    >>>>> throughout but actually worse /but not by much) when fully zoomed out.
    >>>>> I expect the quality of the lens to be vastly better as well, of
    >>>>> course.

    >>
    >>
    >> The 24-120 should fit your bill, but it is f4. One of my friends has one
    >> and he is happy with it.

    >
    > I have it, and I'm distinctly *not* happy with it. Actually, I *had* it.
    > Gave it away years ago.
    > Way too soft and slow at all focal lengths.
    >
    > Far be it for me to cite Ken Rockwell as an authoratitive source, but he
    > does get to play with lots of Nikon lenses. The 24-120 makes #3 of his
    > worst 10 ever
    > http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm
    > and he outlines many good reasons for not liking it (all of which, BTW, I
    > happen to agree with)
    > http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm
    >
    > A great idea (9+ on paper) but a dog in the hand.
    >
    > I much prefer my 18-200, even though its huge and heavy - but I don't use
    > the SLR for a lightweight "carry-around". That's what the P&S is for.
    >
    > HTH


    For me the 18-200 is only useful as a walk around lens and to take
    snapshots. Even after a repair by Nikon, it is somewhat soft. I clearly
    stated that I had not used the lens in question and only relied on what
    a friend said. thanks for the link.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2011
    #36
  17. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2011 12:56 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > news:4df2836a$0$12466$-secrets.com...
    > []
    >> How many years ago did he have any credibility.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > Well, Bruce/Tony /seems/ to have a lot of knowledge in some areas, and
    > some of his input has been useful, providing you take his biases into
    > account. Quite why he doesn't want to discuss the topic here isn't clear
    > to me. Of course topics do drift as can be seen from many threads here,
    > but as soon as that happens with this thread he resorts to personal
    > attacks and kill-filing me! His loss, I'm afraid.
    >


    Welcome to Brucie's kill file. there a lot of us here. I have a strong
    suspicion that he just uses his "kill file" as an excuse for not
    answering. I have seen him repeating, almost verbatim, things I and
    others in the kill file have said.
    To the extent he may have knowledge, he certainly doesn't impart it with
    anything but pontifications.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2011
    #37
  18. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2011 2:13 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-06-10 22:02:01 -0700, "David J Taylor"
    > <> said:
    >
    >> []
    >>> Now I also use the 18-200mm as my walk-around lens on my D300s.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Regards,
    >>>
    >>> Savageduck

    >>
    >> Same here, although the 16-85mm VR is another favourite if I might be
    >> indoors and wanting to photograph rooms.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David

    >
    > Along with the 18-200mm, my most used lenses are my Tokina 11-16mm
    > f/2.8; an old Nikkor 35mm f/2.0; and the new Nikkor 70-300mm VR.
    >
    > Every now and again I use the old 18-70mm from the D70. It is still a
    > strangely sharp lens given its lowly heritage.
    >
    > My least used lens is the slooooow 80-400mm.
    >


    Yes the 80-400 is slow. But, it is sharp and has nice contrast. I find
    it quite useful for any situation where the slow focus is not an issue.
    I have also learned to prefocus, decouple focus from the shutter release
    and rely upon hyper focal distance and DOF.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2011
    #38
  19. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2011 11:21 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
    > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > news:2011061106090625228-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2011-06-11 04:21:40 -0700, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    >>
    >>> In article <isv51n$jgc$>, david-
    >>> d says...
    >>>>
    >>>>> It depends on what I am doing. Mostly the 18-200mm lives on the
    >>>>> camera.
    >>>>> I normally take a bag with the three option lenses in the car. Then I
    >>>>> have a neat Columbia vest which does not signal "PHOTOGRAPHER!"
    >>>>> <
    >>>>> http://www.columbia.com/Men?s-Silver-Ridge?-Vest/AM1049,default,pd.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> with pockets large enough, so I can pocket the one most suitable of
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> options for the job. Walking around town, or at car shows usually the
    >>>>> 11-16mm. In the field or at the race track (my local track is Laguna
    >>>>> Seca at Monterey) the 70-300mm VR, and that does a fair enough job.
    >>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC5046Cfw.jpg >
    >>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4995Cfw.jpg >
    >>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC4619ECfw.jpg >
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Regards,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Savageduck
    >>>>
    >>>> Impressive pictures! It would be good if we could get more Formula 1
    >>>> racing in the US. Austin, Texas next year? As I don't travel by car any
    >>>> more, it does limit what I can take, but I like the idea of the
    >>>> Columbia
    >>>> vest so thanks for that. Wonder if you can get them or something
    >>>> similar
    >>>> in the UK? Yes, they are on Amazon UK. Thanks for that tip.
    >>>
    >>> You might want to take a look at Scott eVest
    >>> <http://www.scottevest.com/>. Not cheap, but very good quality.
    >>> Further, most people who've seen one have seen it on TV on one of the
    >>> guys guarding the President of the United States, so the vibe, if there
    >>> is one, is "bad-ass cop", not "photographer". I've carried four lenses,
    >>> 2 flashes, a 2 liter soda bottle, and a laptop computer in mine, all at
    >>> the same time, plus the usual other junk I carry (pens, pencils, Swiss
    >>> Army knife, flashlight, etc). And they do ship to the EU.

    >>
    >> I have checked the "Scottevest" and while it has all sorts of pockets,
    >> etc. it seems to be aimed at the traveling electronic warrior reducing
    >> carry-on luggage than an interim general purpose solution. Perhaps if
    >> I needed to load up with a computer, iPad, and the sort of load you
    >> describe I might go that route. However for me using the Columbia vest
    >> is not so much seeing how much I can stuff into it, but how simple it
    >> is to carry one or two extra items I cannot fit into any other pocket.
    >>
    >> When I need to turn myself into a beast of burden I use one of my
    >> other bag options such as my ThinkTank belt system, <
    >> http://www.thinktankphoto.com/ > or my Clik Elite backpack, <
    >> http://www.clikelite.com/products/ > which also make adding an
    >> optional "CamelBak" hydration bladder simple.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Savageduck

    >
    > Thanks to you and J. Clarke for your further suggestions. Next time I'm
    > in town I'll see what the photo and outdoor shops have in stock, at
    > least so I can check that size would suit.


    You might also ant to look at the LLB catalog. They have a liberal
    return policy if the product doesn't suit you needs.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2011
    #39
  20. > Welcome to Brucie's kill file. there a lot of us here. I have a strong
    > suspicion that he just uses his "kill file" as an excuse for not
    > answering. I have seen him repeating, almost verbatim, things I and
    > others in the kill file have said.
    > To the extent he may have knowledge, he certainly doesn't impart it with
    > anything but pontifications.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Peter,

    I shall enjoy being in his kill-file! I will try and avoid the temptation
    to make remarks which I know he will not read (perhaps)! It's his loss,
    after all.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 11, 2011
    #40
    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. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    940
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. Stefan Patric

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    804
    Stefan Patric
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. Xtx99
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    597
    Dave L
    Jan 13, 2005
  4. Teamhair

    Olympus D-550 Zoom problems with zoom lens

    Teamhair, Aug 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
    Teamhair
    Aug 20, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,159
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page