Re: Canon 300D...... LENSES?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Linda_N, Oct 10, 2004.

  1. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "Tony" <> wrote in message
    news:7UM9d.19692$...
    > Sigma lenses are at their best on paper. Once you put them on a camera
    > they
    > tend to look poorer and poorer.
    >

    That's one opinion not shared by all. For the new lenses announced I'll wait
    with opinion until I have a change to try them or until a known reviewer of
    lenses does and comments, or until enough that purchased them have provided
    feedback. If they turn out to be as good as, or better than like offerings
    by Canon, I'll not have a problem buying them at the 'assumed' cheaper price
    they will retail for. If Canon is the same price, same quality and
    performance than I'd tend to stick with Canon just out of habit.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Linda_N

    Tony Guest

    Sigma is at the absolute worst when it comes to compatibility with later
    bodies. Remember the Sigma lens that appears cheaper will get more expensive
    when it fails to work on your next camera. Here is my experience with Sigma.
    You may ignore it if you wish, but don't say you weren't warned.
    Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
    current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
    A friend sent them a lens that took six months to re-chip and it came
    back ready to go on his Elan II but then would not work on my EOS 3 - a
    model that was on the market when the lens was sent in for re-chipping.
    Sigma would not re-chip it a second time.
    My own Sigma lens that was "Too old" to rechip - it was six years old. I
    was still using my 13 year old first Canon zoom on our fifth Canon body at
    the time so I have a different view of "old" than the slime buckets at
    Sigma.
    You are trading price for performance AND for permanence. Sigma is always
    a bad deal.

    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


    "Linda_N" <> wrote in message
    news:ECaad.3299$...
    > "Tony" <> wrote in message
    > news:7UM9d.19692$...
    > > Sigma lenses are at their best on paper. Once you put them on a camera
    > > they
    > > tend to look poorer and poorer.
    > >

    > That's one opinion not shared by all. For the new lenses announced I'll

    wait
    > with opinion until I have a change to try them or until a known reviewer

    of
    > lenses does and comments, or until enough that purchased them have

    provided
    > feedback. If they turn out to be as good as, or better than like offerings
    > by Canon, I'll not have a problem buying them at the 'assumed' cheaper

    price
    > they will retail for. If Canon is the same price, same quality and
    > performance than I'd tend to stick with Canon just out of habit.
    >
    > Linda
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Linda_N

    Guest

    In message <Twhad.56114$>,
    "Tony" <> wrote:

    >Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    >save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
    >current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    >re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.


    But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
    EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
    them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
    figured it out completely.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Twhad.56114$>,
    > "Tony" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    >>save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
    >>current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    >>re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

    >
    > But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
    > EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
    > them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
    > figured it out completely.
    > --


    I'm trying to hunt down the article I read on one of the tech wires that
    said exactly this. Sigma has cleaned its act up in the past few years
    (2001/02) and as a result is a serious contender for the mass consumer
    market (now the most profitable market to control in electronics in general,
    not just digi cams [including dSLR]), the same one Canon and Nikon are
    trying to cut into with mass consumer level lenses.

    The article did mention that Sigma would have to work extra hard because of
    its poor performance in years past, but also noted that with the mass
    consumption of digital cameras growing the greatest from 2003 - 2004 (when
    Sigma has done well) Sigma picked the perfect time to start performing in
    2001/02. Those masses just entering into digital photography (never did dSLR
    film previously) will care little or even know of Sigma's past performance,
    they'll only care what they can get for reasonable prices today.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 11, 2004
    #4

  5. > Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    > save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
    > current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    > re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
    >

    Wrong, Sigma, Tamron et al pay licencing fees, otherwise they would be sued
    for Patent infrigement (Just ask Kodak about that!).
     
    ~Darrell Larose~, Oct 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Linda_N

    Big Bill Guest

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:46:27 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <Twhad.56114$>,
    >"Tony" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    >>save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
    >>current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    >>re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

    >
    >But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
    >EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
    >them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
    >figured it out completely.


    Do a Google search using the words, Digital Rebel Problems.
    Check the answers to see what the most often voiced problem is.

    For those who are Google Challenged, it's Sigma Lenses.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Oct 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Linda_N

    Big Bill Guest

    On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:08:45 -0400, "~Darrell Larose~" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >> Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    >> save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
    >> current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    >> re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
    >>

    >Wrong, Sigma, Tamron et al pay licencing fees, otherwise they would be sued
    >for Patent infrigement (Just ask Kodak about that!).
    >
    >

    Whether they (Sigma) do or not, their lenses are the most frequently
    voiced problems with the Digital Rebel based on a Google search for
    Digital Rebel Problems.
    If Sigma does indeed pay for Canon's information, then they are even
    worse than I imagined, since they get it so wrong in their lenses when
    used on Canon cameras.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Oct 11, 2004
    #7
  8. On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:41:17 -0700, Big Bill <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:08:45 -0400, "~Darrell Larose~" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>> Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    >>> save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on a
    >>> current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    >>> re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.
    >>>

    >>Wrong, Sigma, Tamron et al pay licencing fees, otherwise they would be sued
    >>for Patent infrigement (Just ask Kodak about that!).
    >>
    >>

    >Whether they (Sigma) do or not, their lenses are the most frequently
    >voiced problems with the Digital Rebel based on a Google search for
    >Digital Rebel Problems.
    >If Sigma does indeed pay for Canon's information, then they are even
    >worse than I imagined, since they get it so wrong in their lenses when
    >used on Canon cameras.


    Sigma does not pay licensing fees, they reverse engineer their lens
    mounts to Canon's bodies. Consequently they don't necessarily use the
    full code that Canon does. Which is exactly why they need re-chipping,
    and is exactly why they are not infringing patent.

    G
    >
    >Bill Funk
    >Change "g" to "a"
     
    grant kinsley, Oct 12, 2004
    #8
  9. Linda_N

    Tony Guest

    I don't think they give a damn. And Canon does add new features to the mount
    which they can do as their own lenses are fully compatible - not fudged by
    someone looking to save a couple bucks.

    --
    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

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <Twhad.56114$>,
    > "Tony" <> wrote:
    >
    > >Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    > >save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on

    a
    > >current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    > >re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

    >
    > But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
    > EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
    > them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
    > figured it out completely.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    Tony, Oct 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Linda_N

    Tony Guest

    And who wrote the article? Who employed whomsoever wrote it? How much
    Sigma advertising was in the magazine or on the website that published the
    article? In a world where Herbert Keppler has been "discovering" great
    bargains for 40 years, and guess what SUCHANDSUCH store has just found
    another 10,000 of them to sell! I don't trust anything that cannot be
    verified by other REAL people. The world is full of flaks out pushing crap -
    like Sigma.

    --
    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

    "Linda_N" <> wrote in message
    news:cHvad.3331$...
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In message <Twhad.56114$>,
    > > "Tony" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Sigma reverse engineers the mounts in order to
    > >>save a few buck on license fees - consequently a Sigma that will work on

    a
    > >>current model might not work on future models. Sigma claims they will
    > >>re-chip lenses but they fudge this too.

    > >
    > > But don't you think that eventually they will discover all of the
    > > EOS-mount secrets? They are not infinite. They may have discovered
    > > them already. Lots of people feel that as of about 2001 Sigma has
    > > figured it out completely.
    > > --

    >
    > I'm trying to hunt down the article I read on one of the tech wires that
    > said exactly this. Sigma has cleaned its act up in the past few years
    > (2001/02) and as a result is a serious contender for the mass consumer
    > market (now the most profitable market to control in electronics in

    general,
    > not just digi cams [including dSLR]), the same one Canon and Nikon are
    > trying to cut into with mass consumer level lenses.
    >
    > The article did mention that Sigma would have to work extra hard because

    of
    > its poor performance in years past, but also noted that with the mass
    > consumption of digital cameras growing the greatest from 2003 - 2004 (when
    > Sigma has done well) Sigma picked the perfect time to start performing in
    > 2001/02. Those masses just entering into digital photography (never did

    dSLR
    > film previously) will care little or even know of Sigma's past

    performance,
    > they'll only care what they can get for reasonable prices today.
    >
    > Linda
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Linda_N

    Guest

    In message <V_Had.20850$>,
    "Tony" <> wrote:

    >I don't think they give a damn. And Canon does add new features to the mount
    >which they can do as their own lenses are fully compatible - not fudged by
    >someone looking to save a couple bucks.


    The details of the EOS mount are finite. Get it? All secrets may be
    discovered, or already have been. This isn't fairy-tale magic.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Linda_N

    Tony Guest

    Everything in the mount is finite - save for the cheapness of Sigma. There
    is no indication they have the vaguest idea what they are doing or intend to
    change their ways. If you wish to believe I suggest you go to church where
    belief usually does not lead to throwing away stuff that has gone
    incompatible.
    If you wish to believe in the Great God Sigma - Then go forth and buy all
    the Sigma lenses you want - but don't expect anyone else to recommend crap
    just because you are willing to.

    --
    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

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <V_Had.20850$>,
    > "Tony" <> wrote:
    >
    > >I don't think they give a damn. And Canon does add new features to the

    mount
    > >which they can do as their own lenses are fully compatible - not fudged

    by
    > >someone looking to save a couple bucks.

    >
    > The details of the EOS mount are finite. Get it? All secrets may be
    > discovered, or already have been. This isn't fairy-tale magic.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    Tony, Oct 12, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <40abd.3397$>, Linda_N
    <> wrote:

    > In your case you have decided Sigma lenses have zero to offer you, and
    > that's fine for you. In my case what I've researched indicates that Sigma,
    > like any company selling optics, has some lemons and some good product that
    > will suit my wants. It is therefore in my best interest to research lenses
    > in the class I'm interested in from both Sigma and Canon before deciding on
    > 1 so that I make the best decision to fill my needs. The less limited my
    > options are before the research starts the more likely it is that I will end
    > up with (or more than) what I had hoped for in the first place.


    Sigma is always the wrong choice.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 13, 2004
    #13
  14. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "Tony" <> wrote in message
    news:S1Iad.20851$...
    > And who wrote the article? Who employed whomsoever wrote it? How much
    > Sigma advertising was in the magazine or on the website that published the
    > article? In a world where Herbert Keppler has been "discovering" great
    > bargains for 40 years, and guess what SUCHANDSUCH store has just found
    > another 10,000 of them to sell! I don't trust anything that cannot be
    > verified by other REAL people. The world is full of flaks out pushing
    > crap -
    > like Sigma.
    >

    If I knew who wrote it I would not be having trouble finding it again :)

    I'd venture to guess the average person knows not to believe everything you
    read/hear/see until other sources of information are investigated. I'd also
    venture to guess that most people know at some point they have stop
    researching to make a decision to put their support behind someone/something
    for their own advancement.

    In your case you have decided Sigma lenses have zero to offer you, and
    that's fine for you. In my case what I've researched indicates that Sigma,
    like any company selling optics, has some lemons and some good product that
    will suit my wants. It is therefore in my best interest to research lenses
    in the class I'm interested in from both Sigma and Canon before deciding on
    1 so that I make the best decision to fill my needs. The less limited my
    options are before the research starts the more likely it is that I will end
    up with (or more than) what I had hoped for in the first place.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 13, 2004
    #14
  15. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <V_Had.20850$>,
    > "Tony" <> wrote:
    >
    >>I don't think they give a damn. And Canon does add new features to the
    >>mount
    >>which they can do as their own lenses are fully compatible - not fudged by
    >>someone looking to save a couple bucks.

    >
    > The details of the EOS mount are finite. Get it? All secrets may be
    > discovered, or already have been. This isn't fairy-tale magic.
    > --

    Good point, JPS.

    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 13, 2004
    #15
  16. Linda_N

    Linda_N Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:131020040635132587%...
    > In article <40abd.3397$>, Linda_N
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> In your case you have decided Sigma lenses have zero to offer you, and
    >> that's fine for you. In my case what I've researched indicates that
    >> Sigma,
    >> like any company selling optics, has some lemons and some good product
    >> that
    >> will suit my wants. It is therefore in my best interest to research
    >> lenses
    >> in the class I'm interested in from both Sigma and Canon before deciding
    >> on
    >> 1 so that I make the best decision to fill my needs. The less limited my
    >> options are before the research starts the more likely it is that I will
    >> end
    >> up with (or more than) what I had hoped for in the first place.

    >
    > Sigma is always the wrong choice.[...for you]


    Linda
     
    Linda_N, Oct 13, 2004
    #16
  17. Linda_N

    Guest

    In message <131020040635132587%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    >In article <40abd.3397$>, Linda_N
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> In your case you have decided Sigma lenses have zero to offer you, and
    >> that's fine for you. In my case what I've researched indicates that Sigma,
    >> like any company selling optics, has some lemons and some good product that
    >> will suit my wants. It is therefore in my best interest to research lenses
    >> in the class I'm interested in from both Sigma and Canon before deciding on
    >> 1 so that I make the best decision to fill my needs. The less limited my
    >> options are before the research starts the more likely it is that I will end
    >> up with (or more than) what I had hoped for in the first place.

    >
    >Sigma is always the wrong choice.


    Who makes a sharper 15-30mm class zoom than Sigma, in its price range?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 13, 2004
    #17
  18. Linda_N

    Tony Guest

    My case is based on direct experience with Sigma. What I have found is that
    Sigma is untrustworthy by being directly SCREWED. Your research is just
    reading and looking at charts. You can waste all the money you like on
    Sigma, but remember you were warned, and should anyone else read this,
    remember Ms. N. is not speaking from experience and is therefore not a
    reliable source.

    --
    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

    "Linda_N" <> wrote in message
    news:40abd.3397$...
    >
    > "Tony" <> wrote in message
    > news:S1Iad.20851$...
    > > And who wrote the article? Who employed whomsoever wrote it? How much
    > > Sigma advertising was in the magazine or on the website that published

    the
    > > article? In a world where Herbert Keppler has been "discovering" great
    > > bargains for 40 years, and guess what SUCHANDSUCH store has just found
    > > another 10,000 of them to sell! I don't trust anything that cannot be
    > > verified by other REAL people. The world is full of flaks out pushing
    > > crap -
    > > like Sigma.
    > >

    > If I knew who wrote it I would not be having trouble finding it again :)
    >
    > I'd venture to guess the average person knows not to believe everything

    you
    > read/hear/see until other sources of information are investigated. I'd

    also
    > venture to guess that most people know at some point they have stop
    > researching to make a decision to put their support behind

    someone/something
    > for their own advancement.
    >
    > In your case you have decided Sigma lenses have zero to offer you, and
    > that's fine for you. In my case what I've researched indicates that Sigma,
    > like any company selling optics, has some lemons and some good product

    that
    > will suit my wants. It is therefore in my best interest to research lenses
    > in the class I'm interested in from both Sigma and Canon before deciding

    on
    > 1 so that I make the best decision to fill my needs. The less limited my
    > options are before the research starts the more likely it is that I will

    end
    > up with (or more than) what I had hoped for in the first place.
    >
    > Linda
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Linda_N

    Tony Guest

    Who makes one that will last longer? Who makes one that will not fall
    apart? Who makes one that will be compatible with the next body you buy?
    For that matter - Who says the Sigma is noticably sharper?
    --
    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

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <131020040635132587%>,
    > Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <40abd.3397$>, Linda_N
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >> In your case you have decided Sigma lenses have zero to offer you, and
    > >> that's fine for you. In my case what I've researched indicates that

    Sigma,
    > >> like any company selling optics, has some lemons and some good product

    that
    > >> will suit my wants. It is therefore in my best interest to research

    lenses
    > >> in the class I'm interested in from both Sigma and Canon before

    deciding on
    > >> 1 so that I make the best decision to fill my needs. The less limited

    my
    > >> options are before the research starts the more likely it is that I

    will end
    > >> up with (or more than) what I had hoped for in the first place.

    > >
    > >Sigma is always the wrong choice.

    >
    > Who makes a sharper 15-30mm class zoom than Sigma, in its price range?
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    Tony, Oct 14, 2004
    #19
  20. Linda_N

    Tony Guest

    Not a good point at all. Canon KNOWS what is going on in that mount and
    there is no indication of any sort that the aholes at Sigma have figured it
    out. Going on past history they have not only not figured it out but have
    decided that they don't really care. They sold the lens, why should they be
    bothered modernizing it?
    Linda - I'm almost certain at this point that you are Preddy in another
    disguise. There is somethign trollish about your devotion to Sigma.

    --
    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

    "Linda_N" <> wrote in message
    news:d3abd.3398$...
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In message <V_Had.20850$>,
    > > "Tony" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>I don't think they give a damn. And Canon does add new features to the
    > >>mount
    > >>which they can do as their own lenses are fully compatible - not fudged

    by
    > >>someone looking to save a couple bucks.

    > >
    > > The details of the EOS mount are finite. Get it? All secrets may be
    > > discovered, or already have been. This isn't fairy-tale magic.
    > > --

    > Good point, JPS.
    >
    > Linda
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Oct 14, 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. Bryce

    Canon 300D and lenses from Rebel 1993-4ish

    Bryce, Aug 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    371
    Thor Henning Wegener
    Aug 25, 2003
  2. Witters©

    Lenses for use with the canon 300D

    Witters©, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    607
    Mark B.
    Oct 26, 2003
  3. Hans Joergensen

    Hong Kong prices on 300D, Canon S40+S45 + equipment for the 300D

    Hans Joergensen, Jan 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,546
    =?Big5-HKSCS?B?uXG4o6RwpGw=?=
    Jan 26, 2004
  4. Creeper

    Canon 300D...... LENSES?

    Creeper, Sep 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,893
  5. Linda_N

    Re: Canon 300D...... LENSES?

    Linda_N, Oct 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    965
    Linda_N
    Oct 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page