Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Giulia, Apr 21, 2005.

  1. Giulia

    Giulia Guest

    Hi group

    I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
    would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.

    Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
    or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.

    The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
    obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the extra
    focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
    operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
    it).

    So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra focal
    length, add a 1.4x converter.

    Any advice?
     
    Giulia, Apr 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Giulia

    Guest

    Re: Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

    Giulia wrote:
    > Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't

    get so
    > carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?


    Whatever you think is best....
     
    , Apr 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Giulia

    Giulia Guest

    Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't get so
    carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
     
    Giulia, Apr 21, 2005
    #3
  4. Giulia

    Ed Velez Guest

    Re: Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

    It doe not necessarily have to do with selling pictures as much as it is
    personal taste and expectations you are looking to achieve.

    Yes the 70-200 2.8 L IS USM is expensive (1300 or so depending on where you
    shop in the US) and at that aperature, you dont need to worry that you wont
    have enough speed to work with.

    They also make the same unit minus the IS and its a bit cheaper.

    Below that is the f4 version if you are not going to go into low light
    situations. If you are going to do sunset shots or need to take pictures
    where flash is not warranted, consider the 2.8L.

    I am in the same position right now shopping around and it can be hard to
    decide whether to go with a fast lens and IS or go a bit more vanilla.(If I
    have the extra $$ I would consider the L)

    I also read today that the weight of the 100-400 is a bit much unless you
    lift weights in your spare time. This is not to say that the 70-200 is a
    lightweight.

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Giulia wrote:
    >> Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't

    > get so
    >> carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

    >
    > Whatever you think is best....
    >
     
    Ed Velez, Apr 21, 2005
    #4
  5. Giulia

    Guest

    I've been through the very same agonizing process, and finally settled
    for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM as a do-everything kind of lens. Although
    I've only had it for a couple of weeks, I've been most favourably
    impressed with it's performance. The local photo dealer just called to
    announce that my 1.4x has finally arrived, I haven't yet picked it up,
    nor had a chance to use it.

    >Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't get so
    >carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?


    In view of your previous post, pro or not, I don't believe you will be
    at all happy with the 75-300 low-end lens. I've seen comparative photos
    posted on the internet, 70-200 vs 75-300; and even with low-rez internet
    stuff, the difference between the two lenses is readily apparent.

    The 100-400 is the other lens that captures my imagination, but that's
    simply something that going to have to wait. While it seems to be a
    great lens for it's intended purpose; the 70-200 is a lot more versatile
    as a general-purpose lens.

    >On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "Giulia" <> wrote:


    >I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
    >would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
    >
    >Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
    >or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
    >
    >The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
    >obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the extra
    >focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
    >operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
    >it).
    >
    >So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra focal
    >length, add a 1.4x converter.
    >
    >Any advice?
     
    , Apr 22, 2005
    #5
  6. Giulia

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Re: Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

    >I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
    >focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
    >Any advice?


    That's exactly what I'd do if I could have only one of those two lenses
    (wife and I have the 100-400, 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8). The extra
    two stops comes in handy many times and image quality with the 1.4x is
    still excellent.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 22, 2005
    #6
  7. Giulia

    C Wright Guest

    On 4/21/05 3:58 PM, in article , "Giulia"
    <> wrote:

    > Hi group
    >
    > I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
    > would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
    >
    > Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
    > or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
    >
    > The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
    > obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the extra
    > focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
    > operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
    > it).
    >
    > So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra focal
    > length, add a 1.4x converter.
    >
    > Any advice?
    >
    >

    I went through a similar decision process not long ago and elected to go
    with exactly what you last mention. That is the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
    plus the 1.4x converter. The lens is extremely sharp at all focal lengths
    in the range. And being able to shoot at f2.8 is a real plus in low light
    or for portraits where shallow DOF is desirable. With the 1.4x converter
    only one stop is lost and full auto focus and IS is retained. And, the IS
    *really* works! A negative about the lens is that it is fairly big and
    heavy. Since it does not move when it zooms it is essentially at its longest
    zoom position all of the time. I occasionally use the lens as a walking
    around lens; when doing that it gives me a workout (I also use it on a
    tripod a lot). I won't really knock the 100-400, but I don't like push-pull
    zooms that much. If I wanted a 400mm lens I would probably go with one of
    Canon's primes in that focal length.
    Chuck
     
    C Wright, Apr 22, 2005
    #7
  8. Giulia

    jean Guest

    "Giulia" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > Hi group
    >
    > I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
    > would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
    >
    > Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

    USM,
    > or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
    >
    > The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
    > obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the

    extra
    > focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
    > operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
    > it).
    >
    > So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra

    focal
    > length, add a 1.4x converter.
    >
    > Any advice?
    >


    The 70-200 f2,8 IS or not is a bear to carry around and I suspect the
    100-400 is too. The 75-300 IS is a very capable lens and the one I had was
    quite good. Obviously it's not as good as an "L" lens, but it is a lot less
    expensive. There is a distinct advantage to havin a cheaper lens, you can
    carry it around all the time and you will not go paranoid trying to hide it
    like the white lenses.

    Having said that, a very good compromise would be the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4X
    TC. "L" quality, not so heavy and the range is almost the same 70-200 and
    98-280, the only thing missing is the IS.

    Another alternative is the 70-300 DO IS, I have one and I regret my
    purchase. It's being repaired or adjusted for the fourth time, my old
    75-300 IS was MUCH better. If you try that one, put it trough it's paces,
    you could get a good or a bad one, I got the latter.

    If I had to do it over again, I would get the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4X TC, save
    a few bucks and later on get a 400 f5,6 L prime for those loooong shots.

    Jean
     
    jean, Apr 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Giulia

    Fyimo Guest

    Re: Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

    I had the Canon 80-200mm f2.8 L before going digital. Since going
    digital I have the f4 version and yes I wish it had IS. However, it is
    optical similar and does a great job. I figure it weighs less then
    half of its big brother and costs 1/2 as much. With digital I can
    increase the ISO to make for the 1 stop loss in the lens maximum
    aperture.

    Art
     
    Fyimo, Apr 22, 2005
    #9
  10. Giulia

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2005
    #10
  11. Giulia

    Zenophobe Guest

    Congrats on the EOS 20D and your consideration in bringing an L lens
    into its family. At the prices they demand, these lenses are an
    investment for many photogs, but the L's do hold a respectable resale
    value.

    Click around the following link and take in the atmosphere.

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx

    While the focal length of the 100-400mm can be an advantage, I feel
    the 70-200mm is optically and functionally better. What you might
    lose in distant shots (paparazzi or wildlife photographer?) you'll
    gain in quality photos. The faster lens would be superb for low-light
    situations. An excellent lens for general people shots, and what have
    you. If I were to plunk down the change I'd go with the 70-200mm
    f/2.8L IS USM in a heartbeat. I think this model has second gen. IS,
    so is auto-sensing (turns IS off) when used with a tripod. Sweet.

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "Giulia" <>
    wrote:

    >Hi group
    >
    >I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
    >would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
    >
    >Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
    >or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.


    8-< snip >-8
     
    Zenophobe, Apr 22, 2005
    #11
  12. On Thursday 21 April 2005 13:58, Giulia wrote:

    > Hi group
    >
    > I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom
    > lens would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
    >
    > Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
    > USM, or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
    >
    > The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
    > obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
    > extra focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the
    > push-pull operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have
    > heard comes with it).
    >
    > So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
    > focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
    >
    > Any advice?


    Which lens is "right" for you really depends on what you intend to use
    it for -- Wildlife? Sports? Surveillance? -- and what other lenses
    you own. But without knowing any of that, I'd go with the faster
    70-200 lens, but get a matched 2X extender instead of the 1.4. The 1.4
    only gives you a 98-280, not much different than the 70-200, but with a
    2X you get a 140-400. Granted, it's a f5.6 equivalent, but f5.6 is
    still a fairly fast aperture unless you're shooting in the dark.

    And wait before getting an extender until you've had a chance to use the
    lens a while -- several months, at least. You may find that you don't
    need the extender at all. With your 20D that 70-200 is equivalent to
    112-320 on 35mm. A 300 is a pretty long lens as general photography
    goes. I've been shooting professionally for almost 30 years, and 99%
    of all that I've ever been called on to shoot with 35mm has been done
    with just 5 prime lenses: 24, 35, 50, 85, 180 + 2X. About once or
    twice a year, I've needed longer or wider, which I rented. Most of the
    time, it was a 600 f5.6 with a matched 2X.

    --
    Stefan Patric
    NoLife Polymath Group
     
    Stefan Patric, Apr 22, 2005
    #12
  13. Giulia

    Mark² Guest

    "Stefan Patric" <> wrote in message
    news:9pfae.63212$A31.56045@fed1read03...
    > On Thursday 21 April 2005 13:58, Giulia wrote:
    >
    >> Hi group
    >>
    >> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom
    >> lens would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
    >>
    >> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
    >> USM, or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
    >>
    >> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
    >> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
    >> extra focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the
    >> push-pull operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have
    >> heard comes with it).
    >>
    >> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
    >> focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
    >>
    >> Any advice?

    >
    > Which lens is "right" for you really depends on what you intend to use
    > it for -- Wildlife? Sports? Surveillance? -- and what other lenses
    > you own. But without knowing any of that, I'd go with the faster
    > 70-200 lens, but get a matched 2X extender instead of the 1.4. The 1.4
    > only gives you a 98-280, not much different than the 70-200,


    All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
    enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body. This is more than
    enough for most people, and why I recently sold my 100-400 IS, keeping my
    70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4x extender. I think he made the right choice (and he
    followed the very advice I gave to another poster a week or two ago).
     
    Mark², Apr 23, 2005
    #13
  14. Giulia

    Confused Guest

    On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:33:13 -0700
    In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>
    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
    > enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body. This is more than
    > enough for most people, and why I recently sold my 100-400 IS, keeping my
    > 70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4x extender. I think he made the right choice (and he
    > followed the very advice I gave to another poster a week or two ago).


    I took that advise (from several off-line friends and verified
    here)... the 70-200mm IS is a great lens. However, I still use the
    75-300mm IS when I'm out-and-about in areas where famous people tend
    to congregate. In Los Angeles the 70-200 lens screams "paparazzi".

    The 75-300 IS much lighter and more versatile depending on your
    location and shooting conditions. It was a good "first tele-zoom" for
    me and I still use it. The softer image at over 200MM is good bokeh.

    Jeff
     
    Confused, Apr 23, 2005
    #14
  15. Giulia

    DM Guest

    Giulia,

    Having used both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM + 1.4 Extender for over a
    year now I can safely say if you can afford to go for this combination
    you'll not regret it. With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
    reach of 448mm and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
    the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass' (unlike the 2x
    extender).

    Also (& maybe more important) if you don't you'll probably always wish you
    had...

    Regards

    DM

    "Giulia" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi group
    >
    > I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
    > would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
    >
    > Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
    > USM,
    > or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
    >
    > The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
    > obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
    > extra
    > focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
    > operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
    > it).
    >
    > So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
    > focal
    > length, add a 1.4x converter.
    >
    > Any advice?
    >
    >
     
    DM, Apr 23, 2005
    #15
  16. Giulia

    Giulia Guest

    Cheers everyone for your comments/advise.
     
    Giulia, Apr 23, 2005
    #16
  17. Giulia

    Guest

    In message <9pfae.63212$A31.56045@fed1read03>,
    Stefan Patric <> wrote:

    >And wait before getting an extender until you've had a chance to use the
    >lens a while -- several months, at least. You may find that you don't
    >need the extender at all. With your 20D that 70-200 is equivalent to
    >112-320 on 35mm. A 300 is a pretty long lens as general photography
    >goes.


    200mm or 320mm(35mm equiv) is very short, though, for shooting small,
    wild animals. If you shoot these things, you never have enough.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 23, 2005
    #17
  18. Giulia

    Guest

    In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>,
    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    >All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
    >enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body.


    .... which is not meaningful at all, if you're not entrenched in 35mm
    jargon. If you are not, a 400mm lens has exactly 1/2 the angle of view
    of a 200mm lens; there is no 640- or 320- anything of significance.

    This whole "equivalence" crutch is very disturbing to me.

    A: I have a 400mm lens!

    B: A has a 640mm lens!

    C: A has a 1024mm lens!

    D: A has a 1638.4mm lens!


    Let's just call it what it is, a 400mm lens, and note the sensor size as
    well, when necessary. What really should have become standard is some
    kind of reciprocal of diagonal view angle at infinity, calculated from
    medium diameter and focal length, scaled so that all practical lenses
    have a value greater than 1.

    One might say that someday all DSLRs will have 36*24mm frames, and that
    the transition back would be easier if we used 35-mm equivalences in the
    meantime. I'm sure that if that happens, there will be so many more
    pixels that it would be better to think of it as a larger capture area,
    which is what it really is. Basically, I am against "knowledge"
    shortcuts that cloud understanding.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 23, 2005
    #18
  19. Giulia

    Guest

    In message <EKjae.17926$>,
    "DM" <> wrote:

    >With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
    >reach of 448mm


    Why do we have to keep saying this? Do you even know that she is
    entrenched in 35mm associations? If not, that is totally meaningless to
    her. Personally, I am getting really tired of people saying, "that is
    really like 1.6x mm", when all my thought and mental scaling is totally
    independent of 35mm film.

    Reach is only proportional to the reciprocal of the angle of view, or to
    "35mm equivalence", in the viewfinder. In the captured image, "reach"
    needs to be backed up by lens and medium resolution, or it is
    meaningless. What good is a "reach of 1000mm" if it takes 6 pixels to
    go from white to black, when the original analog scene did it in an
    angle represented by 1/4 pixel? You didn't "reach" any more detail.

    >and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
    >the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass' (unlike the 2x
    >extender).


    Most of the blame that goes to TCs is usually really from the main lens.
    If it doesn't have more detail than the capture medium can capture
    without the TC, the TC is only going to lose light, possibly forcing you
    to a faster shutter speed for even more loss, giving you an image that
    isn't much better than cropping an image from the main lens without the
    TC (or even worse, if it forces the lens' aperture wide open in Tv
    mode). Apparently, good TCs aren't really that hard to design and
    build, as the main lens does most of the focusing work.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 23, 2005
    #19
  20. Giulia

    Mark² Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>,
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >>All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
    >>enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body.

    >
    > ... which is not meaningful at all, if you're not entrenched in 35mm
    > jargon. If you are not, a 400mm lens has exactly 1/2 the angle of view
    > of a 200mm lens; there is no 640- or 320- anything of significance.
    >
    > This whole "equivalence" crutch is very disturbing to me.
    >
    > A: I have a 400mm lens!
    >
    > B: A has a 640mm lens!
    >
    > C: A has a 1024mm lens!
    >
    > D: A has a 1638.4mm lens!
    >
    >
    > Let's just call it what it is, a 400mm lens, and note the sensor size as
    > well, when necessary. What really should have become standard is some
    > kind of reciprocal of diagonal view angle at infinity, calculated from
    > medium diameter and focal length, scaled so that all practical lenses
    > have a value greater than 1.
    >
    > One might say that someday all DSLRs will have 36*24mm frames, and that
    > the transition back would be easier if we used 35-mm equivalences in the
    > meantime. I'm sure that if that happens, there will be so many more
    > pixels that it would be better to think of it as a larger capture area,
    > which is what it really is. Basically, I am against "knowledge"
    > shortcuts that cloud understanding.


    I am not participating in some sort of "knowledge shortcut." I am well
    aware of the issues at hand involving the differences between actual focal
    length...and the perception of it via the crop factor. At this point in the
    LONG history of discussions/arguments about the crop factor, etc., I think
    you can calmly move beyond your disturbance due to the following:

    The fact is that the crop factor performs the function most people are drawn
    to tele lenses for--that of "spending their pixels" on a smaller portion of
    a given scene...which is essentially what teles do--they "spend their light
    capture" on a smaller portion of a scene, and then focus that light on your
    film/sensor plane.

    While it is most certainly true that your actual focal length is NOT changed
    at all by the crop factor, the real-world application of this translates to
    a use that is very similar in that you end up using all your resoution on
    that small scene element.

    Here's an example:

    Assume you have two DSLRs.
    Both are 8MP...but one is full-frame, and the other is a smaller 1.6 crop
    factor sensor.
    Now shoot an image of a distant bird, or other subject from the same
    position.

    Result:
    The full frame sensor will render the bird with fewer of it's pixels because
    it will "spend" many pixels on the surrounding scene. This will result in a
    need to crop the image later in order to produce the same printed
    enlargement...but with a smaler number of pixels at your disposal.

    Meanwhile, the crop-factored 8MP sensor will spend a greater portion of it's
    pixels on the bird, simply because it's using it's full resoution on a
    smaller portion of the scene.

    In this sense, you are accomplishing via "spent pixels" what only a longer
    tele could have done on the full-frame sensor.
    This is why it's not really as bad as you imply...to speak in these terms.

    -Mark
     
    Mark², Apr 23, 2005
    #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. Alien Clumps

    Canon Lense Recommendation: 400 5.6 (non-IS) -or- 100-400 IS

    Alien Clumps, Sep 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    432
    Bill Hilton
    Sep 20, 2004
  2. Don

    100 to 400 IS L series v 400 L series

    Don, Dec 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    302
  3. Tod
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    520
    measekite
    Mar 2, 2005
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,924
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,002
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page