Which lenses to go with

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sgtdisturbed, Jan 22, 2007.

  1. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
    threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
    Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
    70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good
    candidates for landscaping, and the 3 zoom lenses for some sneaky
    nature shots of birds and such. Now, before someone goes off and fires
    off "get the 18-200mm VR", I don't have that kind of money, as you can
    tell from my selection of lenses, but I need a wide and a zoom to get
    me by until I do buy a 18-200mm VR (which will probably be 5 years from
    now). I have only seen a couple of reviews on these lenses, but I need
    to know based on ownership which of these lens candidates would you
    choose for a wide and a zoom, and is there possibly another company
    that could meet or beat the price/performance ratio of any of these
    wide and zoom lenses (I'm not too sure about Tamron. I've heard about
    some crazy distortion issues, along with zooms that don't match their
    specs).

    I have heard great things about both the 18-55 and 18-70 Nikon lenses,
    and most seem to lean towards the 18-70 due to build quality. I am
    aware of the 18-55 having a plastic mount (and probably not that of
    Polycarbonate, which is what a lot of newer firearms are partly
    constructed of, including Glocks and the M16/M16A2), and I believe the
    55-200 also has a plastic mount.

    After my horrific experience with the Sigma 18-50 & 55-200mm kit lenses
    (one kit for 200 bucks), I am very cautious about buying a Sigma,
    seeing as the images were retardedly soft at 200mm and at 18mm, so much
    in fact that they were unusable, but if you think that the Sigma 70-300
    APO Macro is a good lens, and if you have some experience with it,
    kindly let me know. Image samples and comparison pics would be helpful.
     
    sgtdisturbed, Jan 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    >Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
    >threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
    >Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
    >70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good

    ....


    The Nikkor 18-70mm is the right one on the wide end.

    But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
    Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
    one, find a used one.

    It make take awhile to explore the depths of what that 80-200mm
    can do, but they are one of the best buys ever in a good chunk
    of optical glass.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    > >Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
    > >threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
    > >Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
    > >70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good

    > ...
    >
    >
    > The Nikkor 18-70mm is the right one on the wide end.
    >
    > But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
    > Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
    > one, find a used one.
    >


    I DEFINITELY can't afford that lens, even used. What I'm asking is
    which lens of the ones that I listed would you go for.
     
    sgtdisturbed, Jan 22, 2007
    #3
  4. sgtdisturbed

    sgtdisturbed Guest

    > But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
    > Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
    > one, find a used one.
    >


    I DEFINITELY can't afford that lens, even used. What I'm asking is
    which lens of the ones that I listed would you go for.
     
    sgtdisturbed, Jan 22, 2007
    #4
  5. "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    >> But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
    >> Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
    >> one, find a used one.
    >>

    >
    >I DEFINITELY can't afford that lens, even used. What I'm asking is
    >which lens of the ones that I listed would you go for.


    Of the longer lenses... well to be honest I'd pass on all of
    them. I'd keep saving my lunch money if it is down to that! :)

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320074589663

    True that is $500 and none of the others you are looking at will
    cost more than $200, but you can expect several years of service
    from a good lense and spread over even a little as two or three
    years that is not actually a significant difference in price.
    There is a *huge* difference in the quality of the lense though,
    and it *will* show up in what you can produce.

    It greatly depends on one's style of photography, but for my
    purposes I would go for the 80-200mm first, and then look at
    what I could get to make do in the shorter focal length range...
    even to the point of waiting a few months to even get another
    lense, if that is what it required.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 22, 2007
    #5
  6. sgtdisturbed

    Paul Rubin Guest

    (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
    > Of the longer lenses... well to be honest I'd pass on all of
    > them. I'd keep saving my lunch money if it is down to that! :)
    >
    > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320074589663


    There were several versions of the 80-200 and I've lost track but I
    think that may be the original, not-so-desirable one with very slow AF
    and with no tripod collar (unfortunate in a lens of this size). The
    one you want is the D version with the tripod collar, IIRC. I think
    I'd hold out for it since it's not that much more expensive.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
    >> Of the longer lenses... well to be honest I'd pass on all of
    >> them. I'd keep saving my lunch money if it is down to that! :)
    >>
    >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320074589663

    >
    >There were several versions of the 80-200 and I've lost track but I
    >think that may be the original, not-so-desirable one with very slow AF
    >and with no tripod collar (unfortunate in a lens of this size). The
    >one you want is the D version with the tripod collar, IIRC. I think
    >I'd hold out for it since it's not that much more expensive.


    Opps, that is indeed one of the older versions (a push-pull
    zoom). I was thinking that only the "right" version had ED
    glass... which isn't the case.

    Whatever, while the desirable version typically runs $600-700,
    they occasionally do go for $500-600, or even less on rare
    occasions. Patience is necessary...

    Here are two recent items, both for less than $600, that are one
    of the two desirable versions.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300069075476
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230075594052

    These are not marked as "silent wave". At least some versions
    are marked on the name plate. I don't consider that to be as
    significant as features such as the tripod collar and separate
    focus and zoom rings, but for some people it might well be.

    For $600-625, there a lots of them being sold.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 22, 2007
    #7
  8. sgtdisturbed

    tomm42 Guest

    On Jan 21, 11:25 pm, "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    > Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
    > threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
    > Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
    > 70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good
    > candidates for landscaping, and the 3 zoom lenses for some sneaky
    > nature shots of birds and such. Now, before someone goes off and fires
    > off "get the 18-200mm VR", I don't have that kind of money, as you can
    > tell from my selection of lenses, but I need a wide and a zoom to get
    > me by until I do buy a 18-200mm VR (which will probably be 5 years from
    > now). I have only seen a couple of reviews on these lenses, but I need
    > to know based on ownership which of these lens candidates would you
    > choose for a wide and a zoom, and is there possibly another company
    > that could meet or beat the price/performance ratio of any of these
    > wide and zoom lenses (I'm not too sure about Tamron. I've heard about
    > some crazy distortion issues, along with zooms that don't match their
    > specs).
    >
    > I have heard great things about both the 18-55 and 18-70 Nikon lenses,
    > and most seem to lean towards the 18-70 due to build quality. I am
    > aware of the 18-55 having a plastic mount (and probably not that of
    > Polycarbonate, which is what a lot of newer firearms are partly
    > constructed of, including Glocks and the M16/M16A2), and I believe the
    > 55-200 also has a plastic mount.
    >
    > After my horrific experience with the Sigma 18-50 & 55-200mm kit lenses
    > (one kit for 200 bucks), I am very cautious about buying a Sigma,
    > seeing as the images were retardedly soft at 200mm and at 18mm, so much
    > in fact that they were unusable, but if you think that the Sigma 70-300
    > APO Macro is a good lens, and if you have some experience with it,
    > kindly let me know. Image samples and comparison pics would be helpful.


    The 18-70 is definitely the the wide lens to go with. I'd suggest
    getting the the 55-200, cheap and plastic. By the time the 55-200 wears
    out you will have save enough $ for either the 70-300VR or a used
    80-200 (later model used $600-700). If you don't want to deal with Ebay
    check KEH.com, a very reputable company.
    There is variation in especially cheap lenses the 18-70 seems to be the
    exception, but be critical of the 55-200, the reviews have varied on
    this lens from junk to 'great buy" so I expect a big sample variance
    with this lens. The same goes with Sigma lenses, very well known for
    sample variance. So if the lens doesn't seem clear take it back.
    As for the 18-200, don't bother. the 18-70 is better at wide and any of
    the telephotos we have suggested are better, except maybe the 55-200.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jan 22, 2007
    #8
  9. sgtdisturbed

    THO Guest

    In article <>,
    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

    > "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:
    > >> But at that point I would *highly* suggest you look at the
    > >> Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED zoom. If you can't afford a new
    > >> one, find a used one.

    > >
    > >I DEFINITELY can't afford that lens, even used. What I'm asking is
    > >which lens of the ones that I listed would you go for.

    >
    > True that is $500 and none of the others you are looking at will
    > cost more than $200, but you can expect several years of service
    > from a good lense and spread over even a little as two or three
    > years that is not actually a significant difference in price.
    > There is a *huge* difference in the quality of the lense though,
    > and it *will* show up in what you can produce.
    >
    > It greatly depends on one's style of photography, but for my
    > purposes I would go for the 80-200mm first, and then look at
    > what I could get to make do in the shorter focal length range...
    > even to the point of waiting a few months to even get another
    > lense, if that is what it required.


    Jeez, talk about persistent. He already said twice what he can afford!
     
    THO, Jan 27, 2007
    #9
  10. sgtdisturbed

    THO Guest

    In article <>,
    "sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:

    > Ya I have been racking my brains on this and have started a couple of
    > threads about a few different lenses, and I am down to these lenses:
    > Nikon 18-70 DX ED, 18-55 DX ED, 55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma
    > 70-300 APO Macro. I am looking at the 2 wide angle lenses as good
    > candidates for landscaping, and the 3 zoom lenses for some sneaky
    > nature shots of birds and such. Now, before someone goes off and fires
    > off "get the 18-200mm VR", I don't have that kind of money, as you can
    > tell from my selection of lenses, but I need a wide and a zoom to get
    > me by until I do buy a 18-200mm VR (which will probably be 5 years from
    > now). I have only seen a couple of reviews on these lenses, but I need
    > to know based on ownership which of these lens candidates would you
    > choose for a wide and a zoom, and is there possibly another company
    > that could meet or beat the price/performance ratio of any of these
    > wide and zoom lenses (I'm not too sure about Tamron. I've heard about
    > some crazy distortion issues, along with zooms that don't match their
    > specs).
    >
    > I have heard great things about both the 18-55 and 18-70 Nikon lenses,
    > and most seem to lean towards the 18-70 due to build quality. I am
    > aware of the 18-55 having a plastic mount (and probably not that of
    > Polycarbonate, which is what a lot of newer firearms are partly
    > constructed of, including Glocks and the M16/M16A2), and I believe the
    > 55-200 also has a plastic mount.
    >
    > After my horrific experience with the Sigma 18-50 & 55-200mm kit lenses
    > (one kit for 200 bucks), I am very cautious about buying a Sigma,
    > seeing as the images were retardedly soft at 200mm and at 18mm, so much
    > in fact that they were unusable, but if you think that the Sigma 70-300
    > APO Macro is a good lens, and if you have some experience with it,
    > kindly let me know. Image samples and comparison pics would be helpful.


    After reading the other posts, I'll chime in. As you're tempted to do,
    avoid the Sigmas. Of the Nikon lenses that you're looking at, the best
    bet would be the 18-70 and the 70-300. If you can't afford both of those
    lenses at once and are still inclined to purchase two zooms right away,
    you might want to consider which zoom range you have used most
    frequently in your photography. For example, if you're more into
    telephotos, you could buy the better quality 70-300 and the lesser
    quality 18-55 now, and then save up later for a better quality wide
    zoom.

    Don't let the obsession in this newsgroup with the higher priced lenses
    dissuade you. Good luck with your purchases!
     
    THO, Jan 27, 2007
    #10
  11. THO <.23.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >Jeez, talk about persistent. He already said twice what he can afford!


    He can't afford to waste money buying the *wrong* lenses.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 27, 2007
    #11
  12. sgtdisturbed

    THO Guest

    In article <>,
    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

    > THO <.23.invalid> wrote:
    > >
    > >Jeez, talk about persistent. He already said twice what he can afford!

    >
    > He can't afford to waste money buying the *wrong* lenses.


    Let's put things into perspective. We each know what we can and can't
    afford. There are things that have to come first before photography --
    food, shelter, clothing, education, health costs, child raising, auto,
    etc. They are priorities over non-essentials such as hobbies. If you're
    barely making ends meet, you may be lucky to save up that couple hundred
    for a low-end lens. The OP knows what he can afford and if he thought
    that he could afford more than low and mid lenses, then he would have
    listed lenses in a higher price range as options. (People with spare
    cash laying around don't buy the plastic mount 18-55.)

    Let's also be real -- what percentage of photographers really have the
    skill to properly use the unwieldy 80-200 2.8 lens? If you're not an
    advanced amateur, semi-pro, or pro, the 80-200 doesn't belong on a list
    of suggested lenses. How many 100 lb grandmothers pull out their 80-200
    when they need to take photos of the grandkids?
     
    THO, Jan 28, 2007
    #12
  13. sgtdisturbed

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:56:53 -0500, THO wrote:

    >> He can't afford to waste money buying the *wrong* lenses.

    >
    > Let's put things into perspective. We each know what we can and can't
    > afford. There are things that have to come first before photography --


    Yes, you've made several good points, and too many posters either
    choose to ignore the questions asked or don't pay close attention,
    preferring to talk instead about their own interests or preferences.
    But even when impractical advice may be given, such as to buy "the
    unwieldy 80-200 2.8 lens", such advice can still sometimes provide
    good perspective on how different lenses stack up, what you may or
    may not get for your money. It's not very useful though if nobody
    answers the OP's questions. As long as there are a couple of good,
    pertinent answers, the less useful ones can either be ignored, or
    they can be mined for whatever value they may contain, which might
    either prompt additional questions or be of some use in the future.

    My own comment about Floyd's above reply is that he can't possibly
    know what an OP can or can't afford to get. Even though he may
    detest some particular lens, and some buyers may later regret
    getting that lens because it's the wrong lens for them, it may not
    be the wrong lens for others. They may be very pleased with it and
    put it to very good use. No attempt was made to determine if the
    lens of interest to the OP would really be the wrong lens for him.
    Even though the 80-200 f/2.8 lens is considered to be "better", it's
    not better for all uses. Even if the OP could afford it, the types
    of pictures he takes might not really benefit from what the bigger
    lens provides, such as quicker focusing, better low light
    performance, etc. For most photographers looking for a good,
    lightweight walkaround lens, the expensive f/2.8 lens, even if
    affordable would probably be the *wrong* lens for them. The OP also
    seems to know quite a bit more about what he might need than the
    average novice, so it seems a bit arrogant to presume what lenses
    might be right or wrong for him. I too would get the 18-200 VR
    instead of the 80-200 f/2.8 unless there was a great and specific
    need for that lens. If I had the money and did get it, I'd still
    hate having to lug it around (I prefer smaller, lighter cameras) and
    might end up getting the 18-200 VR anyway, using it most of the time
    when the bigger lens wouldn't be required. For me, the 80-200 f/2.8
    lens would be the *wrong* lens, and I couldn't afford to waste money
    buying it, for more than the obvious reason.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 28, 2007
    #13
  14. ASAAR <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:56:53 -0500, THO wrote:
    >>
    >> Let's put things into perspective. We each know what we can and can't
    >> afford. There are things that have to come first before photography --

    >
    > Yes, you've made several good points, and too many posters either
    >choose to ignore the questions asked or don't pay close attention,
    >preferring to talk instead about their own interests or preferences.


    Neither of you appear to have read the OP's various articles.
    Or at least if you did you've forgotten what was said.

    Go back and review what he said, and then pay closer attention
    to what I have suggested he think about, except in terms of
    *his* commentary rather that your own personal requirements.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 28, 2007
    #14
  15. sgtdisturbed

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:17:52 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > Neither of you appear to have read the OP's various articles.
    > Or at least if you did you've forgotten what was said.
    >
    > Go back and review what he said, and then pay closer attention
    > to what I have suggested he think about, except in terms of
    > *his* commentary rather that your own personal requirements.


    That's a pathetic refusal to admit your mistake, Floyd. I pointed
    out precisely where you were guilty as charged, and you either won't
    or can't do the same. That's a very, very weak defense of your
    indefensible recommendations. But I'm not surprised. You're one of
    a handful here that will battle nearly forever rather than admit
    error or concede a point.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 28, 2007
    #15
  16. ASAAR <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:17:52 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    >> Neither of you appear to have read the OP's various articles.
    >> Or at least if you did you've forgotten what was said.
    >>
    >> Go back and review what he said, and then pay closer attention
    >> to what I have suggested he think about, except in terms of
    >> *his* commentary rather that your own personal requirements.

    >
    > That's a pathetic refusal to admit your mistake, Floyd. I pointed
    >out precisely where you were guilty as charged, and you either won't
    >or can't do the same. That's a very, very weak defense of your
    >indefensible recommendations. But I'm not surprised. You're one of
    >a handful here that will battle nearly forever rather than admit
    >error or concede a point.


    You are still unwilling or unable to address what the OP clearly
    stated his needs, his purpose, and his analysis (including price
    range) were based on. Despite your claims to the contrary, the
    OP *did* make that fairly clear.

    You have "pointed out precisely" where *you* missed the boat.

    I'll repeat it again: based on *his* stated purposes and *his*
    analysis of lenses and prices, none of the lenses mentioned
    ("55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro") is
    probably worth the price (to him) in the long run (roughly "5
    years" according to the OP). Spending what he has in the piggy
    bank now on an inadaquate lense merely delays acquisition of one
    that matches his needs.

    He would very likely be much better off to hold his purchase
    until the relatively small extra cost of an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF D
    ED lense can be handled.

    If possible, the OP might find it very useful to figure out a
    way to "test" an 80-200mm lense. A few shots at each extreme of
    the focusing range, and with the aperture wide open, will
    demonstrate a major part of why that lense is superior, and the
    advantage that will provide to him.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 28, 2007
    #16
  17. sgtdisturbed

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:47:49 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > You are still unwilling or unable to . . .


    You are unable to get it. Goodnight, Floyd.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 28, 2007
    #17
  18. sgtdisturbed

    Alan LeHun Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > I'll repeat it again: based on *his* stated purposes and *his*
    > analysis of lenses and prices, none of the lenses mentioned
    > ("55-200 ED, 70-300 non-ED, and the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro") is
    > probably worth the price (to him) in the long run (roughly "5
    > years" according to the OP).
    >


    Maybe, but what do you suggest the OP does in the meantime?

    I don't have /any/ L lenses for my canon yet, but what I do have allows
    me to do quite a bit with my camera until I do get one, or two, or
    [dribble] three.

    My take on the OP's post is that he /does/ want the 18-200VR but can't
    get one at this point in time. Perhaps he should just spend the next
    couple of years looking at his camera whilst dribbling profusely.
    Believe me, It isn't fun and I should know.

    --
    Alan LeHun
     
    Alan LeHun, Jan 28, 2007
    #18
  19. sgtdisturbed

    THO Guest

    In article <>,
    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

    > ASAAR <> wrote:
    > >On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:56:53 -0500, THO wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Let's put things into perspective. We each know what we can and can't
    > >> afford. There are things that have to come first before photography --

    > >
    > > Yes, you've made several good points, and too many posters either
    > >choose to ignore the questions asked or don't pay close attention,
    > >preferring to talk instead about their own interests or preferences.

    >
    > Neither of you appear to have read the OP's various articles.
    > Or at least if you did you've forgotten what was said.
    >
    > Go back and review what he said, and then pay closer attention
    > to what I have suggested he think about, except in terms of
    > *his* commentary rather that your own personal requirements.


    After reading your 3 articles where you kept suggesting something that
    the OP couldn't afford, as well as the other 6 responses, I went back to
    the original post. It's very clear that your assessment is based on YOUR
    personal requirements. The OP isn't going to be photographing moose on
    the Alaskan tundra year round any time soon.
     
    THO, Jan 28, 2007
    #19
  20. sgtdisturbed

    THO Guest

    In article <>,
    ASAAR <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:47:49 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    > > You are still unwilling or unable to . . .

    >
    > You are unable to get it. Goodnight, Floyd.


    That looks to be true.
     
    THO, Jan 28, 2007
    #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. jonathan

    stabilizing lenses (what lenses to get w/10D)

    jonathan, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    457
    Ken Alverson
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    438
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  3. Russell

    Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

    Russell, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    692
    Matt Ion
    Apr 30, 2005
  4. measekite

    Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses

    measekite, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    683
    Mueen Nawaz
    Sep 13, 2006
  5. The Jesus of Suburbia

    Microcontrollers: which one ? which language ? which compiler ?

    The Jesus of Suburbia, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    541
Loading...

Share This Page