Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 21 Sep 2017 (Thursday) 19:05
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

EF 200mm F2.8 L IS USM II vs others

 
ma11rats
Senior Member
ma11rats's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Az
Sep 21, 2017 22:07 |  #16

https://www.the-digital-picture.com ...5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx (external link)

Check out the zoom range of the bird on the beach. Keep in mind this is on a crop body.

Then envision an eagle across an open space 60' away


www.matthewbeutelphoto​graphy.com (external link)
5D, 6D, 80D, 35f2IS, T 85f1.8VC, T 24-70f2.8VC, T 17-50f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ma11rats
Senior Member
ma11rats's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Az
Sep 21, 2017 22:09 |  #17

MalVeauX wrote in post #18457554 (external link)
I have L glass and I don't notice any real difference at this tier with my Tamron 150-600, but you can't compare a $700 lens to a $9,000 lens in a few ways, at that price point you start to mainly look at what you're willing to compromise. I'll take 3 times the reach any day for a bird. I can get really close to most of my subjects. But sometimes, you just can't get close, and that's where physical reach comes in.

In terms of quality, the glass is sharp. Color is good. Focus is good. Stabilization is good. You can get one for $700 on Amazon. They're silly good for the money.

Here's an example of distance and big crop:

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mYdY​sp] (external link)EagleSetup (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mYhn​o7] (external link)IMG_9113 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,


Awesome. Thanks for that example, works perfectly for what I was saying....960mm FOVCF


www.matthewbeutelphoto​graphy.com (external link)
5D, 6D, 80D, 35f2IS, T 85f1.8VC, T 24-70f2.8VC, T 17-50f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by MalVeauX. 3 edits done in total.
Sep 21, 2017 22:47 |  #18

Here's a silly example of a 200mm F2.8L being used to go places it shouldn't go. You can totally do all kinds of weird wildlife with a 200mm. But you gotta get close. Real close. So here's a silly one, a landscape in an eyeball of a big predator with equipment that you'd likely not think to use for that.

Like on an EOS-M body, with a 2.0x TC, Canon 200mm F2.8L and a CPL, shooting wide open at F5.6, and getting right up next to an alligator on the ground to get a landscape image in the eyeball type thing.

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7532/15915133766_0ca1225811_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qfnd​N3] (external link)IMG_1897 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7504/15321112673_0a2056b2da_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pkSH​24] (external link)IMG_6589 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

+++++++++++++++

More 200mm F2.8L silliness, birding with it, from a bar even. Why go after the birds when they just want your fries? The 200 F2.8L with a TC is still an incredibly small, light setup. You'd never guess you're using a 400 F5.6 or 280mm F4 lens that is fast and sharp wide open. At a bar no less. Where no one cared to look because it wasn't some huge lens. It's so compact.

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8584/15335376894_5007f35b60_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pn8P​gU] (external link)IMG_6610 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5679/23408772094_5eccf60087_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/BEy5​oS] (external link)a573 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Granted, I'm just being funny at this point.

I'm not trying to sell the 200 F2.8L to you. Actually the opposite! It's a lot easier with phsyical reach. I'd really put you towards a 100-400 and 150-600 over a 200mm. Despite my adoration for the 200, I don't suggest it for wildlife/birding/etc. It really is a specialty lens since it's a fixed focal length and this long, but too short for many applications.

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link) :: Canon 17-40L For Sale! $380!

LOG IN TO REPLY
hxdrummerxc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Apr 2016
Post has been edited 2 months ago by hxdrummerxc.
Sep 22, 2017 01:39 as a reply to MalVeauX's post |  #19

Thanks for all of the examples MalVeauX, that helps a lot. Im gonna try and price some out.

Ma11rats, So yea framing an eagle against the open sky at 60' might "require" a crazy huge lens... But something like that is obviously not anywhere near my price anyway. And on multiple occasions I have been relatively close to some eagles sitting in a tree etc etc. Eagles aren't the sole reason that I'm looking at these lenses, it was just an example of something that I would like to do.

Also, I have read before that usually cropping a full frame image to account for the crop factor of a crop sensor also works without much issue at all. I also DO have a crop body camera (rebel XSi) if I absolutely wanted to get the reach but I'm betting that an image on the 6D cropped to size, is still going to be better than an image on my old Rebel XSi.




LOG IN TO REPLY
TreeburnerCT
Senior Member
TreeburnerCT's Avatar
Joined Dec 2016
Stratford, CT, USA
Post has been edited 2 months ago by TreeburnerCT.
Sep 22, 2017 07:17 |  #20

I would second the recommendation to go for more reach than you think you'll need. I own the Sigma 150-600 C and it's the only lens I use for wildlife. I would highly recommend it over the 100-400 for one simple reason - the tripod ring. The 100-400 has no ring, so if you're wanting to shoot from a tripod your setup will be very front-heavy and prone to movement. The 150-600 is a larger lens, but with the tripod ring removed it's comfortable to hold and operate and can do twist or push/pull zooming.

I know you like the idea of f/2.8, but at 600mm your DOF is tiny even at f/8 - at f/2.8 you'd have a razor-thin focal plane with most of the subject OOF.

Also, the OS on the Sigma 150-600 C is amazing! Getting sharp photos at 600mm handheld at as low as 1/100 means you can capture sharp subjects and still maintain your desired motion blur.

I can't say enough good things about the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens. For it's size it's very lightweight, has great reach, has great OS, has a tripod ring, is updatable/customizable with the use of the dock, and is priced very reasonably compared to its nearest competitors. Sounds like it's exactly what you're looking for, so rather than cheaping-out and buying something sub-par then having to upgrade later, get the lens that fits your needs from the start.

-Joe


RapidPhotoCT.com (external link) | RapidPhotoCT Facebook (external link) | RapidPhotoCT Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
johnandbentley
Senior Member
johnandbentley's Avatar
Joined Jun 2010
Twin Cities
Sep 22, 2017 11:16 as a reply to post 18457519 |  #21

On a very side note....interesting. Remember this coming out but had no idea price was so low.


6D, Sigma 35, Sigma 85

LOG IN TO REPLY
ma11rats
Senior Member
ma11rats's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Az
Sep 22, 2017 11:27 |  #22

hxdrummerxc wrote in post #18457630 (external link)
Also, I have read before that usually cropping a full frame image to account for the crop factor of a crop sensor also works without much issue at all.

It's true if your pixel density is similar(i.e. 5ds/7d2 or 1ds3/1d4). But say in the case of the 6d's 20 MP vs 7d2's 20MP(or even more so 80D's 24MP). The 6D will fall apart before reaching the 'distance' of the 7d2's framing. There'll be WAY more detail in the 7d2's image! That's not to say you wouldn't get a usable image for the web, but if you're wanting to print, I'd take the 7d2's image over a really cropped 6d every time. Now using the 5d4's 30MP vs 7d2's crop that's a different story. I'd take the 5d4's IQ but then again, totally different price point.

But back to my point. For wildlife, you'll find you're always wanting more range and I think you should seriously look into the 1-4s on the market vs thinking a 200mm will be adequate enough.
Also, size may be important to you. Look at length and weight between the 100-400 vs 150-600 lenses. The later are huge.

Hope you get something that works for you! Take care and happy shooting.


www.matthewbeutelphoto​graphy.com (external link)
5D, 6D, 80D, 35f2IS, T 85f1.8VC, T 24-70f2.8VC, T 17-50f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
*** vanished ***
Post has been edited 2 months ago by CheshireCat.
Sep 23, 2017 07:42 |  #23

hxdrummerxc wrote in post #18457435 (external link)
What would you do in the given situation?

For wildlife, I'd get a used 400/5.6.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
esinghal
Member
Joined Jul 2013
Sep 23, 2017 07:48 |  #24

i have this lens for sale and would trade for amazon card


Sanjeev
Canon 5D4 | 6D | 7D2 | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8 II | 20 f/2.8| 50 f/1.8 | 100 f/2 | 400 f/5.6 | 17-40 f/4L | Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sport | Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 | 600EX-RT Speedlite | Godox V860 Speedlites

LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,511 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Sep 23, 2017 07:57 |  #25

I agree that a 300mm or 400mm (or longer) would be better for wildlife, but the 200mm 2.8 L is one of my favorite lenses of all time. Portraits with a full frame at 2.8 are outstanding. The lens is sharp wide open and the bokeh is beautiful. Ignore comments about being too far away from your subject. I've never had to scream to be heard by the person I'm photographing. Plus, the lens is small and relatively lightweight, and I like the fact that it's black cause it's less conspicuous. It's a wonderful lens. If you could afford a used 200mm 2.8 and a used 400mm 5.6, that would make a nice fairly inexpensive duo for your needs.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,785 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Sep 23, 2017 08:13 |  #26

CheshireCat wrote in post #18458538 (external link)
For wildlife, I'd get a used 400/5.6.

Add a used EF 1.4X II TC, and an 80D. You'll still be focal-length challenged for most wildlife shots.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by MalVeauX. 3 edits done in total.
Sep 23, 2017 08:17 |  #27

hxdrummerxc wrote in post #18457630 (external link)
Thanks for all of the examples MalVeauX, that helps a lot. Im gonna try and price some out.

Ma11rats, So yea framing an eagle against the open sky at 60' might "require" a crazy huge lens... But something like that is obviously not anywhere near my price anyway. And on multiple occasions I have been relatively close to some eagles sitting in a tree etc etc. Eagles aren't the sole reason that I'm looking at these lenses, it was just an example of something that I would like to do.

Also, I have read before that usually cropping a full frame image to account for the crop factor of a crop sensor also works without much issue at all. I also DO have a crop body camera (rebel XSi) if I absolutely wanted to get the reach but I'm betting that an image on the 6D cropped to size, is still going to be better than an image on my old Rebel XSi.

In general, even a big bird perched, will require serious reach. I'm of the opinion that wildlife/birding starts around 400mm on full frame (250mm on APS-C). That's the start. Now, I do it at 200mm and 300mm often, because I have blinds, and locations where I get there earlier than the subjects and I can get close enough to use shorter glass. But I also use a 600mm because there are times I'm not close and cannot get close. And even then 600mm is often not long enough on full frame for some occasions. The maxim of never having enough reach' really does hold true often. And instead of spending $10k+ for a setup with more focal length (600 F4L + TC's) potential, we often resort to finding ways to simply get closer so that we're no longer focal length limited. The hunter's approach basically. My point is, you can make a 200mm work. But I don't recommend it for wildlife/birds. It can work in a zoo. And an experienced "gets close to the subject" photog can make it work in the wild. But it won't do you any favors just walking out and seeing what you can get when in the wild.

Pixel density is only superior if you have more pixels on target. A full frame image is not going to always be superior for this. A full frame has to have vastly more resolution to be able to crop down to an APS-C or APS-H and retain more pixels or same pixels on target. The only full frames that will do that are the 5DSR & 5DIV right now. Otherwise, the APS-C's have more pixels on target with these 20MP~24MP sensors. They simply have more pixels on subject. There's no magic bullet to full frame.

If you want a telephoto for portrait with blurry backgrounds, I would actually point you towards an 85mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.8. An 85mm F1.4 actually blurs more than a 135 F2L does at close range for a portrait with a much more lax working distance. A 200 F2.8 only pulls ahead when the distance to background behind the subject is super far away. A Sigma 85mm F1.4 costs about what a 200 F2.8L does. I'd get the 85 F1.4 if your primary interest is portrait with blurry backgrounds, especially if more than one person is involved. These go for under $500 these days now that the Art is released, but the original is still quite good wide open:

https://www.amazon.com ...mbc?ie=UTF8&conditi​on=all (external link)

But you already have a 50mm F1.8 STM and it's sharp wide open and provides nice soft backgrounds already for portrait outdoor, and allows for groups a lot nicer too. Going to a 200mm F2.8 will smear the background even more, but you'll have to stand 20+ feet away for full body (and more potentially for a group), unless you're only doing headshots/busts. Sounds great maybe, but you may find the distance becomes a hassle (personal) and you may get over the super thin depth of field stuff after tasting it for a while (personal). If you wanted to go this route, again, I'd look above at a different kind of lens, something like an 85mm or even a 100 F2 before leaping right into a 200 F2.8. While it does what you think, at a very different working distance, again the other issue is that it's just too short to be a good wildlife/bird/landscap​e lens (it can be used this way of course, I gave examples at close range, it totally works, but that's not a common way nor commonly available for everyone). You get a lot more for wildlife/landscape from a versatile long zoom.

Otherwise, if you're really looking for a wildlife lens that is also good for distant landscape, a 100-400 or 150-600 (both can be had at $700 a pop) are far more ideal, or the 400 F5.6L prime. We've already linked to these on Amazon of course previously in the thread.

I used my 200 F2.8L with a 1.4x TC and 2.0x TC often (280mm F4 & 400mm F5.6 respectively). AF is still pretty good and it's still pretty sharp wide open. Still small and compact. But, that's maxed out. And if you're already doing that, the benefits of just having a longer lens to begin with starts to show (especially if you're using a 2.0x TC on the 200). So while it's comparable to a 400 F5.6L, it only compares by having the same focal length with a TC and focal-ratio with a TC, but it's not nearly as accurate and not as sharp wide open.

To your original question of a 300 F4L IS over a 200 F2.8L, my answer would be yes. But I used both. The 200 F2.8L with a 1.4x TC on an APS-C was a primary birding setup at close range for me. It made me realize that 280mm F4 (basically 300 F4) was what I wanted on APS-C (equivalent to a full frame using a 500 F4 at the end of the day for way way way cheaper). But that works for me. I eventually sold my 200 F2.8L because the 300 F4L was simply better for birding/wildlife (and becomes a 420mm F5.6 with a TC too). On full frame, if you really wanted a prime, the 400 F5.6L would be even more ideal if you were going for a fixed focal length. But I'd still suggest a zoom for someone getting into it.

For portrait, I use 85mm and 135mm outside if I want blurry backgrounds; way way easier to use than 200mm for a group of people. But again, I don't care to stand over 20 feet away from my subjects. Personal preference.

+++++++++++++++

But, for argument's sake, here's more examples of the 200 F2.8L with TC's being used (on APS-C & APS-H) as a birding/wildlife lens, which can totally work if you can get close to your subjects. I do it by luring them in, using blinds, or sneaking up on the water in a kayak, etc. That's very different compared to just happening upon something in the woods or in the mountains where things are going to hear/smell you miles away.

Keep in mind, I'm within a few feet, as close as less than 20 feet often with these, which is why I can fill most of the frame.

200 F2.8L with a 2.0x TC (400mm F5.6) on an APS-H here:

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5347/17398394938_af4d6b71d9_z.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/svrj​Ew] (external link)IMG_7745 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8750/17401143299_383c452b73_z.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/svFp​E4] (external link)LE1M2525 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8692/17561113986_dea1b9a8bd_z.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/sKPi​nm] (external link)LE1M2608 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5793/22809081691_659bd531d9_z.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AKyv​ka] (external link)LE1M4021 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

200 F2.8L with a 1.4x TC (280mm F4, or basically 300 F4) on APS-C here:

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1458/24011002266_f429cfff20_z.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CzLE​rG] (external link)a564 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7311/27191752334_77fc17aa98_z.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HqQQ​C7] (external link)IMG_2032 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1714/26625253115_ce6716f3ed_z.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GyMo​9c] (external link)IMG_1840 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link) :: Canon 17-40L For Sale! $380!

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,785 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Sep 23, 2017 08:21 |  #28

nightcat wrote in post #18458548 (external link)
I agree that a 300mm or 400mm (or longer) would be better for wildlife, but the 200mm 2.8 L is one of my favorite lenses of all time. Portraits with a full frame at 2.8 are outstanding. The lens is sharp wide open and the bokeh is beautiful. Ignore comments about being too far away from your subject. I've never had to scream to be heard by the person I'm photographing. Plus, the lens is small and relatively lightweight, and I like the fact that it's black cause it's less conspicuous. It's a wonderful lens. If you could afford a used 200mm 2.8 and a used 400mm 5.6, that would make a nice fairly inexpensive duo for your needs.

I agree completely with your assessment of the EF 200mm f/2.8L II lens. Black, small, light, sharp wide open, lightning-quick AF, and quite usable indoors. The 135L and 200L II are cut from the same mold. Every time I read the comment 'too long for indoors' I think, "never touched the lens, have you?"

At one time, I sold the 85 1.8, 135L, and 200L II and picked up a 70-200 2.8. The zoom is gone, and I now have all three primes, AGAIN. I am happy with my primes. Though I did replace the zoom with an f/4L IS.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post has been edited 2 months ago by Left Handed Brisket.
Sep 23, 2017 08:27 |  #29

I came across this the other day,

https://www.deepgreenp​hotography.com ...ldreview-sigma-150-600-mm (external link)

Posted originally in this thread,

http://photography-on-the.net ...showthread.php?p=18​442984

Some worthwhile reading for someone interested in more reach.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been edited 2 months ago by MalVeauX.
Sep 23, 2017 08:56 |  #30

Now, for one more exercise in why I still recommend a 150-600 for someone looking to step into wildlife via happenstance while doing something else; physical 600mm makes a huge difference because you will be shooting random wildlife from very, very far away. More pixels on target will be important. So here's some examples of that at common focal lengths so that you can see what a large subject, such as a Blue Heron (standing over 3 feet, wing span over 5~6 feet; obviously smaller than a big bear or elk, but you get the idea). This is also on APS-C, so this is even more pixels on target and more reach than what a full frame would have had, so it's actually even more profound as the full frame FOV and pixels on target would have been less. Significantly less.

This is at 60~80 feet approximately.

150mm:

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2895/14375871520_9788270a4d_c.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm6​KN] (external link)IMG_6335 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

200mm:

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2914/14562553715_82e3c3fac5_c.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obQT​Sk] (external link)IMG_6336 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

300mm:

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5563/14376101047_301220cd5a_c.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUng​Za] (external link)IMG_6337 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

400mm:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14375866130_68f7890e90_c.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm5​9S] (external link)IMG_6338 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

500mm:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14375865110_eec8bbb543_c.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nUm4​Rh] (external link)IMG_6339 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

600mm:

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5579/14561711602_fec684846d_c.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obLz​x9] (external link)IMG_6343 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Again, this is like 60~80 feet away, randomly walked up on a large subject, this is with an APS-C. If I were limited to full frame and 200mm, I'd barely get the first shot and crop from there (very little to salvage). Even with a 2x TC on the 200, getting the FOV that you see here with the 300mm would be even less than that (300 on APS-C is more like 480 on full frame, compared to what a 200+2xTC or 400 would be on full frame, significantly less!). You only start to see some real detail on such a large subject at such a distance with effective focal length of 400~500~600 on APS-C here, and that's really long if you think about it. You wouldn't want to even begin to be limited to a maximum of 400mm on full frame for chance encounters because again, the FOV and subject framing and pixels on subject would be even less than what you see here on my 300mm example!

So this is why I really suggest the 150-600 zoom, at $700 on Amazon. Wildlife & landscape handled far better, especially from a full frame point of view.

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link) :: Canon 17-40L For Sale! $380!

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

13,429 views & 4 likes for this thread
EF 200mm F2.8 L IS USM II vs others
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00111 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.09s
Latest registered member is radislavi4
978 guests, 496 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017