Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 06 Feb 2012 (Monday) 06:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD Announced!!! Stabilized 24-70!

 
arentol
Goldmember
1,305 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Seattle WA
     
May 10, 2012 13:57 |  #1546

Marsu42 wrote in post #14410775 (external link)
But you can very well compare them on how they overlap: Is the 70-105 on the 24-105L just "extra" without drawbacks (answer: yes, it even makes the lens sharper @70mm because it's mid-range),

Now that is funny right there! By that logic the 28-300L should be really sharp at 200mm since that is "mid-range". Sorry, but no. Making the lens have a 4.3x zoom range is what keeps it from being as sharp as it could be at 70mm if it had a 2.9x zoom range... Much like giving the 24-70L an f/2.8 aperture is what keeps it from being as sharp as it could be at f/4.

and is the f2.8-f3.5 on the 24-70vc just extra (current answer: no, even stopped down to f4 its worse than the 24-105L).

This is basically the same thing I just said above about the 24-70, only difference is that you are turning it into a negative rather than recognizing it as a tradeoff just like you did with the 24-105. You can not have it both ways. If the extra 35mm reach is "bonus" on the 24-105 at the cost of overall IQ at all focal lengths (which it is), then the extra stop of aperture most also be accepted as "bonus" on the 24-70 VC. Otherwise you are just being blatantly biased.

As to which is the sharper lens between the 24-70 VC and 24-105. I already told you I have both and I believe my 24-70 VC to be sharper at F/4. It's not like it would be hard to be sharper than the 24-105 either.... As I showed already even the Tamron 28-75 is sharper at 40mm than the 24-105 according to Photozone.de's testing (as it is at 28 vs 24, and 75 vs 70), and the 24-70VC is sharper than the 28-75.


5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto​.com/ (external link)
*****Lenses For Sale (external link)*****

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
arentol
Goldmember
1,305 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Seattle WA
     
May 10, 2012 14:13 |  #1547

XTC1 wrote in post #14411251 (external link)
What are the three lenses that are better than the 35L at f/4?. 24L II... and the other two?

Center weighted averages, F/4, top 10, Canon's in Red:

Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 USM L IS II @70mm only = 3555
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm F/2 ZF (ZE) = 3550
Canon EF 24mm F/1.4 USM L II = 3540
Sigma AF 70mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro = 3533
Voigtlander Nokton 58mm F/1.4 SL II = 3518
Samyang 35mm F/1.4 AS UMC = 3511
Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 USM = 3493
Canon EF 35mm F/1.4 L = 3482

Samyang 14mm F/2.8 IF ED AS = 3467
Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm F/2 ZF (ZE) = 3455

The 35L is only 13th on the list if you look at just the normal F/4 average because of its corners being a good bit softer. But it is number one at center sharpness at f/2.8 and all stops below.

Also Photozone lacks long-lens results, and I imagine the 400 f/2.8L IS II and maybe a couple others could give some of these lenses a run for their money.

How do you watch this? you look at it individually or is there a way to look in a group?

I have a spreadsheet created laboriously by hand with every MTF result they have posted for Full Frame Canon testing. It also have various averages calculated that I can sort by.


5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto​.com/ (external link)
*****Lenses For Sale (external link)*****

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marsu42
Member
51 posts
Joined May 2012
Location: Berlin
     
May 10, 2012 15:07 |  #1548

arentol wrote in post #14411527 (external link)
Now that is funny right there! By that logic the 28-300L should be really sharp at 200mm since that is "mid-range". Sorry, but no.

I was stating the fact that many zooms are designed so that there's a little iq drop on one or both ends if due to distortion alone - and of course this makes sense, no one is forcing you to use the extremes on zooms at all times. Looking at the Tamron, I guess there's a reason why it's more like 65mm than 70mm on the long end, maybe the iq drawback was more than they could justify. That doesn't say anything about absolute sharpness.

arentol wrote in post #14411527 (external link)
As to which is the sharper lens between the 24-70 VC and 24-105. I already told you I have both and I believe my 24-70 VC to be sharper at F/4.

That's the keyword - your 24-70vs vs your 24-105, and why would I doubt that? It's just that with the lenses I tested, it was the other way around, and the digital picture review says so, too. I hope we'll get more reviews on more lens samples to know what to reasonably expect from the Tamron, meaning if there are few "golden samples" among the mediocre bulk or the other way round.

Charlie wrote in post #14411462 (external link)
I've posted 100% crops from both the Tamron and the Canon 24-70L in this thread... the tamron had the canon beat in every scenario, so if you think the tamron is bad, you must also believe the canon is bad. In that case, you're a 24-105 type of guy. Different strokes for different folks.

Same here - I guess arguing about the Tamron is rather pointless unless we see more reviews on more lens samples.

arentol wrote in post #14411527 (external link)
This is basically the same thing I just said above about the 24-70, only difference is that you are turning it into a negative rather than recognizing it as a tradeoff just like you did with the 24-105. You can not have it both ways. [...] Otherwise you are just being blatantly biased.

You are aware that I'm not trying to defend or bash either lens, are you? I'll probably buy the Tamron myself if the current price drops persist, actually I hope the Tamron turns out better than some reviews say because I'd very much like to have an affordable f2.8 with vc. And usually I'm the one ridiculing red ring religion. Your experiences and the reviews you cite are just exactly the opposite I read and tried for myself.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arentol
Goldmember
1,305 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Seattle WA
     
May 10, 2012 15:31 |  #1549

Marsu42 wrote in post #14411867 (external link)
You are aware that I'm not trying to defend or bash either lens, are you? I'll probably buy the Tamron myself if the current price drops persist, actually I hope the Tamron turns out better than some reviews say because I'd very much like to have an affordable f2.8 with vc. And usually I'm the one ridiculing red ring religion.

It sounded like bashing to me when you claimed that wider apertures make a lens worse at narrower apertures while in the same breath saying increased zoom range does not compromise the overall sharpness of the lens at all focal lengths. A few of your other posts recently only reinforced the idea you were bashing. I am sorry if I misunderstood.

Your experiences and the reviews you cite are just exactly the opposite I read and tried for myself, and these reviews say that the 70-105 range on the Canon doesn't drag the sharpness on the 24-70 range down and thus is more like an "extra", while the f2.8 aparture on the Tamron does effect the iq at f4.

Nope, still wrong. There is no way for someone to say with authority that the longer zoom range doesn't affect the sharpness of the lens at any given focal length, because a version of that lens without the additional zoom range doesn't exist to test against, and because that statement runs contrary to the known "rules" of lens design.

The reality is that YOU are assuming that if the Tamron were f/4 only and otherwise the same size and build quality it would be sharper at f/4 than it is now. Your assumption is based on years of collective experience and knowledge among the photography community, and your assumption is correct. However, that same collective experience and knowledge tells us that the longer a zoom range is the lower its overall quality throughout the range, and therefore a shorter zoom range lens of otherwise the same general size, build quality, and aperture, will have better sharpness and IQ. You simply can not accept one of these assumptions while denying the other in the same breath and maintain any claim to being unbiased.

The simple fact is that if Canon set out to make a top quality $1100 24-70 f/4L IS lens it would be sharper than the current 24-105L, or any other 24-105 F/4 IS lens they could possibly design today at a similar price point. This is simply the nature of the optical beast.


5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto​.com/ (external link)
*****Lenses For Sale (external link)*****

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bomzai
Senior Member
524 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Bothell WA, US
     
May 10, 2012 15:43 |  #1550

arentol wrote in post #14411988 (external link)
The simple fact is that if Canon set out to make a top quality $1100 24-70 f/4L IS lens it would be sharper than the current 24-105L, or any other 24-105 F/4 IS lens they could possibly design today at a similar price point. This is simply the nature of the optical beast.

Actually I wish they would. 24-105 isn't great at 105 anyway. And we have absolute best 70-200 II to cover 70-105 (and even at 2.8 it blows 24-105 out of the water).


Camera: EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 70D, ™24-70mm f2.8 VC, EF 70-200mm IS f2.8 L II, EF 100mm IS f2.8 L Macro, EF-S 18-135 STM, Σ 12-24 II.
EOS 5D mkII, 20D, S100, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L, EF 24-105mm IS f4.0 L, EF 70-200mm IS f4.0 L, EF-S 18-200mm IS, EF 100mm f2.8 macro
Light: Sun, Speedlite 580EXII, 550EX, 430EX, EL-Skyports, Reflectors, Umbrellas, Diffusers etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,791 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 434
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 10, 2012 16:41 as a reply to  @ bomzai's post |  #1551

The simple fact is that if Canon set out to make a top quality $1100 24-70 f/4L IS lens it would be sharper than the current 24-105L, or any other 24-105 F/4 IS lens they could possibly design today at a similar price point. This is simply the nature of the optical beast.

No, the math is not that simple.

Shorter zoom range does not always equal better IQ. It matters a heck of a lot where that range actually is. For instance, a lens that is 2:1 but wholly under 70mm is much, much harder to design than a 3:1 lens that is wholly above 70mm. That's why the first really good, professional-IQ zooms were all in the telephoto range.

So even though 24-100 is a wider range than 24-70, the extra range is at the "easy" end...so it may well be easier to design--other factors being equal. In the case of the 24-100, that was also intended to be a "kit" lens, albeit a high-end kit lens. Cost was definitely a factor, and that's where design compromises have been made.

I suspect Tamron's older 28-75mm was considerably simpler to design than their (or Canon's) 24-70...yes four millimeters can make that much difference when they're all below 70.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
May 10, 2012 17:17 |  #1552

RDKirk wrote in post #14412341 (external link)
No, the math is not that simple.

Shorter zoom range does not always equal better IQ. It matters a heck of a lot where that range actually is. For instance, a lens that is 2:1 but wholly under 70mm is much, much harder to design than a 3:1 lens that is wholly above 70mm. That's why the first really good, professional-IQ zooms were all in the telephoto range.

So even though 24-100 is a wider range than 24-70, the extra range is at the "easy" end...so it may well be easier to design--other factors being equal. In the case of the 24-100, that was also intended to be a "kit" lens, albeit a high-end kit lens. Cost was definitely a factor, and that's where design compromises have been made.

I suspect Tamron's older 28-75mm was considerably simpler to design than their (or Canon's) 24-70...yes four millimeters can make that much difference when they're all below 70.

I find this hard to believe.. as a blanket-statement. If any zoom "below 70mm" becomes so much harder to design, how do we get high-quality UWAs at equivalent or lower prices? ie. EF-S 10-22(yes, APS-C lens, but still), 16-35, 17-40 to name a few. All fall well under the 3x zoom range.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,791 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 434
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 10, 2012 17:37 |  #1553

1Tanker wrote in post #14412487 (external link)
I find this hard to believe.. as a blanket-statement. If any zoom "below 70mm" becomes so much harder to design, how do we get high-quality UWAs at equivalent or lower prices? ie. EF-S 10-22(yes, APS-C lens, but still), 16-35, 17-40 to name a few. All fall well under the 3x zoom range.

There isn't anything cheap about the 16-35, and it's barely over 2:1. The compromise of the 10-22 is that it's only covering 15x22mm (do you see a rectilinear 10-22 designed for 24x36mm at any price or aperture? Nope, you don't). The compromises of the 17-40 are that it's longer at both ends than the 16-35 and it's slower. Those are significant compromises.

My point, and what I said up front, is that the math is not simple. Meeting design points is a complex game, and what seems to an observer to be a small compromise--such as designing for 15x22 instead of 24x36--may make all the difference of meeting all the major design points.

But if there is one statement that can be made as a blanket statement, it's that lenses significantly below the diagonal of the format are harder to design for an SLR than lenses above it.

That's because the SLR needs a focus distance farther out than the depth of the mirror box (usually around 45mm for the 24x36mm format). Any focal length shorter than the depth of the mirror box requires a retrofocus design, which is always more complex than a simple straightforward design.

Plus the fact that any lens with a focal length shorter than the diagonal of the format is also more difficult to design because even if it's not retrofocus (such as with a non-SLR), it must still contend with the increased aberrations that are caused by the light rays striking the sensor at more oblique angles as well as having been bent to greater angles.

Lenses shorter than the depth of the mirror box or the diagonal of the format are harder to design than those which are not, and that's a blanket statement that you can depend on.

Do that in a zoom and it's even more complex.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
May 10, 2012 17:48 |  #1554

RDKirk wrote in post #14412579 (external link)
There isn't anything cheap about the 16-35, and it's barely over 2:1. The compromise of the 10-22 is that it's only covering 15x22mm (do you see a rectilinear 10-22 designed for 24x36mm at any price or aperture? Nope, you don't). The compromises of the 17-40 are that it's longer at both ends than the 16-35 and it's slower. Those are significant compromises.

My point, and what I said up front, is that the math is not simple. Meeting design points is a complex game, and what seems to an observer to be a small compromise--such as designing for 15x22 instead of 24x36--may make all the difference of meeting all the major design points.

But if there is one statement that can be made as a blanket statement, it's that lenses significantly below the diagonal of the format are harder to design for an SLR than lenses above it.

That's because the SLR needs a focus distance farther out than the depth of the mirror box (usually around 45mm for the 24x36mm format). Any focal length shorter than the depth of the mirror box requires a retrofocus design, which is always more complex than a simple straightforward design.

Plus the fact that any lens with a focal length shorter than the diagonal of the format is also more difficult to design because even if it's not retrofocus (such as with a non-SLR), it must still contend with the increased aberrations that are caused by the light rays striking the sensor at more oblique angles as well as having been bent to greater angles.

Lenses shorter than the depth of the mirror box or the diagonal of the format are harder to design than those which are not, and that's a blanket statement that you can depend on.

Do that in a zoom and it's even more complex.

Ok..thanks. I still believe Arentol's statement, that smaller zoom ranges are easier to design, and "usually" offer better results. You can look at the Tokina 11-16 /2.8. Yes, it's also for APS-C, but it is f/2.8. The theory goes, that Tokina limited the zoom-range to just 1.5x. to keep IQ and cost and size in check.. which seems to be a perfect example of smaller zoom ranges being preferable. ;)


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arentol
Goldmember
1,305 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Seattle WA
     
May 10, 2012 18:40 |  #1555

RDKirk wrote in post #14412341 (external link)
No, the math is not that simple.

It is if you don't make it more complicated than it has to be.... Oh look, you do make it more complicated:

Shorter zoom range does not always equal better IQ.

Yes they do if the shorter one is contained entirely within the range of the longer one, which is what we are talking about here.

It matters a heck of a lot where that range actually is. For instance, a lens that is 2:1 but wholly under 70mm is much, much harder to design than a 3:1 lens that is wholly above 70mm. That's why the first really good, professional-IQ zooms were all in the telephoto range.

Yes, but a 5:1 that is 2/5ths below 70mm is harder to design than a 3:1 that is wholly above 70mm and similarly, a 3:1 which is 2/3rds under 70 is harder to design than a 2:1 which is wholly under 70mm... Which is basically the exact situation at hand.

So even though 24-100 is a wider range than 24-70, the extra range is at the "easy" end...so it may well be easier to design--other factors being equal.

So, to be clear, you think that it would be easier to make a high quality 3:1 33-100 than a 3:1 24-72 (I agree), but you also think it would be easier to make a high quality 4:1 24-100 than a 3:1 24-72? :rolleyes:. Just tack on an extra 9mm on the "Hard" end, but it is EASIER because there is an extra 28mm on the long end? I could understand and might not entirely disagree if you said a near 3.5:1 35-120 MIGHT be easier. After all your argument is essentially that each mm closer to 0 makes it harder to make a longer zoom range, and I would not disagree with that general idea. But to argue that two lenses both starting at the same EXACT focal length, but one being much longer in total, would result in the longer one being easier and higher IQ.... That is just ridiculous.

Heck, if that is the case then please explain why we aren't drowning in a sea of 24-100 f/2.8's right now if they would actually have better IQ than 24-70 f/2.8's? Sure, they would be big and weigh a lot, but probably not any more than a 70-200 f/2.8 and people would love to have the superior IQ. :rolleyes:

In the case of the 24-100, that was also intended to be a "kit" lens, albeit a high-end kit lens. Cost was definitely a factor, and that's where design compromises have been made.

Not sure what compromises you are talking about, nor why that would be relevant to the point at hand.

I suspect Tamron's older 28-75mm was considerably simpler to design than their (or Canon's) 24-70...yes four millimeters can make that much difference when they're all below 70.

I am sure it was simpler, not considerably, but definitely simpler... Curiously though nobody has ever made a 28-120 f/2.8 that blows the 28-75 away like you are suggesting would be trivially easy to do. Would pair fantastically with my 120-300 f/2.8.

Sorry, but your entire argument is silly beyond belief.


5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto​.com/ (external link)
*****Lenses For Sale (external link)*****

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tancanon58
Senior Member
Avatar
965 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: southern california
     
May 10, 2012 18:40 |  #1556

This thread is getting excited now since everyone in here has his own right to defend what you like or what you do not like. IMO I would judge for myself of using what lenses I like the most by comparing between the one I had owned and the one I own now.

Why do you have to bring in of someone's reviews called themselves a PRO and believe what they wrote (?) Why don't you buy yourself if you can afford one then do yourself the comparison or write your own reviews based on your experiences of using the two lenses you have (Tamron 24-70 VC vs Canon 24-70L or 24-105L). If you could not do that please should not have disagreements with people who have spent times to do a favor for you by reviewing them. All these would help you deciding to buy the lens that fit your budget or make you purchase the so-called "L" or red ring lens.

To be honest I like very much all the L lenses and would buy them within my budget. I myself was not open-minded and thought all third party lenses could not compared to even the EF-S lenses. Since I read this thread and other reviews about Tamron 24-70 VC I have decided to sell my 24-70L and pulled a trigger to buy it. I own this lens just about more than a week and already fall in love with this lens on my 5D3.

Thanks to dedicated members like KenjiS, Charlie and Arentol who have brought more excitation by reviewing and comparing between Tamron and Canon lenses to this thread. I have made my decision according to this thread to cancel the 24-70L II and buy the Tamron 24-70 VC and would not regret.


Bodies: 5D MkIII/ Oly ED-M5/ G10
Lenses: Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 Di VC /and some Panny and Oly lenses.
Flash: Canon600EX RT.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bomzai
Senior Member
524 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Bothell WA, US
     
May 10, 2012 19:20 |  #1557

tancanon58 wrote in post #14412834 (external link)
Since I read this thread and other reviews about Tamron 24-70 VC I have decided to sell my 24-70L and pulled a trigger to buy it. I own this lens just about more than a week and already fall in love with this lens on my 5D3.

Now if only I could get a copy like yours or Charlie's... *crosses fingers for second copy carefully handled by UPS employees somewhere around Michigan*


Camera: EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 70D, ™24-70mm f2.8 VC, EF 70-200mm IS f2.8 L II, EF 100mm IS f2.8 L Macro, EF-S 18-135 STM, Σ 12-24 II.
EOS 5D mkII, 20D, S100, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L, EF 24-105mm IS f4.0 L, EF 70-200mm IS f4.0 L, EF-S 18-200mm IS, EF 100mm f2.8 macro
Light: Sun, Speedlite 580EXII, 550EX, 430EX, EL-Skyports, Reflectors, Umbrellas, Diffusers etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SchnellerGT
Senior Member
585 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Washington, DC
     
May 10, 2012 22:37 |  #1558

So I just spent a few hours with the lens.

Brief thoughts?

1. I do NOT think I received a GREAT copy.
2. Center sharpness is not as good as I was expecting.
3. Edge sharpness is poor, but I expected this.
4. Vignetting not as bad as expected.
5. Onion bokeh. I think I got it in one shot but otherwise seems under control?
6. Focus speed right where I expected it to be/a hair slower than my 85/1.8
7. Quieter than expected in regards to focus motor BUT ESPECIALLY in regards to VC. It's quieter than Canon's IS mechanism.
8. Build quality is excellent. Weight and balance on my 5DII is also excellent.

I am going to play with it over the weekend, but it will likely go back.

A few notes on the shots below:

-Taken with a 5DII
-Picture mode: Neutral, 0 in-camera sharpening
-No USM used in Photoshop!
-Center Point AF, AWB
-Hand-held
-Most taken with flash
-All taken after sunset

Remember, center sharpness does not seem ideal. I couldn't correct for it using MA but then again these were hand-held. I will bust out the tripod over the weekend for more accurate testings.

Straight-from-camera, reduced in size:

IMAGE: http://i47.tinypic.com/2wncz9l.jpg

Focus area, 100% crop:
IMAGE: http://i48.tinypic.com/2zhjn2h.jpg

IMAGE: http://i46.tinypic.com/2v8kfvp.jpg

IMAGE: http://i45.tinypic.com/oqzq0l.jpg

IMAGE: http://i45.tinypic.com/2j1ke39.jpg

IMAGE: http://i46.tinypic.com/es6ud3.jpg

IMAGE: http://i48.tinypic.com/90tyqh.jpg

IMAGE: http://i47.tinypic.com/aom4xh.jpg

Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 2.8L II [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][​FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][F​ONT=Tahoma]| Canon 40mm Pancake | Canon EF 85 1.8 USM | Canon EF 135 F2L USM | Canon Speedlite 430 EX
Buyer Feedback for "SchnellerGT" (Fredmiranda) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SchnellerGT
Senior Member
585 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Washington, DC
     
May 10, 2012 22:37 |  #1559

IMAGE: http://i45.tinypic.com/124f342.jpg

IMAGE: http://i50.tinypic.com/iekwb9.jpg

IMAGE: http://i45.tinypic.com/34qn2fr.jpg

IMAGE: http://i46.tinypic.com/15xagjl.jpg

IMAGE: http://i45.tinypic.com/w216l3.jpg

IMAGE: http://i50.tinypic.com/2uhpflt.jpg

IMAGE: http://i50.tinypic.com/1z5mbdf.jpg

IMAGE: http://i45.tinypic.com/24et7dk.jpg

Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 2.8L II [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][​FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][F​ONT=Tahoma]| Canon 40mm Pancake | Canon EF 85 1.8 USM | Canon EF 135 F2L USM | Canon Speedlite 430 EX
Buyer Feedback for "SchnellerGT" (Fredmiranda) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SchnellerGT
Senior Member
585 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Washington, DC
     
May 10, 2012 22:37 |  #1560

IMAGE: http://i46.tinypic.com/33mmufl.jpg

IMAGE: http://i50.tinypic.com/e5qk37.jpg

Canon EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 2.8L II [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][​FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][F​ONT=Tahoma]| Canon 40mm Pancake | Canon EF 85 1.8 USM | Canon EF 135 F2L USM | Canon Speedlite 430 EX
Buyer Feedback for "SchnellerGT" (Fredmiranda) (external link)

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

391,688 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD Announced!!! Stabilized 24-70!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is NorthernFocus
865 guests, 394 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.