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 12 Nov 2016 (Saturday) 20:11
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Which one"
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
16
76.2%
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC
4
19%
Something Else
1
4.8%

21 voters, 21 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 70-200 f/2.L IS II vs Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC

 
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2668
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Nov 12, 2016 20:11 |  #1

See the title. This is somewhat a continuation of an earlier thread now that I ruled myself down to "I want a 70-200" to bolt onto my EOS 7D Mark II. I own a 15-85 IS, the Sigma 150-600 C, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX and the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro

Intended uses are pretty simple, top of the list is the new puppy thats coming in a few weeks, but also larger flower specimens and er.. anything else that requires a 70-200, the list of things is very long in my book (I'm a heavy telephoto shooter) the 150-600 is a bit cumbersome to work with sometimes for some subjects, and at the wide end its quite slow at f/5, The reproduction ratio is meh and its just ungainly to use for flowers, its a bird and wildlife lens, purely, this is a more general purpose telephoto

I'm not big on Tamron lenses, Every single one has been a complete turd for me, but they were earlier non-USD lenses, That fact and the MFD are giving me a lot of pause as the 1:8 reproduction ratio is honestly a lot higher than i would like (I genuinely prefer 1:5, and not messing with extension tubes) but its been a while and maybe, just maybe, im being too critical of it.. Then again, when i ignore my "rules" i tend to end up selling or returning a lens (and then having someone here joke about the amount of gear i've owned..)

The Canon is..white and expensive, Im not huge on the white paint to be honest, and the price makes me twitch and gag (It will easily be the priciest lens i've ever bought) but...well.. is there really anything bad about it?

I had a 70-200 f/4L IS before, Lovely lens and worked great for my old dog before she passed, which is why im deciding to stick with what worked. Yes I would prefer a zoom for rapid composition changes, For more sedate portraits, i have my 50mm f/1.4.


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,146 posts
Likes: 210
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Nov 12, 2016 20:40 |  #2

Why did you unload the 70-200 f/4 L IS?
Do you need f/2.8? If so, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II is top shelf.
I have both the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Both are soooooooo nice. Why carry the extra weight when f/2.8 is not needed.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,723 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Nov 13, 2016 13:16 |  #3

Price is the big issue. The Canon is unquestionably the best. Is it worth it to you?


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2668
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Nov 13, 2016 17:08 |  #4

Nick5 wrote in post #18182925 (external link)
Why did you unload the 70-200 f/4 L IS?
Do you need f/2.8? If so, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II is top shelf.
I have both the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Both are soooooooo nice. Why carry the extra weight when f/2.8 is not needed.

IMAGE: https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1622/25005593591_f9c99d2742_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E6Ec​MZ  (external link) FML (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

That happened. 7D is perfectly fine, but my 580EXII and my 70-200 were not so lucky. I took the insurance money and invested in my 150-600 instead because at the time i wasnt thinking id be getting a new dog. However working with it, as much as i love it (and im NOT getting rid of it i might add) its just impractical for normal telephoto use.

I would -like- f/2.8 on the new one, the only reason i opted for the f/4 was AT THE TIME the f/2.8L IS II was up at $2500, right now its $1950. So theres a $450 difference between the Tamron and the Canon versus a $1000 difference most reviews are working on (Granted the Tamron has a $300 rebate if i hurry and decide) f/2.8 gives me a good boost from the 150-600 which starts at f/5 at the wide end.

There really wasnt much to complain about on the f/4, I just also really dislike buying another of the exact same lens when i could get something different

I thought of a prime a few times (namely a 85mm or the 135mm) but the puppy is going to move, the puppy is small so im not sure on my framing, I know what worked for my old dog, but im going from a Catahoula leopard dog:

IMAGE: https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8368/8462677923_f0a517f954_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/dTPr​j4  (external link) Skye Snow 2013 (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7049/6898305355_d5812a0b6d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/bvzB​Re  (external link) Skye in Snow Again 4 (external link) by Trevor H (external link), on Flickr

To a Cardigan Welsh Corgi

Im likely going to have to plant myself in one spot so i would like to tweak framing without needing to roll and move around the way id need to with a prime lens.

Granted looking back on it, i was at 70-120mm a lot with Skye, but she was a lot bigger of a dog, Since im just not sure i feel the 70-200 is an excellent choice, giving me multiple options for composition in one lens. I also used my 50mm for Skye a lot (usually indoors) and used the 70-200 or 100L outside (The images i have with the 100L i happen to rather like the isolation on) Having the extra stop at the shorter end of the range will probubly be extremely handy i think

Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 608
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 13, 2016 17:38 |  #5

It's fairly straightforward. The Canon lacks for nothing optically and is in the group of newer Canon zooms that outperform everything else when it comes to AF accuracy and repeatability (the 24-70II and 100-400II are the others). If you are picky and can afford the Canon, that's what you get.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2777
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Nov 14, 2016 05:12 |  #6

Mine is rock solid... never had an issue and is very sharp... and I mean very sharp. It's very close to the 200 F2 IS and you really have to pixel peep hard before you really see major differences. Compared to the 70-200 2.8 II it focuses just as fast and the VC works great. I've been very happy with the two times now I've owned the Tamron. The canon is the best and carries a better magnification will will give the appearance of the tamron only being a 187mm lens because it has less magnification but at infinity the Tamron is a true 200mm while the canon is say 195mm. Not much of a difference but it's there.

Used prices on the tamron are in the 900 range... still makes it a great buy vs a used II. Ironically mine is available. Compared to the 70-200 F4 IS the Tamron is much sharper overall.

Honesty the only reason I do have my for sale is just the fact I bought the 200 F2 IS and wouldn't mind freeing up the funds to be invested elsewhere.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2668
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Nov 14, 2016 10:53 |  #7

Actually the MM at the MFD is one of my big concerns given one of my uses for it (Larger flower specimens) where the MM is important. I'd also be using it for indoor studio type things for when i want more compression. Basically its that plus the AF accuracy that has me wobbling.

The question is more can i really afford the Canon, the Canon is admittedly a bit of a stretch financially, I can do it, but its pretty much Christmas and my birthday come early for me


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2777
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Nov 14, 2016 11:48 |  #8

KenjiS wrote in post #18184084 (external link)
Actually the MM at the MFD is one of my big concerns given one of my uses for it (Larger flower specimens) where the MM is important. I'd also be using it for indoor studio type things for when i want more compression. Basically its that plus the AF accuracy that has me wobbling.

The question is more can i really afford the Canon, the Canon is admittedly a bit of a stretch financially, I can do it, but its pretty much Christmas and my birthday come early for me

I have a few examples of MFD from the 70-200 2.8 II vs the Tamron. It does make a pretty good difference at that close range.... remember it's not MM it's magnification is key. see the image below (thanks to The Digital Picture) and you'll see the Canon has a greater magnification.

If your going to be shooting flowers at MFD then wouldn't you be fine with the 70-200 F4 IS?


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2668
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Post edited over 3 years ago by KenjiS. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 14, 2016 12:36 |  #9

Thats only PART of what ill use it for however, Some of it will be portraits of said new puppy and a lot of general purpose telephoto things, Honestly its just theres a huge list of things id use it for (I use telephoto a lot period), and i know from owning the f/4 I always preferred the isolation of f/2.8 in images i shot before (I had several portraits of my old dog shot at f/2.8 from my Macro and some from the 70-200 at around 100-127mm at f/4 and I really prefer the seperation on the f/2.8 ones) Its supposed to be a faster alternative to the 150-600, thats also a bit smaller and handier for when i just dont need a 600mm lens (Not to mention its just unwieldy for some subjects, Its a dedicated birding and shy wildlife lens) basically I want f/2.8 because to me its flexible, I can stop it down if i need to for depth of field, I cant suddenly make the f/4 f/2.8 however. I also would like to use it in lower light situations, indoors, etc.

I only bought the f/4L IS the first time because the Tamron was not available, the Sigma OS wasnt very good and the Canon IS II was $2500 still. Dont misunderstand, im not knocking it, its a great lens, sharp as a tack and fantastic all around, I knew I could resell it down the line and get the f/2.8 without losing much on top of it. Because Canon resale value.

And yes i know its the MM that causes a headache

I ended up doing something I probubly should have done to start and went on Flickr and started looking through the images with the Tamron, I see a LOT of action, dogs and puppies charging the camera, horses, motorbikes, larger flower specimens and etc, Basically i just kept seeing well..exactly what i want to use it for.

However I'm still uncertain on it. Its likely past experience giving me a lot of pause, I'm not kidding when I say I've hated every "highly regarded" Tamron lens i've owned. I've had better luck with Sigma (Just about every Sigma lens I've absolutely adored) Its not helped by most pro reviewers focusing ENTIRELY on portrait use, and even THEY said they had issues with AF "slipping" Then again several of them are using EOS 6D and 5D Mark IIs for their reviews, understandable, but evaluating AF performance with those bodies is... maybe not wise

But the Canon is significantly more expensive. Which is entirely why I still consider the Tamron. Then again I know 100% the Canon is going to be a fantastic lens. eating a 15% restocking fee on the Tamron is kind of a poor idea. Unfortunately I believe no place here has the Tamron in stock to give it a whirl...

I have been mulling over other options, of course, but I keep coming back to I want a zoom, i think that zoom should be 70-200 (Giving a decent overlap between my 15-85 and 150-600) and I'd really prefer the f/2.8 aperture. I think the non-IS 70-200 is a bit pricey for what it is, the Sigma OS is sadly not very good (If Sigma had an Art, Sports or Contemporary 70-200 f/2.8 this discussion would be simple, I'd probubly buy the Sigma) so that, to my knowledge, leaves me down to the IS II and the VC.


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2777
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Nov 14, 2016 13:05 |  #10

VC is a stellar alternative to the canon. I owned two copies now and as of today JUST sold my 2nd copy for $915. I used it like 4 times since I bought it... the buyer is getting a fantastic deal. Why not buy used like that? I always buy used as much as I can but bought the Tamron because I wanted new for some dump reason and now I'm eating alot of it.

I was hung up on the 2.8 zooms for too long. Then I met the 85 1.4 and I never used the 70-200 after.... I later bought the 120-300 for long needs and then later picked up my second 70-200 VC just as a lighter option to the 120-300 but then I got the 200 F2 and now I don't use either zooms.

The 85 1.4 gives as much and/or better isolation than 200mm 2.8 so it's my lens of choice but I'm not trying to change your mind. The VC is a good lens and I doubt you'll have much issues.

Where you planning on buying new or used? If I were to rebuy now I would buy a used 70-200 2.8 II over a new VC but thats just me.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2668
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Post edited over 3 years ago by KenjiS.
     
Nov 14, 2016 17:13 |  #11

New, because in order to do this ASAP im using a store account and not cash. I was not expecting to get a new dog so soon, shes coming in the next few weeks. I do not wish to miss opportunities because I'm mucking around with my lenses.

I have enough to get either lens. Its going to hurt either way, the Tamron less so. I keep leaning towards the Canon because I know what I'm getting, plus I went on Flickr and started looking at the Canon's images and theres just a higher percentage of better shots, Not to mention the colour is typical Canon, nice and saturated and punchy. Tamron is not bad of course, but Canon's colour is something I've always loved

Its just twice the price of the Tamron, and everyone says "The Tamron is a really good lens" and maybe it is, I just personally dont have one to handle and use to see that, So all that sticks in my head is the multiple other Tamrons I've owned and their inability to focus on anything. All of which were "Really good lenses"

My original plan btw was wait for Sigma to releasew the A or S 70-200 f/2.8 OS we know they're probubly working on. However that could be 3 months or 3 years from now.


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2777
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Nov 14, 2016 17:34 |  #12

KenjiS wrote in post #18184425 (external link)
New, because in order to do this ASAP im using a store account and not cash. I was not expecting to get a new dog so soon, shes coming in the next few weeks. I do not wish to miss opportunities because I'm mucking around with my lenses.

I have enough to get either lens. Its going to hurt either way, the Tamron less so. I keep leaning towards the Canon because I know what I'm getting, plus I went on Flickr and started looking at the Canon's images and theres just a higher percentage of better shots, Not to mention the colour is typical Canon, nice and saturated and punchy. Tamron is not bad of course, but Canon's colour is something I've always loved

Its just twice the price of the Tamron, and everyone says "The Tamron is a really good lens" and maybe it is, I just personally dont have one to handle and use to see that, So all that sticks in my head is the multiple other Tamrons I've owned and their inability to focus on anything. All of which were "Really good lenses"

I can only comment on my two copies. Both were 95% of a 70-200 2.8 II in fact my second copy that I currently have until it ships out tomorrow is very close to the 200 F2 IS, I an provide some samples if you wish. The AF has been very good for my needs as well. I've never put it up to NFL sports or anything but it has kept up with all my kids stuff.

One thing to consider when using Flickr to see samples is that the big whites are mounted to good cameras and are backed by really good photographers that makes the difference and typically those photographers has better editing skill sets.

The Tamrons on the other hand will be in less peoples hands that are that capable because they will typically go the Canon route.

There is a color tone difference...the Tamron being warmer. Do you want me to dropbox some raw's for you to see?


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2668
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Nov 14, 2016 18:00 |  #13

Talley wrote in post #18184442 (external link)
I can only comment on my two copies. Both were 95% of a 70-200 2.8 II in fact my second copy that I currently have until it ships out tomorrow is very close to the 200 F2 IS, I an provide some samples if you wish. The AF has been very good for my needs as well. I've never put it up to NFL sports or anything but it has kept up with all my kids stuff.

One thing to consider when using Flickr to see samples is that the big whites are mounted to good cameras and are backed by really good photographers that makes the difference and typically those photographers has better editing skill sets.

The Tamrons on the other hand will be in less peoples hands that are that capable because they will typically go the Canon route.

There is a color tone difference...the Tamron being warmer. Do you want me to dropbox some raw's for you to see?

No its ok

Also i saw the Canon bolted on 5D Mark IIIs, 6Ds, 7D Mark IIs, 70Ds, 80Ds, a 550D (yes seriously) 1DX Mark IIs...the gamut of Canon bodies was huge. The Tamron I saw a lot on Nikon bodies but i also saw a gamut of "better" Canon bodies mixed in...and overall a lot of the shots just didnt look right to me, Soft, whether out of focus, heavily cropped or just otherwise flubbed (all i can do is look at shutter speed) the overall Canon was just leaving a better impression to me.. I dont know why

Im not knocking the Tamron. If I dig and dig I find the really great well done images.. If it was a Sigma and not a Tamron I'd probubly buy it with no hesitation, its just every Tamron I had was so bad its made me extremely nervous


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2076
Joined Aug 2012
Post edited over 3 years ago by dochollidayda.
     
Nov 14, 2016 18:43 |  #14

Tamron might be a very good lens, and I have little doubt that it is, but you are comparing it to perhaps the best known/acclaimed/worshi​pped/admired/recommend​ed/add to this whatever complicated verb you can think of in Canon's lineup. I mean MK II is so good that even those on the dark side (Nikon) drool over it. I have seen newbies mounting it on their Rebel bodies and slinging it like the pros ;)

Obviously the photo pool is going to be stacked in its favour. I played with Tamron 24-70 variant and it was pretty good, maybe not very sharp compared to some primes in that range (and I was familiar with) but it focused quickly and accurately.

Good luck with your decision, I will be watching you closely :-P. Ironically speaking, I recently damaged my beloved F4L IS as well, it works but focus gets stuck and then slowly locks on (sometimes takes 10 seconds ). I have been contemplating a repair or a purchase. Its a must have focal length for me, so I am sitting on the fence a little confused as well.

Recently, I have switched to a 2 lens setup from 3 so the added weight of MK II isn't that big a factor at present.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,302 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6353
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 15, 2016 07:35 |  #15

If you're even hesitant on the tamron, then get the canon, no need to discuss any further


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

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

16,246 views & 6 likes for this thread
Canon 70-200 f/2.L IS II vs Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC
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 clippingxpertindia
841 guests, 216 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.