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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 22 Feb 2004 (Sunday) 10:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

My Take On L

 
Pekka
El General Moderator
Avatar
18,386 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 2472
Joined Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
     
Feb 22, 2004 10:40 |  #1

I'll start by listing all EF lenses you can buy, L's are in red:

Primes

  • Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
  • Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
  • Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
  • Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
  • Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L
  • Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
  • Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
  • Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
  • Canon EF 35mm f/2
  • Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L USM
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
  • Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
  • Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Photo
  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
  • Canon TS-E90mm f/2.8
  • Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM
  • Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
  • Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
  • Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
  • Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
  • Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
  • Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM
  • Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
  • Canon EF 300mm f/4L USM
  • Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L II USM
  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
  • Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
  • Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
  • Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
  • Canon EF 500mm f/4.5L USM
  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L USM
  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
  • Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM


Zooms

  • Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
  • Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM
  • Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
  • Canon EF -S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 20-35mm f/2.8L
  • Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
  • Canon EF 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L USM
  • Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
  • Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5
  • Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II
  • Canon EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM
  • Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6
  • Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II
  • Canon EF 28- 90mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM
  • Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
  • Canon EF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6
  • Canon EF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
  • Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM
  • Canon EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5
  • Canon EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A
  • Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 PZ
  • Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6
  • Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 II
  • Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III
  • Canon EF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5
  • Canon EF 35-105mm f/4.5-5.6
  • Canon EF 35-105mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5
  • Canon EF 35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM
  • Canon EF 38-76mm f/4.5-5.6
  • Canon EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5
  • Canon EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5L
  • Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 II USM
  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
  • Canon EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
  • Canon EF 70-210mm f/4
  • Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II USM
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
  • Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L
  • Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6
  • Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II
  • Canon EF 90-300mm F4.5-5.6
  • Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 100-200mm f/4.5A
  • Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
  • Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6
  • Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6L
  • Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM


Special

  • Canon Macro Photo Lens 20mm f/3.5
  • Canon Macro Photo Lens 35mm f/2.8


Ok, that is a lot. Now some fundamental questions needs an answer:

Why some lenses are L (Luxury) and some not?

To me it seems the answer is: if prime is L, it is either a specialty lens (14mm, TS-E, 180 macro), extremely sensitive to light (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.0, 85/1.2, 135/2) and it is expensive (yes, that must be one L requirement!) and intended to special target group with media visibility adding a big "I'm a pro" tag to the photographer, like all white long primes do. What must affect also is construction, distortion, colors, sharpness when open, low audible noise, fulltime manual focus, better optical elements, focus accuracy. DO is in itself an L level tag, so it does not need L. L may be very hard to manufacture and still have perfect quality control (this is why 50/1.4 is not L - it has lot of variance wide open and 50mm is probably the easiest one to manufacture).

If zoom is an L, it means it has same aperture on both ends (or a very small difference), USM, fulltime manual focus and good construction. Perhaps weather sealing, too.

Why should I buy new lenses at all?

Because I have a need which is not fulfilled by the ones I have. If flash shooting is ok to you, why get 2.8 lenses? If moving around is ok for you, why get zooms? If changing lenses is not an option due environment you're shooting is, why get primes? And vice versa. Perhaps you find that your currect lenses leave you with lots of unusable photos (not suitable for situation), or they do not deliver quality you require.

Who decides when "quality" is ok?


You do. Only you. And what you decide is governed by your experience. In time you will develop your eye to see more from image: quality of lines, bokeh, colors, distortion. You print bigger, you see more. You get more demanding assignments (less light, in more demanding environment with more demanding schedule. You start to think more of "look" than technical quality.

"Look"?

Mostly people talk about speed and sharpness. "Sharp lens is good lens". Evaluating sharpness is one of the easiest things you can do with an image. Sharpness is a good thing of course, but there are several other things which should be more important:

  • can you achieve good subject separation?
  • can you make backrounds smooth and unobtrusive?
  • are colors natural or pleasing?
  • can you capture the current light?
  • can you improve (boost) the current light?
  • can you express yourself though the camera with this lens?
  • do you feel that the images taken with this lens look good?
  • is there "3-dimensionality" or other hard do define experiences when looking the photos?
  • do you feel that the photos you take look like your photos?
  • can you do it better with this lens?
  • and so on...


So do all L's have those qualities?

What qualities? Didn't I just say that YOU decide what qualities are needed. You decide the qualities, then look for lenses that can produce those qualities, you weight them and check what you can afford (or better advice is: do not buy compromise lenses, wait, save and by the real one later). Sigma 14 is one example of a my compromise lens (could not afford Canon) - Canon 28-135 IS I already sold.


One lens seeking story

I'm getting a new lens for 1D Mark II which should come in a month or so. Why a new lens? I have now:

Sigma 14 f/2.8
Sigma 20 f/1.8
Canon 35 f/2
Canon 50 f/1.4
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
Canon 1.4x mk II extender

I shoot lots of people on work, indoors, street. I like very low light shots without flash, good subject separation and smooth bokeh. I have used mostly 50 and 70-200 just for those qualities.

A casual reader will immediately see I obviously lack a common short zoom (24-70). May be, but the reason I'm looking for a new lens is both practical and artistic:

When shooting portraits I have always felt 50 f/1.4 is the best lens for that (very nice at f1.8-2.5), but that I'm just slightly too close to subject when shooting. 70-200 is excellent, too, but not very "artistic" - better for live movement. So, as said obvious zoom choice would be 24-70 f/2.8L, or in primes (if based on sharpness and speed) it would be 135/2.

24-70 drops out of the list because in 1.3X camera it extends only 10mm over 50mm on 1.6X camera. And 2.8 is too little for that wide a lens: subject separation can not be done properly. I do not want "general" lenses. I other words I'm not looking a lens just for recording a certain focal lenght range.

So, what about 135/2? Nice bokeh, sharp. Works with extenders. Too long for small rooms, even with 1.3X camera. Too close to 70-200 in aperture and range. And even 70-200 at 2.8 is too sharp for some portraits.


100mm may be slightly too long, and I will get 100mm macro later so for now, I'll forget 100mm lenght now.

Then we come down to 85mm. That is the interesting focal lenght. 110mm FOV on 1D mark II (50mm = 80mm on 10D)

85/1.2L is there. But why pay mucho extra for that when you have the 1.8 version which is really sharp and nice? Let's evaluate that. I went to net, consulted Canon "Lens Work II" and came out with info that 1.2 is very usable with 1.2L, it vignettes some wide open (actually I like that), and that it is relatively slow focusing lens. I plan to use this for "art shots" - focusing speed is not an issue. What is very important to me is autofocus accuracy and it seems that the slowness of 1.2L's focusing is there because its accuracy is excellent. Although sharpness is not no. 1 issue for me I'm not saying I don't care about sharpness - 80/1.8 is not equally sharp wide open (actually on paper it is, but due to difference in optics that does not work so well in reality) - that matters. I care a lot about bokeh and subject separation ( which should be extremely good when 1.2 is also sharp and lens focuses accurately). See http://www.wlcastleman​.com/equip/reviews/85m​m/ (external link) for one good test. More testing in http://www.techphoto.o​rg …/equipment/cano​n/50_1.epl (external link) .

So, I decided to go for 85/1.2L. Ridiculously expensive, but the only lens that fills all my requirements. If it weren't an L, with same specs I would have chosen it anyway. I did not include a requirement "L" anywhere into my list. Merely because it has qualities that go beyond "normal" Canon decided to give it L tag. L should not be a requirement, but L is often chosen as a result of using both logic and feeling in the seeking process.

This was just one story how people end up bying L's. In the end it's all about YOUR requirements. Forget L, think about U.

The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
AMASS 2.5 Changelog (installed here now)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevinteh
Mostly Lurking
19 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
     
Feb 22, 2004 11:37 |  #2

Great Scott, that is one very long thread....but a very good one.

I 'll need to save it first and read it later, hope that's ok with you.

another recent addited L'holic... :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
26,900 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Keystone State, USA
     
Feb 22, 2004 12:19 |  #3

kevinteh wrote:
Great Scott, that is one very long thread....but a very good one.

I 'll need to save it first and read it later, hope that's ok with you.

another recent addited L'holic... :lol:

Actually, if you compress it by removing all the white spaces, it's not that long. :wink: :mrgreen: :lol:


...Leo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
evilenglishman
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2003
     
Feb 22, 2004 13:47 |  #4

you missed some lenes:

EF 28- 90mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
EF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6
EF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 USM
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


Click here to view and/or sign the petition (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Avatar
12,749 posts
Likes: 30
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
     
Feb 22, 2004 14:24 |  #5

PacAce wrote:
Actually, if you compress it by removing all the white spaces, it's not that long. :wink: :mrgreen: :lol:

Would that make it a verbal JPEG?

Seriously, its a good post and it is helpful in that it shows the thought process that one wise individual used to decide on a lens.

I read it and I recommend reading it (even if he missed my favorite non-L lens) :) Its a good lesson in actually thinking through the process of a lens purchase.


Tom
5D IV, M5, RP, & various lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ballen ­ Photo
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,716 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 920
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Southern Nevada and Idaho
     
Feb 22, 2004 14:40 |  #6

Pekka, Thanks for putting your thoughts on this to print. I too will have to come back here later to re read, and absorb more of these thoughts before I can make any intelligent comments.
BTW, I had a look at your photos, and thought they are very nice. Fem Fatale was a gorgeous shot the way it turned out, and once again, made me fall in love for the umpteenth time. But who's counting anyway? :D
............Bruce


The Captain and crew finally got their stuff together, now if we can only remember where we left it. :cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pekka
THREAD ­ STARTER
El General Moderator
Avatar
18,386 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 2472
Joined Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
     
Feb 22, 2004 15:12 |  #7

evilenglishman wrote:
you missed some lenes:

EF 28- 90mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
EF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6
EF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 USM
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Added them to original post. Thanks! You really read it?! :roll: :P


The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
AMASS 2.5 Changelog (installed here now)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msnow
Member
221 posts
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Camarillo, CA
     
Feb 22, 2004 15:26 |  #8

This was an excellent post, thanks Pekka.

I was always under the impression that the glass itself on an L lens was either of a higher quality or ground to a different (higher) standard. Is this true?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pekka
THREAD ­ STARTER
El General Moderator
Avatar
18,386 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 2472
Joined Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
     
Feb 22, 2004 15:54 |  #9

msnow wrote:
This was an excellent post, thanks Pekka.

I was always under the impression that the glass itself on an L lens was either of a higher quality or ground to a different (higher) standard. Is this true?

Well, I said "L has better optical elements" and that would mean both construction design (e.g. floating systems, focusing accuracy, assembly tolerances) and glass quality (UD, higher quality, smaller fault tolerances). I think Canon is _forced_to use better parts and designs on most L's because if for example design aim is to have 2.8 on both ends of 70 and 200 then you're bound to use much better glass parts than with 3.5.-5.6 design. Those parts are more expensive. If that wouldn't be so then why they'd have those variable aperture designs at all? If you take a look how complex doing a single piece of glass is in http://canon.com …tech/l_plant/f_​index.html (external link) then I think it is safe to say that there must be discarded attempts of glass for L quality parts (especially parts like the main lens of 85/1.2L which weights about 300 grams or more I think).

It looks also to me there are also design choices in L lenses which get you a better image but which are very much harder to build/install, like adding UD element to 500mm f/4.5L, quote: " The fourth lens, a UD (ultra-low dispersion) lens, is directly incorporated deep into the front barrel, requiring a high-degree of technical skill." http://canon.com …itate/ku_2/kumi​tate2.html (external link)


The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
AMASS 2.5 Changelog (installed here now)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick ­ barclay
Senior Member
733 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2004
     
Feb 22, 2004 16:54 |  #10

I was just going to say I thought you were a bit off on your remarks about
the "L" designation, but you appear to have corrected yourself above.
That's a great dissection of the anatomy of choosing the right lens for
one's personal needs. My problem is I really don't know what the heck
kind of pictures I want to take. I like them all! One minute I envision
myself at the race track shooting nascars. I want to run right down to
the the nearest freeway and start practising panning. Then I read an article about a Canon lens with a 1.0 aperture that does the most
beautiful candlelight pictures one can imagine, and I want to do that.
Mention sports: there I am with my 70-200 2.8 shooting basketball.
I see a picture of a bee on a flower and right away I need the finest macro
setup B&H can sell me. OMG, the list goes on and on. Buying computer equipment is nothing compared to this. It's a wonder I'll ever make up my mind over which lens to buy, and I bet even after I do finally make up my mind and actually buy one, I'll never stop agonizing over whether it
was the right lens to buy or not. Is it just me or are photographers
all the same: like a woman trying to make up her mind in a shoestore?


You are cordially invited... (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msnow
Member
221 posts
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Camarillo, CA
     
Feb 22, 2004 17:10 |  #11

Wow! This is the first time I've seen the process for manufacturing one of these lenses (Pekka's link http://canon.com …/tech/l_plant/f​_index.htm (external link)). It's truly amazing, the hand work, quality control, and testing.

It makes me curious about something though. After I purchased my 24-70/f.28L I got several comments from people (mostly in dpreview forum but one or two here) like "I hope you got a good one" or "I hope your copy isn't defective". Several people stated that they sent brand new "L" lenses back to the Canon service center for "recalibration". I'm wondering if Canon really had a problem with these lenses or if these people were just making it up. I can imagine a few "bad" lenses falling through the cracks but not a lot of them.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
52,922 posts
Gallery: 193 photos
Likes: 10114
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Feb 22, 2004 22:36 |  #12

Great post! It is now in my bookmarks :)

I was reading and halfway through I kept thinking to myself, What about the 85s.... lol

Interesting that is where you have ended up. My next lens will be the 85mm f/1.8 I used one and loved it! I read Castlemans side by side and decided I could save about $1,000.00 by choosing the f/1.8

Not sure when I'll actually get one,. but it is on my list.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
randyk
Member
181 posts
Joined Feb 2004
     
Mar 03, 2004 21:55 |  #13

rick barclay wrote:
My problem is I really don't know what the heck
kind of pictures I want to take. I like them all! One minute I envision
myself at the race track shooting nascars. I want to run right down to
the the nearest freeway and start practising panning. Then I read an article about a Canon lens with a 1.0 aperture that does the most
beautiful candlelight pictures one can imagine, and I want to do that.
Mention sports: there I am with my 70-200 2.8 shooting basketball.
I see a picture of a bee on a flower and right away I need the finest macro setup B&H can sell me. OMG, the list goes on and on. Buying computer equipment is nothing compared to this. It's a wonder I'll ever make up my mind over which lens to buy, and I bet even after I do finally make up my mind and actually buy one, I'll never stop agonizing over whether it was the right lens to buy or not. Is it just me or are photographers all the same: like a woman trying to make up her mind in a shoestore?

I'm a firm believer that it makes sense to have multiple lenses for a wide range of uses rather than just one or two. Too few is either a compromise in quality or limiting in what you can shoot well.

For my 10D, I started with a 50 1.4 and 70-200 f4. Added a 17-40 and 1.4x. Later found that I needed a faster wide angle than the 50 so added a 28 2.8. Sold the 50. Picked up the infamous Dell 2.8 IS version of the 70-200, sold the f4. Lastly, I picked up an 85 1.8 for even faster indoor sports usage. Thankfully, its possible to recover most of what you spend when selling quality lenses. There is always the desire for more but I feel well covered as equipped to capture my interests:

28 2.8 low light close quarters, travelling light
17-40 4.0 landscapes or any in good light, walk around
85 1.8 indoor sports, low light, portrait
70-200 2.8IS - indoors in good light, any outdoor sports
1.4x on big zoom for rare nature photos

Would also like that 135L 2.O for a bit more indoor sports reach, the 1.4x would also be useful on this.

Your mileage may differ.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NILOLIGIST
Goldmember
2,131 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2003
Location: New York City
     
Mar 04, 2004 00:10 |  #14

Great list Pekka. This is a great reference thread, very informative.

Thanks,
NiL,


Canon 1D Mark II, 24-70 f/2.8L, 17-40 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L. 580EX, 4 - Alien Bees, Gitzo Tripod, Bogen Monopod.

My websites
http:// (external link)www.frederiqueporter.c​om (external link)http://www.musecube.co​m/photosbyrica (external link)http://www.pbase.com/n​iloligist (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nosquare2003
Senior Member
861 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
     
Mar 04, 2004 02:13 |  #15

Pekka, it's the best guide to Canon lens purchase I've seen. You didn't talk about any lens reviews which can be easily found in the internet. The most difficult part is the individual's decision process. And you set an excellent example.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

89,716 views & 12 likes for this thread, 81 members have posted to it and it is followed by 7 members.
My Take On L
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1470 guests, 138 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, 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.