Old 04-29-2010, 10:15 AM   #1
Trendyh
Member
 
Trendyh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 51
Send a message via Yahoo to Trendyh Send a message via Skype™ to Trendyh
Default Canon Lens

I am thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
Have read all the reviews, and pros and cons of being to heavy etc,
But what I want to know does anyone have or used one and what you think.
Trendyh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 10:42 AM   #2
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,909
Default

I don't have one and I wouldn't get one. You get a DSLR in part so you can change lens. Why would I then get a lens that tries to be everything? A tle, a wide angle and all that? On a DSLR, the 28 mm with the 1.6 ratio isn't really that wide though. I don't like the f3.5 at the widest though and certainly not the 5.6 atthe other end. The lens tries to be everything to everyone, but it has to leave something god out.

If you don't want to change lens on a camera, don't get a DSLR.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 11:58 AM   #3
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I dont have that, but I have the 100-400 which is similiar, and I am not a fan of it on moving targets. It has push-pull zoom which I feel is awkward. Also it focuses slow compared to more modern "L" USM lenses. Image quality is good though.

The 28-300 is very similiar, but just slightly smaller and I assume slightly less heavy.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 04:23 PM   #4
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb Go rent it.

I have the 100-400 mm zoom too, and I really like it. I also have a 24-105 mm lens.

Yes, I had to get acquainted with the push / pull zoom but it is faster than a turn zoom and yes it is heavy, but like a deer rifle, you get used to the weight.

The only thing I dislike about the lens is the f-stop range of 4.4 - 5.6 - wish it was lower, but that is the difference between a $2,000.00 lens and an $8,000.00 lens.

There is only one advantage I can see to the lens that you are looking at and that is that you would be able to not switch lens between a close shot and a long shot.

I have to switch, however I have some overlap in the middle between the two lenses.

That is why most professionals shoot with a minimum of two camera bodies, that way they just switch cameras and don't have to fiddle with a lens change.

It would be nice to devote that type of capital to my "hobby."

Only problem I see about the lens you are looking at is that optically, the low end of the lens at 28mm will not produce as wide a field as a shorter barreled lens and the high end at 300mm may not be as clear due to aberrations in the elements of the lens.

I would suggest you go rent one of these lenses before you buy and take it for a test drive so to speak.

Nothing sucks more than dropping some serious coin on a piece of glass and it turning out to be not what you want.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 04-29-2010 at 04:32 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 05:12 PM   #5
Cranky
Junior Member
 
Cranky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Heavy (3.7 lbs) , poor IS, push pull focusing, to large a field of coverage, soft images. I put the 28-300 with the new 70-200 f/2. Failed white over priced junk. A retail price of $2,689.00 is a pretty good chunk of change. I also found the range very attractive. It is the best do all piece of Glass from "Canon". I rented a 28-300 for 1 week, put it through its paces,put back in the mail and never touched one again. I took my we will say $2,700 and purchased the 70-200 f/4 IS for $1,049 - $200 rebate. This left me enough to get any one of the standard glass in "L" Canon offers. Whether it is the 24-70 f/2 or the 24-105 f/4 IS you can not go wrong. Or you can go with the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 if you so desire to telesmash. Though I highly suggest renting the 28-300 to see if you do in fact like it, and it is what "YOU" want.
Cranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 09:04 PM   #6
Trendyh
Member
 
Trendyh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 51
Send a message via Yahoo to Trendyh Send a message via Skype™ to Trendyh
Default

Thanks to the guys that replied, I already have a 100-400 and don't mind the push-pull you get used to it, I was just looking for a lens with more variety of range to stop lens changing, and dust on the sensor.And was sure that there would be a few photog's on here that had one or used one and was looking for your opinions after using it.
Trendyh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 09:08 PM   #7
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

For less than 1/3 of the price you might look at a 15-85 zoom, although not nearly as long, on a crop sensor body it has a more interesting range of variation, from the interestingly wider than standard 15 (24 equiv, a traditional landscape focal length) to some decent telephoto at 85. By comparison the 28-300 is normal to tele to longer tele and does not have the wide - I'll argue that having the 15-27 is much more valuable than the 86-300 in terms of compositional creativity.

And there is nothing wrong with having $1700 left in your pocket ...
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 09:21 PM   #8
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

If I was in your shoes, I think I'd be looking at getting another 50D and pairing it with a new 24-70 f/2.8 L or 24-105 F/4 L IS.
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 10:40 PM   #9
WKUrailfan
Senior Member
 
WKUrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 230
Default

If you anticipate only shooting in bright sunlight for the rest of your life, by all means, buy this lens. I would recommend saving up for the 70-200 f/4 L. Its a cheaper version of the mainstay f/2.8 version.
WKUrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 11:34 PM   #10
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Exclamation I concur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose View Post
If I was in your shoes, I think I'd be looking at getting another 50D and pairing it with a new 24-70 f/2.8 L or 24-105 F/4 L IS.
I concur.

A second body is the answer assuming you have one of the lenses listed above, or something around 24mm.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 11:44 PM   #11
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
I dont have that, but I have the 100-400 which is similiar, and I am not a fan of it on moving targets. It has push-pull zoom which I feel is awkward. Also it focuses slow compared to more modern "L" USM lenses. Image quality is good though.
Push-pull zoom is awesome. I love it. And what are "more modern" L lenses?
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 12:41 AM   #12
Cranky
Junior Member
 
Cranky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Push-pull zoom is awesome. I love it. And what are "more modern" L lenses?
Pretty much the 24-70 f/2L, and the 24-105 f/4L I guess. The gears in the Mind of Canon seem to have rusted over. Pretty sad... Maybe we will see a 50-250 f/4L USM IS in the future ? As for Push Pull, it is very nice once you get use too it. I would rather have a Push pull vs a piece of glass that reverse adjust,twist,turn,focus that of a Canon.
Cranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 12:47 AM   #13
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranky View Post
Pretty much the 24-70 f/2L, and the 24-105 f/4L I guess. The gears in the Mind of Canon seem to have rusted over. Pretty sad... Maybe we will see a 50-250 f/4L USM IS in the future ? As for Push Pull, it is very nice once you get use too it. I would rather have a Push pull vs a piece of glass that reverse adjust,twist,turn,focus that of a Canon.

The 24-70 F2.8L is several years old and a replacement is on the horizon. Canon has improved several lenses in the past few years including the 70-200 F2.8L IS and the 85L.
__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:15 AM   #14
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranky View Post
Pretty much the 24-70 f/2L, and the 24-105 f/4L I guess.
So the 100-400 isn't a modern piece of glass?
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:30 AM   #15
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
So the 100-400 isn't a modern piece of glass?
It was released in 1998 and was one of the first L lenses with IS, so yes, it isnt terribly modern.

The 28-300 was released in 2004 for example, 24-70L in 2002, even the "old" 70-200/2.8L IS was released in 2001 and has been refreshed recently. It is one of the oldest, if not THE oldest "L" zoom lens still being made next to the 70-200 2.8L non-is.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:35 AM   #16
Cranky
Junior Member
 
Cranky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
So the 100-400 isn't a modern piece of glass?
2002 is a while back, though I do not know if there have been any improvements in the lens. But as the saying goes. " If it ain't broke don't fix it". Jim on a personal scale of 1-10, how would rate the use of the 100-400, and how sharp is it at 400mm, soft,semi, or razor ? All this talk is burning a hole in my back pocket ! Also does the 100-400 have 2 IS modes? Thanks for input also.
Cranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:40 AM   #17
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranky View Post
2002 is a while back, though I do not know if there have been any improvements in the lens. But as the saying goes. " If it ain't broke don't fix it". Jim on a personal scale of 1-10, how would rate the use of the 100-400, and how sharp is it at 400mm, soft,semi, or razor ? All this talk is burning a hole in my back pocket ! Also does the 100-400 have 2 IS modes? Thanks for input also.
If you are referring to the 100-400 It was released in 1998, not 2002. And yes, both have 2 mode IS, the 100-400 uses one of the older IS systems, leaves some to be desired, and AF is slow. There is also reports on some of the forums about sharpness variation between lenses. Mine is pretty sharp stopped down, even at 400. I dont have any complaints about IQ. I just dont like the push-pull and AF slowness compared to more modern USM lenses.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:53 AM   #18
Cranky
Junior Member
 
Cranky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
If you are referring to the 100-400 It was released in 1998, not 2002. And yes, both have 2 mode IS, the 100-400 uses one of the older IS systems, leaves some to be desired, and AF is slow. There is also reports on some of the forums about sharpness variation between lenses. Mine is pretty sharp stopped down, even at 400. I dont have any complaints about IQ. I just dont like the push-pull and AF slowness compared to more modern USM lenses.
Thank you Troy for the date correction. So maybe we could hope for some updating and do away with the push pull design.
Cranky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 04:55 AM   #19
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranky View Post
2002 is a while back, though I do not know if there have been any improvements in the lens. But as the saying goes. " If it ain't broke don't fix it". Jim on a personal scale of 1-10, how would rate the use of the 100-400, and how sharp is it at 400mm, soft,semi, or razor ? All this talk is burning a hole in my back pocket ! Also does the 100-400 have 2 IS modes? Thanks for input also.
I'd give it an 8, I suppose. But the only thing I have to compare it to is the 24-105 and the 17-40. The focus seems fine to me, and I actually prefer the push-pull. The 100-400 was my first long zoom lens, so I don't have an issue with the way it zooms.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 05:10 AM   #20
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendyh View Post
Thanks to the guys that replied, I already have a 100-400 and don't mind the push-pull you get used to it, I was just looking for a lens with more variety of range to stop lens changing, and dust on the sensor.And was sure that there would be a few photog's on here that had one or used one and was looking for your opinions after using it.
Hahaha, you're in for it.
If you ever get a chance to use a push-pull lens before you buy it, feel the air moving in and out of the camera body, especially near the CF card door. There's a reason why they call them dust pumps. You won't be saving your sensor from much dust at all, it would be way easier on you just to get a blower.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 04:36 AM   #21
GIZMO
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default Check the Tamrons at BH Photo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendyh View Post
I am thinking of purchasing a Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
Have read all the reviews, and pros and cons of being to heavy etc,
But what I want to know does anyone have or used one and what you think.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...234+4294185281

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Di_II_VC.html


My choice far and away would be the Tamron 18-270 with VC Vibration Control, with the Tamron 18-200 without VC my fall-back budget position. These are high quality lens from a company that has been at the forefront of innovation over the last twenty years, with innovations that are usually out in front of Nikon and now are ahead of Canon in important features, particularly considering prices . These lenses and similar are not the limiting factor in image quality in cameras like my Nikon D200 or D700. There has been continual improvement in focal range coverage with their FX series for full frame cameras and their DX series for cameras with the smaller APS C frames. Near focal distance has continually improved, from about seven feet 20 years ago to 18 inches currently in both series, yielding increasingly excellent macro performance. Everything is right there in one lens that covers virtually everything for the typical user, which is important, since it allows one to take advantage of unexpected opportunities, near or far. Wide FOV is particularly important in getting proper positioning in tight situations and helps in avoiding that long strung out look in his train images. Near focus comes in handy more frequently the more one becomes accustomed to using it, as in imaging such things as gauges or placards.

Canon simply has nothing to compare. The lens you mention has a 35 mm equivalent of about 45-480 on a Canon EOS D50 considering the format factor of 1.6 and fails to provide the proper 75 degree FOV. Going for a lens like the Canon 18-55 gives the 75 degree FOV but then one needs several lens to get proper coverage and the right lens is often not quickly available in the event. One then misses all the nice things that seem to have gone away.
GIZMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 04:42 AM   #22
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

I think a writer of ad copy has just joined the forums! Or a CEO ...
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 10:42 AM   #23
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

At one time the 100-400 was a bad lens and canon reworked it with the newer IS and sharped it up. As it is now it's a good lens small and light or you can get Nikons 200-400 thats one stop faster F 4 and sells for $7000.00 for there newest version. As far as Tamron lenses there ok but way slow F 6.3 and my not focus at all if its dark out, you get what you pay for.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 11:00 AM   #24
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
the 100-400 uses one of the older IS systems, leaves some to be desired, and AF is slow.AF slowness compared to more modern USM lenses.
It's not the AF thats slow it just has to move a big lens a long way that makes seam slow. If your shooting sports or birds it maybe slow but then it's a F 5.6 to.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 06:13 PM   #25
GIZMO
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default Just organizing my thoughts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
I think a writer of ad copy has just joined the forums! Or a CEO ...
The last few hours I have been playing around with some lenses I have not messed with for a long time (9 of them in all) and it has been a lot of fun. My main lens, a Tamron 28-300 with VC seems slow at times, especially at the longer focal lengths and in the dark. Go to BHPHOTO.COM and you see most users rate the Tamron slower than the corresponding Nikon, and most users seem to agree, even the guys at the local Mike’s Cameras (3 stores) who have been promoting the brand in its 28-200 and longer variants for the last 20 years. I once asked them to show me the corresponding Nikon and they said they don’t keep them around.

The long Tamrons, a 28-200 about 20 years old, a 28-300 about 10 years old, a 28-300 about one year old (the only with VC Vibration Control), (and excluding the 18-200 about 4 years old) all seem about the same, doing best at less zoom, better light and strong vertical lines to focus on. In really low light there was lots of searching but eventually I could get all them to focus, but sometimes there is embarrassment if I am shooting people on the street in borderline conditions, but never a failure to get the focus in less than 10-15 seconds estimated. Sometimes it is best to simply manually pre-focus at eternity shooting birds for example because they can go shooting by pretty fast and often background gets in the way. Same for airplanes sometimes since one can get the infinity sweet spot with a little practice. Also best to pre-focus on infinity if you are swinging the camera around a lot because the Nikons really like to grab onto the nearest thing, often unpredictably, for example shooting out through the window of a moving car at variable targets. In this case take steps to make sure you don’t get distracted, best to have a separate driver or a good mount and a good remote control and hope the cops don’t want to get you anyway. For example I miss a lot of things along the road corresponding to what the RR guys show in derailments, being sometimes it’s spooky to stop and start photographing the scene of an accident or traffic stop. It makes the cops paranoid.

I was surprised that the 18-200 seemed considerably snappier than the other Tamrons giving me hope that the 18-270 itself might do well although I have no plans to buy one but would if I had to depend on the D200 again.

The shorter-is-better continued through the others to my surprise. The Tokina 20-35 F 3.5 which I have had around for a long time really jumped to it, much faster than anything else, even my Nikon F 2.8 60 mm Macro lens which has been around for a long time. Neither the Nikon 75-300 (F 4.5-5.6) nor the Sigma 400 (F 5.6) was any better than any of the Tamrons at equivalent focal lengths.

I have been on the BH-Photo web site today and I am frankly amazed at how much money one can put into some of those lens, especially Nikon and Canon among others. The Tamrons I have been talking about, the 18-270 and the 28-300 both with VC are in the $600 class and I would love to have some of the more expensive lens to run against them but I would have to be convinced of their practical value. For example things not visible in normal conditions don’t impress me, things like minor vignetting etc. As far as detail goes I believe in strict testing of various combinations of equipment, of objects that one can zoom way in on the computer and compare things of realistic nature, such as bar codes or printed pages or dental x-rays at what ever distance is selected, since viewers intuitively identify with such things, like a bar code at 15 feet is always a challenge. And these zoom shots should be presented as unknowns, since various viewers have agendas and preconceived notions. Plus it is important that test shots be of identical density and that implies ripping off a series in bracket mode so that identical densities are available.

I have always liked the Tamrons because everything is right there near and far and macro and wide angle at close distance, etc, like taking pictures of the person riding with you on a two person chair lift. The D700 supports very high speeds, up to 6,400, although noise has more of a tendency to creep in with poor light, although one can often see good detail behind the noise (little speckled dots of color.) One needs to constantly check quality and the display on the back is simply in a different world than my D200. Faces can be tough so one should be ready to whip on the flash unless operating low profile. And the only test that counts to me is how well the image responds when one puts it on the computer and starts “Zooming & Grabbing” to see how much detail he can get from an image, like how many individual nice images from a line of football cheerleaders doing a series of high kicks, shot at 6 frames per second, maximum of 30 shots. Like the girls are really cute, have their legs way up in the air and enjoy having their pictures taken.

I am a radiologist and I have been fighting these battles of preconceived notions for a long time. There are scattered articles promoting techniques that supposedly increase “detail” but the tests and experiments described are not clinically realistic but that has stopped some people (technicians) from seizing on them and one has to be on guard that these things don’t creep into clinical practice, since unfortunately these techniques all tend to result in much longer exposure times, in a game where speed is often the one thing that solves lots of your problems, like shooting x-rays of “fighting drunks” from the ER in the middle of the night and standard techniques have to be programmed into machines.

I find ACDSEE as good as anything for viewing and organizing images. For example one merely needs draw a box around an area of interest and click inside it and that area immediately fills the screen. I have not met anybody who has seen anything slicker or quicker.

I keep CaptureWizPro sitting on the edge of my screen. Hit draw a box around the part of the screen of interest and the program grabs the image, gives it an ascending file name and that is it. There are other options too but that is slickest.

http://www.acdsee.com/support/products/acdsee/2009 $70 with 30 day free trial.

http://www.pixelmetrics.com/CapWizPro/index.htm $40 with 30 day free trial.

Both companies are easy to work with, being friendly and non-predatory.

I like the combination of these two programs to carry out what I call “Zoom & Grab” which results in little or no loss of pixels if done right, since one is using the entire screen, rather than the loss of pixels that occurs with “cropping.” I suspect cropping when different images on this site by the same viewer show lots of variation in file size and I suspect that in many cases “Zoom & Grab” would have resulted in better image quality.

In a similar vein, the fastest way to look at images on FLICKR seems to be in slide show format and these images yield nicely to reaching out and grabbing them with CaptureWizPro, since they do not respond the same way as .JPEG’s would, since they are in JAVA.
GIZMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.