Old 09-23-2009, 08:50 AM   #1
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default Should I wait or go for it now?

I've been looking at the Canon EF-S 10-22mm for the past 6 months or so and am getting a bit concerned in the increase in price. This lens was back ordered nearly 5 months ago. Prior to that, it was going for right around $700 on B&H. Well, over the past several weeks, I've noticed the price increase a good bit. It's now up to $789, but with free shipping. Should I go ahead and purchase the lens now, or will the fall rebates and Christmas discounts be worth the wait? I'm also concerned the lens will go out of stock once again as a result of Christmas.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5_4_5_USM.html

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 10:45 AM   #2
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

I don't see it going down but it may, who knows why it went up. If you need it get it but i would think that much would be better spent replacing your 18-55 a lens that you may need more?
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 12:21 PM   #3
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

I was in the same boat you were in, needing to replace my kit lens, but wanting to get to 10 to 22 mm. I went with the 10 to 22 and have really loved the lens. If I were in your shows, I would consider the possibilities. Get that Super Wide ad you'll probably like it as much as I do. Or replace the kit lens with the lens I got next, the Sigma 17 to 70. Or put a few more hundred dollars down and get something like the 24 to 105 f4L, which is the lens I really wanted this time. Either way you go, you won't go wrong. Getting the Sigma now allows you to stay wide, though not as wied as the 10 to 22 and gives you a few bucks if you need cards, software or anything else.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 01:19 PM   #4
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

If you really want a super wide, and money's an issue, why not get the Tokina 12-24? A few months ago, I was looking for a wide angle to supplement my 24-105 f4L and was deciding between the Canon 10-22 and the Tokina 12-24. All the reviews I read had them neck and neck, so price was the deciding factor, so the Tokina one. I don't have any complaints, and use the wide angle as much as the 24-105.

I agree with Richard and Joe that you should replace the kit lens first (save for the 24-105L and you'll get made that you used a shitty 18-55 for so long), but if you really want a wide angle, check out the Tokina.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15/

- Chris
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 01:38 PM   #5
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

If you are asking for predictions as to where lens prices are going, that is a fool's game, like investing in stocks. If you nonetheless want some opinions, try dpreview, the Canon lens forum, there is lots of discussion of that sort, plus I have seen talk there recently about the prospects for upcoming rebates.

As for the Tokina, Chris' points are well taken. Just know that there is actually a big difference between 10mm and 12mm. As always, tradeoffs.

Also, if you are wanting to spend big money, and are interested in replacing your kit lens, something you should consider is the announced but not yet available Canon 15-85 IS. Having 15 instead of 17 on a walk around lens should be really sweet - that is getting fairly wide, a 24mm full-frame equivalent instead of almost 28mm. I will be tempted to get one myself despite having the 17-55, but I suspect budget will constrain my natural impulses. But let's see what the tests/reviews say.
__________________
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 09-23-2009, 03:58 PM   #6
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Just know that there is actually a big difference between 10mm and 12mm. As always, tradeoffs.
J, I'm not trying to be a pain, but just how big of a difference are you talking? I haven't noticed a shot yet where using a 12mm was impossible and a 10mm would be needed. Actually, I find myself very rarely using the low end, staying more in the 15-24mm range.

I guess maybe for cityscapes you would need the most wide angle you could get, but for train photography, I just don't see the need for the extra 2mm. What am I missing?

- Chris
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 04:08 PM   #7
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

I think every case is different and you, cblaz, or even Chase, may never need 10 and 11 mm. But those shots of mine taken at the Cayce Riverwalk of the train crossing the Congaree River needed as much wide as I could get. Of course, if I had the 12 mm and not the 10, I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. Chase, I know nothing about Tokina products. I'd research the brand before I bought one. Chris evidently likes them; that's a definite plus.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 04:25 PM   #8
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post
J, I'm not trying to be a pain, but just how big of a difference are you talking? I haven't noticed a shot yet where using a 12mm was impossible and a 10mm would be needed. Actually, I find myself very rarely using the low end, staying more in the 15-24mm range.

I guess maybe for cityscapes you would need the most wide angle you could get, but for train photography, I just don't see the need for the extra 2mm. What am I missing?

- Chris
No problem!

First of all, I have not yet mastered my 10-22 below 15 or so. It is really a challenge to find ways to make use of those focal lengths. It isn't just a matter of taking, say, a standard 24mm equiv shot (24mm is a traditional landscape focal length) and going a bit wider. As one goes wider one runs into all sorts of exaggerated perspective issues that make it challenging to get a good composition.

Having make that long intro/CMA, I will say that the difference in perspective is vast (in math terms, 16% wider). This isn't the best comparison I have seen but it will have to do for now.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...ison-angle.htm

Here's another, unfortunately devoid of interesting edge content that would be missed with the narrower lens, not a great comparison.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...omparisons.htm

Now what does it matter? For landscape-oriented train photography, I would agree with you, the value is not much. For artistic shots of a different type, those going for unique compositional juxtapositions and perspectives, it can be quite valuable. I am unable to quickly find my favorite 10mm exemplar, by Dan Putz, not on RP, oh well.

I have a vague recollection that this shot is extremely wide; perhaps someone can check the exif as I don't have a reader on this computer.

http://pa.photoshelter.com/c/nicksuy...000RP8kYjCZXZE
__________________
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

Last edited by JRMDC; 09-23-2009 at 04:31 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 05:12 PM   #9
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

I use the 10-14 mm side the most with mine. The canon has a little distortion with most of it at 10-12mm. If your getting a wide angle lens to have the wide angle looking shot you better get the canon. If you need just a little more room either will work. If you want to improve on the 18mm you already have, I would go Canon so you see more of a difference. 10-22 with a 24-105L is a nice combo with a 100-400 to boot.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:23 PM   #10
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Guys, I appreciate the replies. On my favorites right now, I have the 10-22mm and the 24-105L. I've been watching both of their prices, hoping for the best. I know I can't go wrong with the 24-105L, although for now, I seem to be content with the 18-55mm kit, despite the fact it is just a kit lens.

I personally think a 10-22mm would be beneficial considering I live in West Virginia. The impressive mountains look nice enough when shot at 18mm, but at 10mm, I'd hate to see the results. Plus, the railroad practically runs around these mountains, so it would be extremely easy to capture a railroad subject. I've lined out a few possibilities that I think are PCA worthy if captured and edited correctly (correcting the distortion, that is).

Again, thanks for the replies. I'll watch the price for another week on the 10-22mm while also doing some research on the Tokina 12-24mm. I prefer to stay within the Canon family, but as I said, I'll take a look at some reviews. If the price doesn't come down on the Canon lens, then I'll probably say goodbye to all the money I've earned this summer and go ahead and purchase it. Atleast if I purchase it by next week, I'll be able to enjoy it for the fall colors this October-November.

Christmas is right around the corner as well. Perhaps I can convince relatives I need some L glass.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide

Last edited by Chase55671; 09-23-2009 at 06:26 PM.
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 06:39 PM   #11
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

I've read that the 10-22 is L glass quality but ef-s keeps it from being rated as L glass. I don't know myself. I'm just the messenger.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 07:41 PM   #12
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 travsirocz View Post
I've read that the 10-22 is L glass quality but ef-s keeps it from being rated as L glass. I don't know myself. I'm just the messenger.


Ive heard the same, its just as good, if not better than the Canon 16-35 L. I love mine.
__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 08:19 PM   #13
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

The 10 to 22 is super sharp. There have been a few shots of mine that have not needed any sharpening at all straight out of the camera and a few even after being sized down to 1024 wide,
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 11:06 PM   #14
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 cblaz View Post

I agree with Richard and Joe that you should replace the kit lens first (save for the 24-105L and you'll get made that you used a shitty 18-55 for so long), but if you really want a wide angle, check out the Tokina.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15/

- Chris
The Tokina 12-24 is a damn sharp lens for one so wide, I got rid of mine as i didn't care to shoot that wide is all. Before you drop that kind of cash make sure you will like it? Thats why i think getting a better normal zoom is best. Some can shoot wide some can't WELL i can't.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 04:30 AM   #15
FAdams
Member
 
FAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 51
Default

The guys at my local camera store told me if I was looking to buy something Canon that now was the time because they (Canon) had sent word of a 5% price increase starting October 1
__________________
My pix are here .
FAdams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 07:38 PM   #16
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

I employ a 17-40 f/4L (and a 24-70 f/4L - I can't praise this lens enough, give it a serious look before deciding firmly on the 24-105), and honestly, I rarely take my 17-40 out as it is (I'll usually just take a few steps back and opt for the sharper 24-70 whenever possible). One other thing to note is the lens has a plastic body, whereas L series lenses feature metal bodies - I need not emphasize how important this can be for a hobby like ours (though a lens hood would help your cause); as a matter of fact, this is one of the reasons I opted for a 40D when it came time to retire the Rebel XT - a metal structure. It has come in handy too - down on the WNY&P, I was attempting to climb up a somewhat steep gravel hillside, and long story short, the camera had its first encounter with the ground...which resulted in a scratch on the body and a few more scratches on the lens hood - everything else was completely unaffected. Weather-sealing is another big one, though I do not know if the 10-22 features it or not (shooting in the snow, out on a cloudy day and are caught in a shower, etc.).

I'm just playing devil's advocate here because everyone else is chiming in with lots of pros, but not a lot of cons about this lens.
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 08:08 PM   #17
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,980
Cool

I have the Canon 17-40 f4 L and the 70-200 f4 L and I am in heaven. Both are quantum leaps in sharpness and color over my old 18-50, 24-105 and 70-300 lenses. The build quality and the weather sealing feel just great in your hands and the images are feasts for the eyes.

17-40:
Image © Dennis A. Livesey
PhotoID: 291832
Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey


70-200:
Image © Dennis A. Livesey
PhotoID: 291651
Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 08:38 PM   #18
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAMR159 View Post
One other thing to note is the lens has a plastic body, whereas L series lenses feature metal bodies - I need not emphasize how important this can be for a hobby like ours
Well, actually, you DO need to emphasize, beyond one story - one that doesn't even say the plastic is inadequate! I guess I get antagonized by the anti-plastic pro-metal crowd. I have never heard of a problem with lens at the build quality level of 10-22/17-55/85 1.8 etc canon lens. I've never heard of a build-related failure. (Now, the nifty fifty, that is entirely different!) So I don't see how important it can be. (OK, I'm sure failure has happened, but I do think it is overrated as an issue. There are lots of tough plastics around.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
The build quality and the weather sealing feel just great in your hands
Now, hand feel is another story. Nothing like the feel of weight, which often conveys a feel of quality. (But I put weight on the backburner when I travel, very happy to take the 55-250!)

But weather sealing - which, by the way, how exactly are you "feel"ing that??? - don't you need to think about what weather sealing your body has? After all, no point in going out into the deluge and having your 70-200 L hold up just fine but water creeps in through the non-sealed interface between lens and body. It isn't clear to me that L-level weather sealing on a lens gives me much with an xxD body (using Canon lingo).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAMR159 View Post
I'm just playing devil's advocate here
Me too. :0
__________________
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 09-24-2009, 08:49 PM   #19
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 JRMDC View Post
It isn't clear to me that L-level weather sealing on a lens gives me much with an xxD body (using Canon lingo).



Me too. :0
Have to get to an 1D-7D before you get weather sealing, xxD is weather resistant xxxD best keep it out of the wet rain.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 08:54 PM   #20
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

I have shot in all conditions with my 30D and 40D and have yet to have a problem. I do wipe the water off of it after use and during use however.
__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 09:33 PM   #21
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter S View Post
I have shot in all conditions with my 30D and 40D and have yet to have a problem. I do wipe the water off of it after use and during use however.
Same here with my 30D. If you're standing in the rain or snow, keep the camera inside your jacket until you need to take the shot.

Image © Christopher Blaszczyk
PhotoID: 250498
Photograph © Christopher Blaszczyk

Image © Christopher Blaszczyk
PhotoID: 249889
Photograph © Christopher Blaszczyk

Image © Christopher Blaszczyk
PhotoID: 173322
Photograph © Christopher Blaszczyk

Image © Christopher Blaszczyk
PhotoID: 173320
Photograph © Christopher Blaszczyk

Image © Christopher Blaszczyk
PhotoID: 173323
Photograph © Christopher Blaszczyk


- Chris
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 09:56 PM   #22
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

A nice trick is if it's 32 or 0 or lower let the camera and lens cool off till then snow will not melt, then just brush the snow off. I keep a stack of napkins that are leftover to blot raindrops off.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 10:00 PM   #23
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Well, actually, you DO need to emphasize, beyond one story - one that doesn't even say the plastic is inadequate! I guess I get antagonized by the anti-plastic pro-metal crowd. I have never heard of a problem with lens at the build quality level of 10-22/17-55/85 1.8 etc canon lens. I've never heard of a build-related failure. (Now, the nifty fifty, that is entirely different!) So I don't see how important it can be. (OK, I'm sure failure has happened, but I do think it is overrated as an issue. There are lots of tough plastics around.)



Now, hand feel is another story. Nothing like the feel of weight, which often conveys a feel of quality. (But I put weight on the backburner when I travel, very happy to take the 55-250!)

But weather sealing - which, by the way, how exactly are you "feel"ing that??? - don't you need to think about what weather sealing your body has? After all, no point in going out into the deluge and having your 70-200 L hold up just fine but water creeps in through the non-sealed interface between lens and body. It isn't clear to me that L-level weather sealing on a lens gives me much with an xxD body (using Canon lingo).



Me too. :0
Snot.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 11:15 PM   #24
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,980
Cool

It is my understanding that the "plastic" we are talking about is actually polycarbonate.

As such, polycarbonate is more impact resist (read flexible) than metal. I think that "plastic" lenses therefore are more resistant to damage than metal. It is a function of mass. The greater weight of metal and it's greater rigidity (and accompanying brittleness) would cause greater damage to itself than an equivalent "plastic" lens.

I well recall the cat-calls 30 years ago when plastic bodied still cameras were introduced. Those were guys who wanted to lug around their heavy metal, never the obviously inferior plastic. Not me, I like my light weight Canon gear. My film Nikon bag weighs twice as much.

I had the 18-55, the 28-105 and the 70-300 and still have the $50 50 mm.
I have not used other Canon lenses thus I cannot comment.

All of these polycarbonate lens had build issues, such as grittiness in the zooms/focus controls and when extended, exhibiting loose, sloppy joints. The 50's auto-focus is now failing and manual focussing by its tiny hard-to-find focus ring with attendant poor response is near impossible.

The L lenses I own, made with thin (thus light) metal exhibit tight, smooth silky action. Definitely a quality leap over gritty/sloppy.

Weather sealing, which is accomplished by black rubber O-rings sealing the gaps in the various components causes slight friction when twisting the controls thus YOU CAN feel it.

Weather sealing is not just for rain: it also works for dust.

Speaking of dust, that's where the L glass quality left my old lenses in image quality alone.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 11:59 PM   #25
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

I just read somewhere about the price increase that we are seeing with the lenses and the canon rep stated it is due to the yen rising and the dollar falling.

As for the lens (Canon 10-22), I was just looking at it, I do not have the money to spend on one though, is a really great lens for landscapes and what I was looking at it for was star trails. I also read a few post that the owners stated the lens is really sharp and could be considered an "L" quality lens.

i have the 24-105 that I bought in April and I have only taken it off my camera twice since then to use my 70-300. After using my 24-105 for so long I hate using the 70-300 because it is so slow when trying to focus. The 24-105 is well worth the money if you can afford it. Try POTN forums in the sell section if you want a used one. I recall seeing 1 the other day for ~ $900.00. It has the weather sealing on it which I think will help keep the dust out and other grime better than the regular lenses would. That is just my opinion though.
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha 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 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.