Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500

Started Apr 7, 2009 | Discussions
Blake Cook
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Geenine, Apr 10, 2009

Geenine wrote:

Don't listen to Blake. "The Sigma Saga" is a totally unsubstanciated
fake, that was proven in the original thread in this forum. It was
made up by a company that would much rather rent way more expensive
lenses to increase their earnings.

Here is LensRental's repair data. Do you even know what unsubstantiated means?
Please show us your "proof".

Note: These numbers have been updated on 10/1/08 to reflect a two year average for all Canon lenses as we’ve completed our review of Canon repair records.
Lens Annualized Repair Rate Typical Problems
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 90.00% Zoom mechanism, calibration, autofocus
Sigma 120-400 OS 44.44% OS, Autofocus, zoom
Sigma 150-500 OS 45.45% OS, Autofocus, zoom
Sigma 50-500 33.33% Zoom mechanism, autofocus
Sigma 100-300 f4 25.00% autofocus
Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS EF-S 17.39% IS, Err99
Sigma 18-200* 16.67% barrel failure
Canon 10-22 EF-S 15.79% barrel separation
Nikon 17-35 f2.8 14.29% calibration
Sigma 30 f1.4 14.29% calibration
Nikon 80-400 11.11% Electronic issues
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 10.53% zoom mechanism
Canon 100-400 IS 12.25% Zoom tension ring, Err99, calibration
Canon 50 f1.2 13.3% Calibration
Canon 85 f1.2 11.66% Electronic issues
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS 4.12% IS, Calibration

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver
http://flickr.com/photos/28305360@N00/

Panasonic Stuff, Canon Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows Immobile PDA POS.

 Blake Cook's gear list:Blake Cook's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
naurholm
Senior MemberPosts: 1,282
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Doctor A, Apr 10, 2009

Can one suggest the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and TC ?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
peterclark55
Senior MemberPosts: 2,276
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Doctor A, Apr 11, 2009

Am pleased with my Sigma 150-500, perhaps a good number...
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
garmon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,069
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to naurholm, Apr 11, 2009

I've used my 2x Kenko on my 120-300. You need to stop down to f8 to get good IQ. I'm not sure how easy 600mm be to hand hold. The lens is very heavy to hold for some people. I would think with this combo a sturdy tripod is the way to go.
--
Canon 40D/Rebel XTi
Canon 70-200L/2.8 - Canon 135L - Canon 100/2.0 - Canon 18-55IS
Canon 50/1.8 - Sigma EX 18-50/2.8 II - Sigma EX 50-500/4-6.6
Sigma EX 120-300/2.8 - Sigma 18-200 OS/3.5-6.3
Kenko 300 Pro 1.4X & 2X TC

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Belasco
Contributing MemberPosts: 693
Like?
100-400
In reply to Doctor A, Apr 11, 2009

Do a search here at dpreview--a lot of discussion on this. In short the canon 100-400 is sharper, better IS and a joy to use.

I carry the canon 500 f4 IS and the 100-400 for bird photography. Sometimes I confuse the 100-400 shots for a 500 shot. I have a very good copy of the 100-400.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Geenine
Contributing MemberPosts: 982
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Blake Cook, Apr 11, 2009

Blake Cook wrote:

Geenine wrote:

Don't listen to Blake. "The Sigma Saga" is a totally unsubstanciated
fake, that was proven in the original thread in this forum. It was
made up by a company that would much rather rent way more expensive
lenses to increase their earnings.

Here is LensRental's repair data. Do you even know what
unsubstantiated means?
Please show us your "proof".

Note: These numbers have been updated on 10/1/08 to reflect a two
year average for all Canon lenses as we’ve completed our review of
Canon repair records.
Lens Annualized Repair Rate Typical Problems
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 90.00% Zoom mechanism, calibration, autofocus
Sigma 120-400 OS 44.44% OS, Autofocus, zoom
Sigma 150-500 OS 45.45% OS, Autofocus, zoom
Sigma 50-500 33.33% Zoom mechanism, autofocus
Sigma 100-300 f4 25.00% autofocus
Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS EF-S 17.39% IS, Err99
Sigma 18-200* 16.67% barrel failure
Canon 10-22 EF-S 15.79% barrel separation
Nikon 17-35 f2.8 14.29% calibration
Sigma 30 f1.4 14.29% calibration
Nikon 80-400 11.11% Electronic issues
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 10.53% zoom mechanism
Canon 100-400 IS 12.25% Zoom tension ring, Err99, calibration
Canon 50 f1.2 13.3% Calibration
Canon 85 f1.2 11.66% Electronic issues
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS 4.12% IS, Calibration

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver

I'm used to only the most "rabid" of Canon fanboys mentioning "The Sigma Saga" anymore. So when someone mentions it as quickly as you did, I tend to "judge" immeadiatly. My "claws" tend to come out when someone still try to use that old story.

Very unlike fanboys, you actually provided photographic evidence that you based your criticism on, so I'm sorry if I came off too hard. Still, after having tried only one sample, that even was quite sharp at 200mm, I think your statements and you bringing up "The Sigma Saga" was way too hard. Remember that the 120-400 costs under half the price of a 100-400. It's not an EX lens either, so no wonder that the 100-400 wich is an L did better. I thought that your posts did not tell the truth, so I linked to Juza's review, which does show the truth.

The only "proof" I need to offer is a link to the original "Sigma Saga" thread. Read the whole story here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=29765810&page=1

You'll see that the rental people denies to give out any numbers on how many samples they have of each lens, without this, the percentages you quote are totally useless. If they have only one sample of a lens, and it fails, it's a 100% failure rate. If they have 100 samples of another and 50 of them fail, it's only a 50% failure rate. But I'd MUCH rather buy the lens with the 100% failure rate in this case, as the one failure have a very high chance of beeing a fluke, and the latter is actually proven to be bad.

It also came out that a VERY high % of the failures was due to shipping and no fault of the lenses at all.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Blake Cook
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Geenine, Apr 11, 2009

Geenine wrote:

, so I'm sorry if I came off too hard.
Still, after having tried only one sample, that even was quite sharp
at 200mm,

You've got to be kidding. My photos examples compared the Sigma at its best focal length to the Canon at its frequently documented worst 400mm focal length and it's not even close. Plus the Sigma is veiled and the color is awful. And that Sigma is not sharp. I don't even think the Canon is that sharp.

I think your statements and you bringing up "The Sigma
Saga" was way too hard. Remember that the 120-400 costs under half
the price of a 100-400.

At any price the lens must be able to focus and operate. Lensrental documents the Sigma % rate of failure shown in my previous post. As for Lensrental credibility, you can't run a busines with a handful of rentals, plus there are posts in the thead you quoted showing Lensrental with the "highest reseller rating" the poster had seen.

It's not an EX lens either, so no wonder that
the 100-400 wich is an L did better. I thought that your posts did
not tell the truth, so I linked to Juza's review, which does show the
truth.

The only "proof" I need to offer is a link to the original "Sigma
Saga" thread. Read the whole story here:

It also came out that a VERY high % of the failures was due to
shipping and no fault of the lenses at all.

You need to read critically. None of the posts say anything about the Sigmas being damaged by shipping. The lenses we unfit for use "right out of the box" means NEW from Sigma, nothing more.

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver
http://flickr.com/photos/28305360@N00/

Panasonic Stuff, Canon Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows Immobile PDA POS.

 Blake Cook's gear list:Blake Cook's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Juza_EA
Senior MemberPosts: 1,286
Like?
tried them all...direct comparison:
In reply to Doctor A, Apr 11, 2009

Here you can see my in-depth test:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm

They are all nice lenses for their price, but if I had to choose I'd go for the Canon.

-- hide signature --

Juza
Nature photographer
http://www.juzaphoto.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roger Schliefert
Senior MemberPosts: 2,164
Like?
Fanboy w/ a few pics
In reply to Doctor A, Apr 11, 2009

I have no experience with the Sigma's, I'm sure they're fine lens. The Canon 100-400L is probably my most used lens, I love it. The only soft shots I get from it are because of user error.

100% crop from previous photo

Regards,

Roger

-- hide signature --

Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.
George S. Patton

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doctor A
Regular MemberPosts: 106
Like?
Re: tried them all...direct comparison:
In reply to Juza_EA, Apr 11, 2009

That's a really nice comparison. I think it takes the 50-500 out, because of the non-IS. On the long range (400) Canon beats them all. I"m wondering about the quality of the copies used in the test, as I read a lot about Sigma's hit and miss copies.
Great review
--
Canon 50D, Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Geenine
Contributing MemberPosts: 982
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Blake Cook, Apr 11, 2009

Blake Cook wrote:

You've got to be kidding. My photos examples compared the Sigma at
its best focal length to the Canon at its frequently documented worst
400mm focal length and it's not even close. Plus the Sigma is veiled
and the color is awful. And that Sigma is not sharp. I don't even
think the Canon is that sharp.

If you don't even think the Canon is sharp, why on earth did you even bother trying out a consumer grade Sigma? Obviously only Canon long primes are good enough for you. The rest of your statement is just not true, Juza proved that in his excellent and unbiased review. You might have tested a very poor sample, but what you say is not true for a normal working sample.

BTW. I got a Canon 24/2.8 that was just rubbish. You don't see me stating that 100% of all those lenses is total rubbish do you? Why do you say that 100% of 120-400's are?

At any price the lens must be able to focus and operate. Lensrental
documents the Sigma % rate of failure shown in my previous post. As
for Lensrental credibility, you can't run a busines with a handful of
rentals, plus there are posts in the thead you quoted showing
Lensrental with the "highest reseller rating" the poster had seen.

Here we agree, a lens must focus accurately and work reliably. My 50-500 does just that. I know that a Canon 500mm will take better shots than my Bigma, but for the price I was willing to pay, I got the best and most versatile lens available to me.

As for Lensrental's credibility, that vanished as soon as they refused to reveal the number of samples they have of each lens.

If you where to buy an equal amount of all lenses for such a business, you'd VERY soon be out of business. Buying 200 Sigmonsters or 200 Canon 800's will take care of that pretty fast:-) Without providing the number of samples, the percentages he provided are just BS, there's no way around that.

You need to read critically. None of the posts say anything about the
Sigmas being damaged by shipping. The lenses we unfit for use "right
out of the box" means NEW from Sigma, nothing more.

I was involved in that thread when it came out, so believe me, I have read every word in that thread critically. They don't say that the Sigma's was damaged by shipping, they say that of ALL breakdowns of any lenses, a very high percentage was due to shipping. My Canon 24/2.8 was rubbish right out of the box too, but it was mearly one single sample...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Blake Cook
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Geenine, Apr 11, 2009

Geenine wrote:

If you don't even think the Canon is sharp, why on earth did you even
bother trying out a consumer grade Sigma? Obviously only Canon long
primes are good enough for you.

I tried the Sigma first because the salesman suggested it. Note the canon is wide open at 400mm which is the weak point of that lens. It is quite sharp stopped down.

The rest of your statement is just
not true, Juza proved that in his excellent and unbiased review. You
might have tested a very poor sample, but what you say is not true
for a normal working sample.

The subject is Sigma Quality Control. My point is: how did the stinker I tried make it through Sigmas' QC? According to LensRental it is true for 90% of the 120-400's they have had.

At any price the lens must be able to focus and operate. Lensrental
documents the Sigma % rate of failure shown in my previous post. As
for Lensrental credibility, you can't run a busines with a handful of
rentals, plus there are posts in the thead you quoted showing
Lensrental with the "highest reseller rating" the poster had seen.

As for Lensrental's credibility, that vanished as soon as they
refused to reveal the number of samples they have of each lens.

Let's look at the LensRental table. 90.00% of their 120-400's were faulty. The minimum number of lenses require to arrive at that % is 10 lenses. Just how many lenses would you thing is a satisfactory sampling, considering at least 9 of 10 were faulty?

As if it matters, given that the Sigma %'s are truly horrendous. Has anyone actually asked them for the number or are you just complaining because the table doesn't include it?

You need to read critically. None of the posts say anything about the
Sigmas being damaged by shipping. The lenses we unfit for use "right
out of the box" means NEW from Sigma, nothing more.

They don't say that the Sigma's was damaged by shipping, they say that of ALL breakdowns of any lenses, a very high percentage was due to shipping.

I can't find that anywhere, except your post implies it.

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver
http://flickr.com/photos/28305360@N00/

Panasonic Stuff, Canon Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows Immobile PDA POS.

 Blake Cook's gear list:Blake Cook's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Geenine
Contributing MemberPosts: 982
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Blake Cook, Apr 12, 2009

Blake Cook wrote:

I tried the Sigma first because the salesman suggested it. Note the
canon is wide open at 400mm which is the weak point of that lens. It
is quite sharp stopped down.

The Sigma is also sharp stopped down, as Juza's review shows.

The subject is Sigma Quality Control. My point is: how did the
stinker I tried make it through Sigmas' QC? According to LensRental
it is true for 90% of the 120-400's they have had.

I don't believe anything that company says. To calculate their percentages, they had to use the number of samples, so why on earth don't they just release the numbers? The only reasons not to, is that it's all a fake, or that the numbers show something that they do not want us to know.

However Sigma do have QC issues, I have gotten a bad sample of a 50/1.4 myself. But they sell comparable lenses to Canon often at between 1/2 and 1/3 of the price, so that's just something we'll have to accept in order to have these lenses available to us. Also Sigma gives excellent warranty on their products, so there's little risk involved in buying a Sigma. Canon on the other hand, overprices a lot of their products insanely, still, they have a lot of QC issues themselves. Just look at Pfotozone, how many 24-70L's have they tried now without getting a good sample? And their warranty sucks.

Let's look at the LensRental table. 90.00% of their 120-400's were
faulty. The minimum number of lenses require to arrive at that % is
10 lenses. Just how many lenses would you thing is a satisfactory
sampling, considering at least 9 of 10 were faulty?
As if it matters, given that the Sigma %'s are truly horrendous. Has
anyone actually asked them for the number or are you just complaining
because the table doesn't include it?

You forget that these numbers are not for lenses that where bad out of the box. I believe these numbers are for breakdowns during a year.

I would feel comfortable judging a lens as bad if I got numbers for say 20 lenses that was used as intended by the factory, this lens was not made for pro use or rental use, it's a consumer grade lens.

Just look at cars, the breakdowns of rental cars is much higher than for privatly owned cars because people abuse them, I expect it would be the same for lenses. Since the 120-400 is not an EX lens, it's not built with proffesional use in mind, therefor it's no wonder that it can't take as much abuse as say a 100-400L. Also a larger lens that's poorly wrapped, will get more shipping damages than smaller lenses.

Somebody in the original thread asked them for the numbers in the original thread, but they refused to give them out. I believe they claimed it was a business secret or somthing like that. If it is, then they should not have released any numbers at all. Their conduct makes them look really lame.

If these lenses are as bad as Lensrentals claim, why is'nt this forum spammed down with threads about how bad peoples lenses are? I know for a fact that they sell increadlible amounts of these lenses.

They don't say that the Sigma's was damaged by shipping, they say that of ALL breakdowns of any lenses, a very high percentage was due to shipping.

I can't find that anywhere, except your post implies it.

It might be that this information came out in a follow up thread. I spent so much time reading that thread when it came out, that I don't feel like finereading it all again.

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver

Anyway, people reading this thread don't have to decide which one of us to believe. Here's a link to nearly 800 pictures taken with that lens, I can't see anything that supports your statements at all.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/apo_120_400_45_56_dg_os_hsm

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Blake Cook
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Geenine, Apr 12, 2009

This all boils down to credibility. I happen to believe LensRental, a highly respected lens reseller and all the people even in the threads you quote that have had Sigma lens problems, you don't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver
http://flickr.com/photos/28305360@N00/

Panasonic Stuff, Canon Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows Immobile PDA POS.

 Blake Cook's gear list:Blake Cook's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Geenine
Contributing MemberPosts: 982
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Blake Cook, Apr 12, 2009

Blake Cook wrote:

This all boils down to credibility. I happen to believe LensRental,
a highly respected lens reseller and all the people even in the
threads you quote that have had Sigma lens problems, you don't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver

Yes, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

Many people in the Sigma saga thread are almost fanatically anti Sigma, like the thread starter himself. A few of these people have have serious personal isues with Sigma in general, and have no credibility at all with me. Often they write about things they know nothing about and have no experience with.

I have never heard about the LensRental company before the Sigma saga thread, but to earn any respect from me, they must tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They did not do this.

What's important is to get the best possible gear for the mony we're willing or able to spend. For people that can't afford a 100-400L, the Sigma 120-400 gives them the excact same capabilitys, of cause with a reasonable and for the price, fully expected hit in sharpness wide open. It's still much better to actually HAVE and use a Sigma than to NOT have a Canon

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Blake Cook
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Geenine, Apr 12, 2009

Geenine wrote:

I have never heard about the LensRental company before the Sigma saga
thread, but to earn any respect from me, they must tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. They did not do this.

From LensRental Repair Data:

"Our overall repair rate from all lenses per year is just under 5%. For business reason I’m not willing to share the exact number of copies of each lens stocked, but the lowest number of copies of any lens listed is 9, and the average number of copies per lens is 26."

Next you will be demanding serial numbers from each lens or they won't have any credibility. I mean 9 lenses minimum and 26 average is a pretty fair sample size.
Quit grasping at straws.
--
Blake in Vancouver
http://flickr.com/photos/28305360@N00/

Panasonic Stuff, Canon Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows Immobile PDA POS.

 Blake Cook's gear list:Blake Cook's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Geenine
Contributing MemberPosts: 982
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Blake Cook, Apr 13, 2009

Blake Cook wrote:

From LensRental Repair Data:
"Our overall repair rate from all lenses per year is just under 5%.
For business reason I’m not willing to share the exact number of
copies of each lens stocked, but the lowest number of copies of any
lens listed is 9, and the average number of copies per lens is 26."

Next you will be demanding serial numbers from each lens or they
won't have any credibility. I mean 9 lenses minimum and 26 average is
a pretty fair sample size.
Quit grasping at straws.
--
Blake in Vancouver

I'm not grasping at straws at all. I just demand to know the excact number of copies they have of each lens before giving any credibility at all to this.

I cannot see any valid "business reason" that would make it a bad thing to reveal those numbers.

Their overall repair rate is also definatly not true, with lenses that have up to 90% repair rate, that would drag the average up way higher than that, just look at the other numbers you posted, it's ONLY the Canon 70-200/2.8 that has under 5% repair rate, even if all other lenses they stock where perfect, they still could not get down to 5% over all, given the numbers allready released... Somone definatly flunked math here and they will not be getting any credibility from me anytime soon

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Blake Cook
Senior MemberPosts: 2,203Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 100-400 IS vs Sigma 50-500 or 150-500
In reply to Geenine, Apr 13, 2009

Geenine wrote:

Blake Cook wrote:

From LensRental Repair Data:
"Our overall repair rate from all lenses per year is just under 5%.
For business reason I’m not willing to share the exact number of
copies of each lens stocked, but the lowest number of copies of any
lens listed is 9, and the average number of copies per lens is 26."

Next you will be demanding serial numbers from each lens or they
won't have any credibility. I mean 9 lenses minimum and 26 average is
a pretty fair sample size.
Quit grasping at straws.
--
Blake in Vancouver

I'm not grasping at straws at all. I just demand to know the excact
number of copies they have of each lens before giving any credibility
at all to this.
I cannot see any valid "business reason" that would make it a bad
thing to reveal those numbers.
Their overall repair rate is also definatly not true, with lenses
that have up to 90% repair rate, that would drag the average up way
higher than that, just look at the other numbers you posted, it's
ONLY the Canon 70-200/2.8 that has under 5% repair rate, even if all
other lenses they stock where perfect, they still could not get down
to 5% over all, given the numbers allready released... Somone
definatly flunked math here and they will not be getting any
credibility from me anytime soon

At present they have 1382 lenses in their rental pool of 243 different lenses. The repair table represents a very small percentage of their lenses. One lens with 90% repair rate is a very small piece of the picture and would not change the total % much at all.

But you're right if they were dumb enough to have a fleet if Sigma lenses they'd be broke.

-- hide signature --

Blake in Vancouver
http://flickr.com/photos/28305360@N00/

Panasonic Stuff, Canon Stuff. Mac Stuff & annoying PC & Windows Immobile PDA POS.

 Blake Cook's gear list:Blake Cook's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads