Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm

Started Jul 2, 2013 | Questions
DGways
Junior MemberPosts: 32
Like?
Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
Jul 2, 2013

I am presently in the market for my first L lens. I am looking to get a telephoto lens that can get me to 400mm, and potentially beyond, for wildlife photography, mostly birds.

I was convinced that the lens I was looking for was the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 because of the l-series build and image quality, and because of the IS. I have also heard good things about the focal range that the lens possesses "saving the day" for some, but I also have my concerns about the lens. I like to manually focus fairly regularly, and when I tried the lens out briefly, the manual focussing capabilities seemed a bit clunky and harder to use than I expected. Also the push-pull design isn't ideal in any way.

Then the other day I thought to myself, what if I got a 300mm f/4 which has IS and is definitely easier to manually focus because of the lack of the push-pull design, and theoretically should be sharper than the zoom telephoto because it is a prime. And what if I put a 1.4X canon teleconverter on the lens? then it would be the same as a 420mm lens with f/5.6 and IS. I could also use the lens with a 2X converter to get a 600mm lens with f/8 and IS.

First question: I've seen comparissons like this using the mk2 teleconverters, would autofocus be more usable (on a canon 550d) if I used the mk3 teleconverters with the 300mm lens?

second question: which will produce better image quality at around 400mm?

third question: how does the 100-400mm lens hold up with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on it? how does it compare with a 1.4x teleconverter on it to the 300mm with a 2x on it?

final question: which is the better choice for me taking my preferences and needs into consideration.

I'd be happy to see any example photos taken in any one of these teleconverter combinations.

thank you for looking! happy shooting.

happysnapper64
Senior MemberPosts: 4,183Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to DGways, Jul 2, 2013

The Canon 400f/5.6L is probably the fastest focusing, & sharpest lens at 400mm of the ones you are considering. The 100-400 is next, 300 + 1.4tc 3rd in image quality. You will lose IQ with a 2xtc which may make the prospect unapealing. I started a thread a week or so ago on the subject of using a 1.4tc on the 300f/4 IS. I have a Sigma 120-400 OS, & am going to persist with it for the time being, & maybe look again at the 300+tc later. Sigma also do a stabilized version of the 50-500 that has had fairly good reviews, although it is a heavy beast, & not called the "Bigma" for nothing. But for BIF & wildlife, the 400f/5.6, although not having IS, is probably your best bet.

-- hide signature --

lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
"I'm so fast, when I turn off the light, i'm in bed before the room gets dark" The great Mohamed Ali.

 happysnapper64's gear list:happysnapper64's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dhogaza
New MemberPosts: 21
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to happysnapper64, Jul 2, 2013

"I'm so fast, when I turn off the light, i'm in bed before the room gets dark" The great Mohamed Ali.

Actually, that quote's from Satchel Paige, talking about Cool Papa Bell, another star in the old Negro baseball league. Long before Ali's time.

Now, on to lenses. A lot of birders buy the 100-400L and the one thing I note, out in the field, is that invariably the lens is cranked out to 400mm full time. For most, if Canon had a 400/5.6 with IS, that would be a better choice (and that's what they'd be buying, I'm sure).

I went the 300/4, plus 1.4x when needed for my IPC mid-range tele needs (I also own a 600/4).

I'm extremely pleased with the image quality with the TC, and of course even more pleased without.

In the last couple of years, I've been traveling quite a bit for work and end up going to Monterey to photograph whales and dolphins. My local professional photo store had a beat up copy of the 100-400 for sale, from their rental department. They ended up giving it to me for $250. Glass perfect. Everything works. Perfect lens for taking out on a wet boat. Perfect for traveling as when I take the 300 out on a boat, I also take a 2nd body with a 70-200/4 IS L.

I'm extremely pleased with the image quality of this lens, too, though I must admit my expectations were low given some things I've read on the "they can't lie on the" internet "can they?".

So in favor of the zoom: obviously it is more flexible. IQ is fine, not spectacular, but fine.

In favor of the 300/4 + 1.4x: definitely sharper at 300. I think it's a bit sharper with the 1.4x than the zoom at 400, but haven't tested formally. IQ is fine in either case. It's lighter and less bulky, especially less bulky than the 100-400 cranked out to 400.

Looking at small JPEGs compressed for web viewing is a lousy way to judge quality, but this was taken with the 300/4 + 1.4x and looks very nice printed at 16"x24".

Black-Crowned Night Heron, Summer Lake SWA, Oregon, two weeks ago

So is this:

Burrowing Owl with insect prey, 300/4+1.4x, Round Barn, OR, June 1st 2013

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DGways
Junior MemberPosts: 32
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to dhogaza, Jul 2, 2013

Thanks, can anyone vouch for the autofocus speed of the 300 f/4 with the 1.4x teleconverter (mk2 or mk3 specifically)?

also, does anybody know if autofocus will work with a 300 f/4 lens, a 550d body, and a mk.3 2x teleconverter?

thanks, I'd love to hear more about these combinations. The responses so far have been great.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bhollis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,535Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to DGways, Jul 2, 2013

DGways wrote:

I am presently in the market for my first L lens. I am looking to get a telephoto lens that can get me to 400mm, and potentially beyond, for wildlife photography, mostly birds.

I was convinced that the lens I was looking for was the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 because of the l-series build and image quality, and because of the IS. I have also heard good things about the focal range that the lens possesses "saving the day" for some, but I also have my concerns about the lens. I like to manually focus fairly regularly, and when I tried the lens out briefly, the manual focussing capabilities seemed a bit clunky and harder to use than I expected. Also the push-pull design isn't ideal in any way.

Actually, a lot folks--me included--really like the push-pull design.  Perhaps it's an acquired taste.

Then the other day I thought to myself, what if I got a 300mm f/4 which has IS and is definitely easier to manually focus because of the lack of the push-pull design, and theoretically should be sharper than the zoom telephoto because it is a prime. And what if I put a 1.4X canon teleconverter on the lens? then it would be the same as a 420mm lens with f/5.6 and IS. I could also use the lens with a 2X converter to get a 600mm lens with f/8 and IS.

The 300 f/4 will be sharper--until you put a TC on it.  With a 1.4x TC, the 300's IQ is about on a par with the 100-400.  But the AF is slower.  OTOH, the 300's IS is better.

First question: I've seen comparissons like this using the mk2 teleconverters, would autofocus be more usable (on a canon 550d) if I used the mk3 teleconverters with the 300mm lens?

Most reviews I've read put the IQ of the 1.4x II and III TCs as too close to worry about, while the 2x III is supposed to be noticeably sharper than the 2x II.

second question: which will produce better image quality at around 400mm?

As noted above, about on a par.

third question: how does the 100-400mm lens hold up with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on it? how does it compare with a 1.4x teleconverter on it to the 300mm with a 2x on it?

Not well.  The first thing you need to understand is that if you put a 1.4x TC on the 100-400, you've turned it into a 560mm f/8.  Similarly, if you put a 2x TC on the 300, you've turned it into a 600mm f/8.  And the fact is, most Canon cameras don't AF well, if at all, at f/8.  You can try taping pins on TC's so the camera doesn't know the TC's there and will continue to try to AF at f/8, but the results will be hit and miss at best.

final question: which is the better choice for me taking my preferences and needs into consideration.

If your primary interest is birds, I'd recommend the 400 f/5.6L.  Although it doesn't have IS, for birds in flight, you don't really need IS.  If you're interested in all kinds of wildlife shooting, I'd recommend the 100-400L for its versatility.

I'd be happy to see any example photos taken in any one of these teleconverter combinations.

I recently tried shooting my 5D3 (which just got a firmware upgrade to allow it to AF at f/8) with my 100-400L and 1.4x TC II.  Wasn't happy with the results--AF was so slow/inaccurate that I didn't get any shots I thought were worth keeping.

thank you for looking! happy shooting.

 bhollis's gear list:bhollis's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,627
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to DGways, Jul 2, 2013

DGways wrote:

Thanks, can anyone vouch for the autofocus speed of the 300 f/4 with the 1.4x teleconverter (mk2 or mk3 specifically)?

I used mine with the Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x, which is for all practical purposes a clone of the Canon MkII. Autofocus speed is very acceptable.

As I understand it, the additional electronics in the MkIII only work with the MkII big whites, so on the 300/4L IS the MkIII AF performance should be the same as the MkII.

also, does anybody know if autofocus will work with a 300 f/4 lens, a 550d body, and a mk.3 2x teleconverter?

That makes an f/8 combination, so the answer is no.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dhogaza
New MemberPosts: 21
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to Steve Balcombe, Jul 3, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

DGways wrote:

Thanks, can anyone vouch for the autofocus speed of the 300 f/4 with the 1.4x teleconverter (mk2 or mk3 specifically)?

I used mine with the Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x, which is for all practical purposes a clone of the Canon MkII. Autofocus speed is very acceptable.

It's fine with the Canon 1.4x (original version).  It was certainly good enough for me to nail that burrowing owl flying at me with a beetle in its mouth!

Fast enough to catch these, too ...

Cliff Swallow, 300/4 IS + 1.4x, Malheur NWR, OR, late May 2013

As I understand it, the additional electronics in the MkIII only work with the MkII big whites

And a subset of bodies, too ...

, so on the 300/4L IS the MkIII AF performance should be the same as the MkII.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dhogaza
New MemberPosts: 21
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to bhollis, Jul 3, 2013

bhollis wrote:

If your primary interest is birds, I'd recommend the 400 f/5.6L. Although it doesn't have IS, for birds in flight, you don't really need IS.

I disagree strongly with this.  You need to learn when it helps, and when it gets in the way.  In another response, I posted a couple of cliff swallows in flight, IS in panning mode really helped.

It is a good lens, though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bhollis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,535Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to dhogaza, Jul 3, 2013

dhogaza wrote:

bhollis wrote:

If your primary interest is birds, I'd recommend the 400 f/5.6L. Although it doesn't have IS, for birds in flight, you don't really need IS.

I disagree strongly with this. You need to learn when it helps, and when it gets in the way. In another response, I posted a couple of cliff swallows in flight, IS in panning mode really helped.

It is a good lens, though.

Well, I suppose it depends on what shutter speed you want to use for BIF.  If you want to use a relatively slow shutter speed, in order to get some background blur for example, then I think that IS in panning mode can be useful.  But if you're using a faster shutter speed, well over 1/1000th second, as I think most BIF shooters do, then I think IS becomes far less important, particularly with good panning technique.

In my opinion, for BIF, the most useful features by far are reach, sharpness, and fast AF.  And in these respects, the 400 f/5.6L delivers better than any other reasonably priced option, IMO.

 bhollis's gear list:bhollis's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Howard S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,838
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to DGways, Jul 3, 2013

DGways wrote:

I am presently in the market for my first L lens. I am looking to get a telephoto lens that can get me to 400mm, and potentially beyond, for wildlife photography, mostly birds.

I was convinced that the lens I was looking for was the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 because of the l-series build and image quality, and because of the IS. I have also heard good things about the focal range that the lens possesses "saving the day" for some, but I also have my concerns about the lens. I like to manually focus fairly regularly, and when I tried the lens out briefly, the manual focussing capabilities seemed a bit clunky and harder to use than I expected. Also the push-pull design isn't ideal in any way.

When I first got into zoom lenses the push-pull was considered highly desirable, but then we didn't has AF Maybe that's why I still like it.

Then the other day I thought to myself, what if I got a 300mm f/4 which has IS and is definitely easier to manually focus because of the lack of the push-pull design, and theoretically should be sharper than the zoom telephoto because it is a prime. And what if I put a 1.4X canon teleconverter on the lens? then it would be the same as a 420mm lens with f/5.6 and IS. I could also use the lens with a 2X converter to get a 600mm lens with f/8 and IS.

First question: I've seen comparissons like this using the mk2 teleconverters, would autofocus be more usable (on a canon 550d) if I used the mk3 teleconverters with the 300mm lens?

I have a 550D a 300/4 IS, 400/5.6 and Canon and Kenko extenders. I've tried (owned) the 100-400 twice and sold it. The first copy of the 100-400 was sharpest at about the same as my 300/4 +1.4x the second not so good. I convinced myself that I could put up with the focus speed of the 300/4 + 1.4 (Kenko is the fastest focus) and sold my 400/5.6 but I was wrong and had to buy another. It is much faster to focus than the 300/4 1.4x combo on any body I've tried.

So for BIF for me it's 400/5.6 and with a 'pod when general birding with expectation of some BIF. For stuff like dragonflies, butterflies and perched birds the 300/4 + 1.4x combo is my preference.

second question: which will produce better image quality at around 400mm?

third question: how does the 100-400mm lens hold up with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on it? how does it compare with a 1.4x teleconverter on it to the 300mm with a 2x on it?

I'm not impressed with any of them with a 2x and of course there's no AF unless in live view. For fun I once put a Canon 2xmk111 on the 400/5.6 and used the Canon M as a lens cap It did AF slowly and here's an image

final question: which is the better choice for me taking my preferences and needs into consideration.

I'd be happy to see any example photos taken in any one of these teleconverter combinations.

thank you for looking! happy shooting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Howard S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,838
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to DGways, Jul 3, 2013

I assume you are also following this thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51720812

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olmail
Senior MemberPosts: 1,089Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to DGways, Jul 3, 2013

i love that lens also.  not as good with it as you are though. those are some great shots

 olmail's gear list:olmail's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dhogaza
New MemberPosts: 21
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to bhollis, Jul 3, 2013

bhollis wrote:

In my opinion, for BIF, the most useful features by far are reach, sharpness, and fast AF. And in these respects, the 400 f/5.6L delivers better than any other reasonably priced option, IMO.

IS helps a lot with target aquisition, so to speak.  Getting the camera to lock in can be tricky, and I find that IS helps me get a focus point over the bird much more easily than when the lens is jittery.

300/4 IS + 1.4x AF is plenty fast.  I can add some photos of black terns in flight if you're still not convinced by the swallows and burrowing owl I've already posted (also shot with panning IS).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bhollis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,535Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to dhogaza, Jul 3, 2013

dhogaza wrote:

bhollis wrote:

In my opinion, for BIF, the most useful features by far are reach, sharpness, and fast AF. And in these respects, the 400 f/5.6L delivers better than any other reasonably priced option, IMO.

IS helps a lot with target aquisition, so to speak. Getting the camera to lock in can be tricky, and I find that IS helps me get a focus point over the bird much more easily than when the lens is jittery.

300/4 IS + 1.4x AF is plenty fast. I can add some photos of black terns in flight if you're still not convinced by the swallows and burrowing owl I've already posted (also shot with panning IS).

I don't think posting more shots will be helpful.  I can assure you that for every BIF shot you post taken with IS, others could post equally good or better BIF shots taken without IS.

For me it comes down to the following:  The 400 f/5.6L is sharper and has significantly faster AF than the 300 f/1.4L with a 1.4x TC attached.  And IMO, for BIF, these two factors more than trump any benefit that might be gained from IS.  Now, for other kinds of subject matter, e.g., birds on a perch, or terrestrial wildlife, I think IS becomes more important.

So I think you and I are just going to have to disagree on this one.

 bhollis's gear list:bhollis's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Howard S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,838
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to bhollis, Jul 3, 2013

Agree 100%

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dhogaza
New MemberPosts: 21
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to bhollis, Jul 3, 2013

bhollis wrote:

don't think posting more shots will be helpful. I can assure you that for every BIF shot you post taken with IS, others could post equally good or better BIF shots taken without IS.

Yet, you haven't.  And in your gallery, I see no BIF shots ... is your opinion backed on your personal experience shooting BIF photos you're not posting?

I'm posting from my personal experience, with photos posted to back up my opinion ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dhogaza
New MemberPosts: 21
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to bhollis, Jul 3, 2013

bhollis wrote:

I don't think posting more shots will be helpful. I can assure you that for every BIF shot you post taken with IS, others could post equally good or better BIF shots taken without IS.

And, as I posted earlier, you need to learn when IS is a help, and when IS gets in the way.  With the 300/4, you can choose full IS, panning IS or no IS, depending on the kind of subject motion you're dealing with.

Glad you love your 400/5.6, as I said, it's a good lens.  Wish it had IS, though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Howard S
Senior MemberPosts: 1,838
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to dhogaza, Jul 3, 2013

FWIF I have both 300/4 IS andd 400/5.6 and based on my experience the 400/5.6 is much faster AF than the 300/4 IS with or without 1.4x

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
happysnapper64
Senior MemberPosts: 4,183Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to dhogaza, Jul 3, 2013

dhogaza wrote:

"I'm so fast, when I turn off the light, i'm in bed before the room gets dark" The great Mohamed Ali.

Actually, that quote's from Satchel Paige, talking about Cool Papa Bell, another star in the old Negro baseball league. Long before Ali's time.

Now, on to lenses. A lot of birders buy the 100-400L and the one thing I note, out in the field, is that invariably the lens is cranked out to 400mm full time. For most, if Canon had a 400/5.6 with IS, that would be a better choice (and that's what they'd be buying, I'm sure).

I went the 300/4, plus 1.4x when needed for my IPC mid-range tele needs (I also own a 600/4).

I'm extremely pleased with the image quality with the TC, and of course even more pleased without.

In the last couple of years, I've been traveling quite a bit for work and end up going to Monterey to photograph whales and dolphins. My local professional photo store had a beat up copy of the 100-400 for sale, from their rental department. They ended up giving it to me for $250. Glass perfect. Everything works. Perfect lens for taking out on a wet boat. Perfect for traveling as when I take the 300 out on a boat, I also take a 2nd body with a 70-200/4 IS L.

I'm extremely pleased with the image quality of this lens, too, though I must admit my expectations were low given some things I've read on the "they can't lie on the" internet "can they?".

So in favor of the zoom: obviously it is more flexible. IQ is fine, not spectacular, but fine.

In favor of the 300/4 + 1.4x: definitely sharper at 300. I think it's a bit sharper with the 1.4x than the zoom at 400, but haven't tested formally. IQ is fine in either case. It's lighter and less bulky, especially less bulky than the 100-400 cranked out to 400.

Looking at small JPEGs compressed for web viewing is a lousy way to judge quality, but this was taken with the 300/4 + 1.4x and looks very nice printed at 16"x24".

Black-Crowned Night Heron, Summer Lake SWA, Oregon, two weeks ago

So is this:

Burrowing Owl with insect prey, 300/4+1.4x, Round Barn, OR, June 1st 2013

I know Ali said it, he must have pinched it! Sounds like him anyway, a great sporting showman, & GREAT boxer.

-- hide signature --

lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
"I'm so fast, when I turn off the light, i'm in bed before the room gets dark" The great Mohamed Ali.

 happysnapper64's gear list:happysnapper64's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bhollis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,535Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f/4 with canon 1.4 or 2X extender (mk3 vs mk2) or 100-400mm
In reply to dhogaza, Jul 3, 2013

dhogaza wrote:

bhollis wrote:

don't think posting more shots will be helpful. I can assure you that for every BIF shot you post taken with IS, others could post equally good or better BIF shots taken without IS.

Yet, you haven't. And in your gallery, I see no BIF shots ... is your opinion backed on your personal experience shooting BIF photos you're not posting?

I'm posting from my personal experience, with photos posted to back up my opinion ...

You really seem to want to argue about this . . .

I've seen the four images you posted.  None of them is particularly sharp, and none of them proves anything.

And yes, I'm posting from both personal experience and also things I've learned from other much better photographers on this forum

A few shots from my gallery, which also don't prove anything in particular:

 bhollis's gear list:bhollis's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads