I have the Canon A80 and am moving up to SLR. I have been told a good camera to start with is the Canon EOS 350D. I have been viewing other peoples comments on different lenses. It appears that the 75-300 usm lens at $249.00 can is not well received. The camera comes with the w/18-55. I do understand there are numerous variables to consider but lets just say for disscusion purposes that I was not unhappy with the quality of my Canon p&s pictures but I am looking for more control and a much better zoom. Is this not a good entry level SLR camera and lens set up to learn on. I would think my pictures would be of better quality even though these lenses are in the low quality range. I can't see spending $500.00 to $1500.00 on a lens to start out with. Can you tell me if I am thinking in the right direction.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Beginer new to slr help
- Thread starter caharp
- Start date
Jade Strong
Leading Member
The 18-55 kit lens is actually very good. Based on your argument in your thread, you do not need any other lens as of now to learn. SLR is definitely a big leap forward from compact digital cameras. Also consider the new 400D. Although the 350D will be even cheaper soon. Welcome aboard.
--
JS
(See profile for equipment)
http://www.pbase.com/simonchandler/galleries
--
JS
(See profile for equipment)
http://www.pbase.com/simonchandler/galleries
netgarden
Forum Pro
I remember going from my sony V1 to the 20Dslr, and the first thing I wanted was a better zoom. Why don't you keep the kit lens, and add to it the canon 70-300IS for now? Its quite a bit better than the other, older zooms. And you will definitely love the IS.[image stabilization]
Worth the investment and a good value. At least you won't be disappointed.
--
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
Too many lenses to mention, not enough time ; .
Worth the investment and a good value. At least you won't be disappointed.
--
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
Jade Strong
Leading Member
When I bought my 20D I was too much in a hurry to get the lenses and I ended up regreting on a few of them. Take you time to learn from your camera and eventually you will know what lenses you really need.
By the way, if you are eager to get a good zoom lens on a budget in the future, the 70-200L f/4 lens (C$725) is awesome. One of the best image quality zoom lenses for your 350D/400D.
--
JS
(See profile for equipment)
http://www.pbase.com/simonchandler/galleries
By the way, if you are eager to get a good zoom lens on a budget in the future, the 70-200L f/4 lens (C$725) is awesome. One of the best image quality zoom lenses for your 350D/400D.
--
JS
(See profile for equipment)
http://www.pbase.com/simonchandler/galleries
Kevin Coppalotti
Veteran Member
the trick is to match your work style, lens and budget. There are a lot of posts from people looking the a "wide- telephoto low light sports and birding lens under $500". So the bottom line is choose wisely to match your specific area of interest.
--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com
http://maxhr.zenfolio.com/
--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com
http://maxhr.zenfolio.com/
Mike Fried
Senior Member
I would not start out with the 18-55 kit lens. Instead, I would buy a 50mm prime. The 50mm f/1.8 is around $80 and the 50mm f/1.4 is around $300. Yes, a zoom gives you more flexibility when it comes to framing, but a 50mm lens is much, much better optically. Learn to see 50mm on digital, get some excellent images with nice bokeh and control over the DoF. Relish in the ability to open up to f/1.8 or f/1.4 in low light.
After using the 50mm and learning the joys of a sharp prime lens, I recommend going after a 17-85 IS as a walk around lens (compared to the 18-55) for 3 reasons:
1) it is optically better than the kit lens (and slightly faster at the wide end)
2) it has image stabilization (and a whole host of other better features)
3) it has a greater range (5x vs 3x)
The lens you chose impacts each individual photograph more than the camera body. Go to a camera store that lets you play with the equipment and get a feel for all of the functionality of the 18-55 and the 17-85 IS next to each other. Take your time. It's important to make the right choice for your photography. You will shoot several thousand photographs with your primary zoom lens. You need to understand the design and construction differences which make the lens a better for your ability to produce pictures with it. There are several less expensive options, and they also work. I for example use the 28-135 IS on my 10D. It's a bit more telephoto, and the IS is very useful.
Just like the 17-85 vs the kit lens, there are a bunch of 70/75-200/300 with/without IS models, and you pay more for the extra features such as constant maximum aperture, image stabilization, full-time manual USM focus, more diaphragm blades/circular aperture, inner/rear focusing and internal zoom. Some of these features matter more than others.
If you really like to zoom, there's a Sigma 50-500mm "Bigma" which makes a few tradeoffs to give you 500mm in a $1000 package along with a 10x zoom ratio. It's no 500mm f/4 IS, but that goes for something like $6000.
My point is that there are a lot of options, and in general you get what you pay for. There are a lot of tradeoffs, and you need to think about what lens you need to get the shot. But spend yout money on the lens first. A 3 year old digital camera with an excellent lens takes much better pictures than a brand new digital camera with a cheap lens. The photographer makes a larger difference -- shooting brick walls is not as exciting as shooting a beautiful scene, unless you're really into brick walls...
-Mike
http://demosaic.blogspot.com
A short telephoto isn't quite the most useful lens to start out with...
Elan Remford
Senior Member
If you've weighed all of the factors for yourself and are sure what each of the various features and characteristics will mean to you, then I won't dissuade you from the 350D. However, if you are merely acting upon anecdotal recommendations, I'd be very sure to know why I haven't chosen the most current offering in its class, the 400D.
Regarding lenses, those who counsel a deliberate, measured, approach are absolutely correct. However, there is a generalist path of "first lenses" which you can follow with reasonable assurance of receiving great benefit and minimal risk. This all begins with your general use lens, the proverbial "walkaround", the lens which will reside upon your body for "grab and go" use for the predominate amount of your shooting.
You've several choices for a walkaround lens, but I'd absolutely advise you that any walkaround lens you choose should absolutely include IS (image stabilization). No other single feature will benefit your outcomes more than image stabilization, period; and unless your budget prohibits you from affording one, buying any walkaround lens that is absent stabilization is the largest disservice you can do for yourself. You have four to choose from, the 17-85, 17-55, 24-105, and 28-300 (in order of cost), though despite being the least expensive and most modest performer of the four, the 17-85 has an exceptionally useful range with the cropped sensor and I've found it to be a very, very, good lens indeed, and an even-better value.
From there, you should also choose one fast prime (fixed focal length) lens. For most, this is the 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. The f/1.8 is the best value in photography, but the 50 f/1.4 is most certainly a positive step up and what I would recommend. This is your low-light, creative, and portrait tactical weapon. Filling these first two slots are essentail for all but the rarest of photographers.
The next slot filled is typically the telephoto zoom. Though the 75-300 IS was a dog, the 70-300 IS is absolutely not, and it rivals L-series lenses in quality and performance in virtually every sense. It is by far one of the best quality/value/usefulness propositions in the EF lineup, and with the benefit of image stabilization, it's a dream to own. The 70-200 f/4 L has been a longtime favorite of some, and while it's suberb, it lacks stabilization and 100mm of reach, both of which provide a far greater boost to the quality of your outcomes than any differences in optical properties or quality. This is "no brainer" lens number 1, and slot number 3 which all but the rarest exceptions fill next.
The fourth lens is an ultra-wide zoom. Because the DXXX series uses a cropped sensor, all lenses behave longer than they are (or would on a standard 35mm film camera) by a focal length factor of 1.6. This means standard lenses effectively become telephotos. Telephotos become SUPER telephotos, and ultra-wide lenses become mere wide or standard lenses. This has led to a series of new lenses designed to "give back" these ultra-wide views which are sometimes necessary to recover the wide fields of regard lost to the cropped sensor size. The best in classs is the EF-S 10-22. Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma all make various alternatives, some are 10-20, others 12-24, and just about everything in-between, but I've yet to see any lens that outpaces the EF-S 10-22 in this class. Unfortunately, there's no stabilized option, but fortunately, IS means slightly less at this wide angle of view.
A fifth member of the "first lens" lineup is usually a Macro lens, or a lens designed to have very high magnification potential (usually considered to be a 1:1 ratio) and corner-to-corner distortion correction, and these are the lenses used to shoot bugs and such. These can also be used as regular prime lenses, and many find their macro primes pull double-duty as portrait lenses.
Some never need a Macro. For others, this is the first kind of shooting they want to do. For some, it's the only reason they own a camera. However, for most, it is a specialized type of shooting that they like to be able to do when the situation arises, and not being able to do so is something they simply don't want to do. Plus, given the inherent sharpness of Macro lenses (more than any other), there are very practical reasons to have one as a tactical weapon when sharpness is the ultimate defining factor. As a result, some substitute this for their standard prime. Others expand the "essentail" group of four lenses to five to include a Macro, either immediately, or down the line. Others make use of their other lenses (and tools like extension tubes) to give them Macro capabilities and never view owning one as a fundamental need whatsoever.
In conclusion, following this roadmap, and crafting it for your own needs will give you a very useful "growth path" to follow that will provide you with tools that will leave you well-prepared for virtually any scenario without breaking the bank. Aside from your walkaround and prime, you can also omit or reprioritize any of the other options to meet your specific needs, all without having to worry whether or not you're going to overlap, have to rebuy in the immediate future, or spend the same dollars twice.
From there, it's a matter of expanding, enhancing, or substituting to meet the specific demands of the kind of shooting you find yourself doing or liking most. You may not even replace your first lenses, choosing to keep them as alternatives to heavier high-performance lenses down the line when you don't need every ounce of performance and would greatly benefit from greater portability and compactness.
I hope this helps you at least begin to draft a personal plan while spurring some topics for thought to help you buy the best tools to suit your needs (and avoid buying the ones that won't).
E.
Regarding lenses, those who counsel a deliberate, measured, approach are absolutely correct. However, there is a generalist path of "first lenses" which you can follow with reasonable assurance of receiving great benefit and minimal risk. This all begins with your general use lens, the proverbial "walkaround", the lens which will reside upon your body for "grab and go" use for the predominate amount of your shooting.
You've several choices for a walkaround lens, but I'd absolutely advise you that any walkaround lens you choose should absolutely include IS (image stabilization). No other single feature will benefit your outcomes more than image stabilization, period; and unless your budget prohibits you from affording one, buying any walkaround lens that is absent stabilization is the largest disservice you can do for yourself. You have four to choose from, the 17-85, 17-55, 24-105, and 28-300 (in order of cost), though despite being the least expensive and most modest performer of the four, the 17-85 has an exceptionally useful range with the cropped sensor and I've found it to be a very, very, good lens indeed, and an even-better value.
From there, you should also choose one fast prime (fixed focal length) lens. For most, this is the 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. The f/1.8 is the best value in photography, but the 50 f/1.4 is most certainly a positive step up and what I would recommend. This is your low-light, creative, and portrait tactical weapon. Filling these first two slots are essentail for all but the rarest of photographers.
The next slot filled is typically the telephoto zoom. Though the 75-300 IS was a dog, the 70-300 IS is absolutely not, and it rivals L-series lenses in quality and performance in virtually every sense. It is by far one of the best quality/value/usefulness propositions in the EF lineup, and with the benefit of image stabilization, it's a dream to own. The 70-200 f/4 L has been a longtime favorite of some, and while it's suberb, it lacks stabilization and 100mm of reach, both of which provide a far greater boost to the quality of your outcomes than any differences in optical properties or quality. This is "no brainer" lens number 1, and slot number 3 which all but the rarest exceptions fill next.
The fourth lens is an ultra-wide zoom. Because the DXXX series uses a cropped sensor, all lenses behave longer than they are (or would on a standard 35mm film camera) by a focal length factor of 1.6. This means standard lenses effectively become telephotos. Telephotos become SUPER telephotos, and ultra-wide lenses become mere wide or standard lenses. This has led to a series of new lenses designed to "give back" these ultra-wide views which are sometimes necessary to recover the wide fields of regard lost to the cropped sensor size. The best in classs is the EF-S 10-22. Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma all make various alternatives, some are 10-20, others 12-24, and just about everything in-between, but I've yet to see any lens that outpaces the EF-S 10-22 in this class. Unfortunately, there's no stabilized option, but fortunately, IS means slightly less at this wide angle of view.
A fifth member of the "first lens" lineup is usually a Macro lens, or a lens designed to have very high magnification potential (usually considered to be a 1:1 ratio) and corner-to-corner distortion correction, and these are the lenses used to shoot bugs and such. These can also be used as regular prime lenses, and many find their macro primes pull double-duty as portrait lenses.
Some never need a Macro. For others, this is the first kind of shooting they want to do. For some, it's the only reason they own a camera. However, for most, it is a specialized type of shooting that they like to be able to do when the situation arises, and not being able to do so is something they simply don't want to do. Plus, given the inherent sharpness of Macro lenses (more than any other), there are very practical reasons to have one as a tactical weapon when sharpness is the ultimate defining factor. As a result, some substitute this for their standard prime. Others expand the "essentail" group of four lenses to five to include a Macro, either immediately, or down the line. Others make use of their other lenses (and tools like extension tubes) to give them Macro capabilities and never view owning one as a fundamental need whatsoever.
In conclusion, following this roadmap, and crafting it for your own needs will give you a very useful "growth path" to follow that will provide you with tools that will leave you well-prepared for virtually any scenario without breaking the bank. Aside from your walkaround and prime, you can also omit or reprioritize any of the other options to meet your specific needs, all without having to worry whether or not you're going to overlap, have to rebuy in the immediate future, or spend the same dollars twice.
From there, it's a matter of expanding, enhancing, or substituting to meet the specific demands of the kind of shooting you find yourself doing or liking most. You may not even replace your first lenses, choosing to keep them as alternatives to heavier high-performance lenses down the line when you don't need every ounce of performance and would greatly benefit from greater portability and compactness.
I hope this helps you at least begin to draft a personal plan while spurring some topics for thought to help you buy the best tools to suit your needs (and avoid buying the ones that won't).
E.
felixreichardt
Leading Member
The lens is the MOST important part of your equipment. Don't go for cheap lenses unless you really tight on budget. You might disappointed.
questchen
Well-known member
A very good article!! That's what exactly what I learned from the canon SLR lens forum for about more than two weeks......
Thank you very much for the detailed information
Thank you very much for the detailed information
jerryk
Veteran Member
In the SLR world the bodies come and go and the lenses stay. So over time you spend much more for lenses than for bodies.
With that said, if you can buy the body without a lens, your money might be better spent on lenses other than the kit lens. The Tamron 28-75 is a good lens that you can keep for a long while.
--
jerryk.smugmug.com
With that said, if you can buy the body without a lens, your money might be better spent on lenses other than the kit lens. The Tamron 28-75 is a good lens that you can keep for a long while.
--
jerryk.smugmug.com
Jschro
Forum Enthusiast
If you're on a tight budget and don't want to spend a ton of cash I have a couple of suggestions. I picked up a Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM for under $200 and I've been very happy with it. It gives a nice beginning zoom range. I can also recommend the Canon 50mm 1.8, for the price you just can't beat it ($75-80). If you can afford it I'd get three lenses....the kit lens and the 2 I've mentioned. You'll have plenty of options to play around with and learn about using a dslr for not alot of money.
I bought Canon 75-300mm USM III non-IS when I started with my 300D, it's not a bad lens, you have to find out how to use it correctly (for all the long zoom lens). Here are some samples with the 75-300mm (RAW format, converted in Photoshop):
http://www.photo96.com/yongbo/20040905_img_1338_a.htm
http://www.photo96.com/yongbo/20050928_crw_9219_a.htm
If I have to pick up a starter's lens again, I will get Sigma APO 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DG Macro Lens for Canon. Same range, but has macro, I saw a lot of amazing pictures from this lens. Not too big (compare to my Bigma), you can always keep it in the bag. In additional, don't forget the 50mm f/1.8 prime.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FSigma-70-300mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB000ALLMI8%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fqid%3D1158592963%2Fref%3Dpd%5Fbbs%5F1%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dphoto&tag=nqhp-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
--
Yongbo
http://www.photo96.com/
http://www.photo96.com/yongbo/20040905_img_1338_a.htm
http://www.photo96.com/yongbo/20050928_crw_9219_a.htm
If I have to pick up a starter's lens again, I will get Sigma APO 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DG Macro Lens for Canon. Same range, but has macro, I saw a lot of amazing pictures from this lens. Not too big (compare to my Bigma), you can always keep it in the bag. In additional, don't forget the 50mm f/1.8 prime.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FSigma-70-300mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB000ALLMI8%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fqid%3D1158592963%2Fref%3Dpd%5Fbbs%5F1%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dphoto&tag=nqhp-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
--
Yongbo
http://www.photo96.com/
Nathan Yan
Senior Member
Cheap lenses are inferior, but...
Starting out with an SLR, you're just trying to learn.
So yeah, like others have said you could do the 17-85IS or the 70-300mm IS, and have two really really good lenses that will give you great image quality. But they'll cost you > $500 each.
Instead, you could make a VERY good kit out of:
18-55mm kit lens - $100
50mm f1.8 prime - $70
Tamron Di LD 70-300mm macro - $160 -or-
Sigma APO DG 70-300mm macro - $190
which will cover you for EVERYTHING - general use (18-55), portraits with bokeh (50mm), telephoto for sports, events (70-300mm), and macro photography - all for about $350, far less than the cost of another single lens that won't cover nearly as much range. And all the lenses listed up there except perhaps the kit lens I would still say are "keepers" - they still have a lot of use even if you've started buying "better" lenses.
If you're new to SLR photography, there's no need to splurge for ultra high-end lenses when there are budget ones that will serve very well, and help you learn in the meantime.
Starting out with an SLR, you're just trying to learn.
So yeah, like others have said you could do the 17-85IS or the 70-300mm IS, and have two really really good lenses that will give you great image quality. But they'll cost you > $500 each.
Instead, you could make a VERY good kit out of:
18-55mm kit lens - $100
50mm f1.8 prime - $70
Tamron Di LD 70-300mm macro - $160 -or-
Sigma APO DG 70-300mm macro - $190
which will cover you for EVERYTHING - general use (18-55), portraits with bokeh (50mm), telephoto for sports, events (70-300mm), and macro photography - all for about $350, far less than the cost of another single lens that won't cover nearly as much range. And all the lenses listed up there except perhaps the kit lens I would still say are "keepers" - they still have a lot of use even if you've started buying "better" lenses.
If you're new to SLR photography, there's no need to splurge for ultra high-end lenses when there are budget ones that will serve very well, and help you learn in the meantime.
riversen
Senior Member
There has been some great advice given so far. I wish that I would have heard this great advice when I first starting looking at lenses. You are very fortunate to have it and I hope it really helps!
On that note, I think that you have 4 phase approach that you can take (I personally like the Canon glass right now and don't know enough about the other makers or have had a chance to use it to speak about it):
Inexpensive starter lenes:
1. Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
3. Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
Moderate costs:
1. Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (owned it and enjoyed it)
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM or or f/1.8 II
3. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (I hear the new one is great!)
A bit expensive (currently, I own 1, 2, & 3):
1. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
3. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
4. Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (my next big purchase!)
Really expensive and my dream lenses within in reason:
1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
2. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
3. Canon EF 50mm f / 1.2L USM
4. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
5. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
or
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
I do what I have told my wife is the eBay Upgrade. When I am ready for the new equipment, I sell the old on eBay and use the procedes toward the new equipment, thus making the impact a bit easier.
--
Robert (Phoenix, AZ)
DSC-S70 --> DSC-V1 --> DSC-H1 --> Canon Digital Rebel XT.
On that note, I think that you have 4 phase approach that you can take (I personally like the Canon glass right now and don't know enough about the other makers or have had a chance to use it to speak about it):
Inexpensive starter lenes:
1. Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
3. Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
Moderate costs:
1. Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (owned it and enjoyed it)
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM or or f/1.8 II
3. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (I hear the new one is great!)
A bit expensive (currently, I own 1, 2, & 3):
1. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
3. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
4. Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (my next big purchase!)
Really expensive and my dream lenses within in reason:
1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
2. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
3. Canon EF 50mm f / 1.2L USM
4. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
5. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
or
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
I do what I have told my wife is the eBay Upgrade. When I am ready for the new equipment, I sell the old on eBay and use the procedes toward the new equipment, thus making the impact a bit easier.
--
Robert (Phoenix, AZ)
DSC-S70 --> DSC-V1 --> DSC-H1 --> Canon Digital Rebel XT.
Nathan Yan
Senior Member
Sigma, Tamron make some good lenses too, don't discount them, especially the following:
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 17-70mm
Sigma 70-300mm
Tamron 70-300mm
For the "budget" set listed by riversen, I'd recommend against the Canon 75-300mm - just not nearly as good as higher-end telephoto lenses or even budget telephotos from other companies.
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Sigma 17-70mm
Sigma 70-300mm
Tamron 70-300mm
For the "budget" set listed by riversen, I'd recommend against the Canon 75-300mm - just not nearly as good as higher-end telephoto lenses or even budget telephotos from other companies.
DigitalEOS
Leading Member
The 18-55 while not the greatest lens out there will be perfectly fine for you to start with. I would also recommend you pick up something a little longer to start with to, like the 55-200. Again, not the greatest lens out there, but a good little kit to learn with. There is absolutly no reason for anyone to go out there and get the best lenses money can buy to learn with. Start as cheap as you can and build from there as you get better. SLR photography is a different world. I would recommend getting another lens to start with too...as someone else mentioned, the 50mm 1.8 lens. It is cheap, and it will be great for those low light moments. If you can hang on a bit too, I would get the 400D/XTi over the 350D/Xt. A little bit better focusing and a few more megapixals. Nothing massive, but still inexpensive and a good little starter camera.
--
Carl
http://www.sportsshooter.com/carlauer
http://www.digital-eos.com
Fred Miranda Sports Corner Moderator
--
Carl
http://www.sportsshooter.com/carlauer
http://www.digital-eos.com
Fred Miranda Sports Corner Moderator
I recommend getting the Canon 50mm f/1.8 to compliment your 18-55mm for low light use. It's an excellent lens and you can get it for around $75 U.S. Those two lenses should cover 95% of the photographic situations you encounter. Later, if you want a longer lens for wildlife and sports then I suggest the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS.
--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
felixreichardt
Leading Member
These cheap lenses almost made me stop using DSLR. I found both of them not sharp and very disappointing. Not much better than P&S in the result.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum