Best Price - Sigma 120-300/2.8 EX

Jason Stoller · Mar 8, 2003

Thomas Gardner said:
Jason Stoller said:

I see we gotten to the real bottom line here is what you really
object to is that someone would post that the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8
might be a lens to avoid.

Click to expand...

No that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is a 300mm can't be
compared against a fixed focal length. Where do you get this psyco
babble from?

Yes that is the bottom line or you would not have gotten so upset with my post or anyone elses to begin with.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

It appears that its finally coming out
in this thread that you are an avid Sigma fan.

Click to expand...

No. I'm a fan of the best glass possible and I don't have
favorites. I have Canon, Sigma and Tamron glass. My next lens
will be a Canon lens. I just haven't decided if it will be the
20mm or 24mm. Are you making this stuff up as you write?

If you do not have favorites and are a fan of the best possible glass then if you are not buying it then maybe thats the problem.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Good for you. What
you missed in the fact that I have stated twice that the 120-300
Sigma has too stiff of a focus ring to make it very usable as a
zoom if you shoot sports or high speed moving objects.

Click to expand...

Okay, you're weak in the wrist, that's not my fault and I won't
hold it as a fault against you.

I love it when others make assumptions about me and take something personal because they lack anything of substance to add. If you need to make assumptions and appear cluessless so be it.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Let me make
is simpler for you.

Click to expand...

Oh no. Please, keep it complicated so I'll have an excuse not to
understand what you're trying to explain to me

Hahaha it obviously is to complicated for you even in simple terms.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Even though the 120-300mm Sigma 2.8 is a zoom,
the focus ring is so stiff, you might as well buy a prime, be it a
Sigma prime, Canon prime, or someone else.

Click to expand...

Thomas Gardner said:
Go pound some nails with a twenty-eight ounce hammer. Sixteen
penny nails. It does wonder for your forearm strength which is
where you get your wrist strength. Do about eight hours a day for
twenty years, you'll quit your complaining about weak wrists

I really have to ask, do you have real or factual information in regard to my personal strength, or do you always create information that supports your comments so you can be right?

Thomas Gardner said:
Maybe the lens has a stiff zoom but there are people here that
whine about five pounds of glass and camera like it's five hundred
pounds.

I did not know we were talking about other people here. My experience with this lens is mine, and nothing else was claimed.

I bet you're complaining to much about this stiff ring and

Thomas Gardner said:
don't realize that you're approaching the twist of the wrist from
the wrong direction. You're the first I've read about that is
unhappy with the amount of force necessary to twist a zoom ring.

Maybe you should do more reading. If you had read some of the first posts in regard to this lens in this and/or other forums then maybe you would have known better.

Thomas Gardner said:
Now that being said, what does any of this have to do with a 300mm
lens trying to get a shot at 200mm.

Who claimed they were attempting to do that with this lens. Again, this is just something you are making up for the sake of your argument.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

The fact is the
stiffness of the zoom ring on the Sigma negated the use of its zoom
range for me. I am glad you like glass, but its moronic for you to
comment on how any lens performs at any focal length if you have
never owned it or used it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I have a 100-300mm f/4.0 and a 300mm f/4.0. I consider that
sufficent for my needs. If I had need of a 120-300mm f/2.8, I
wouldn't hesitate, based upon past experience and your comments to
get Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom.

Ok lets try the remedial approach here and maybe you will get it this time. By your own admission, you have never owned this particular lens. How any other lens performs is irrelevent in regard to the Sigma 120-300. Hey, I am all for it. Buy and exchange as many copies of this lens until you find one you are happy with, but the fact that you are even commenting here in regard to the Sigma 120-300 2.8 quality and actually do not own one or have not owned one is once again moronic. Remember you said you were a fan of the best glass possible. You never have used it, but you know its qualiity. Next you will be telling others how great Phoenix lenses are.

Jason Stoller · Mar 8, 2003

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Sure its a given that the Sigma
120-300mm has different focal lengths when compared to a prime, but
its a useless zoom if the zoom ring is so stiff it makes it
impossible to use.

Click to expand...

I agree. A TV that doesn't work right out of the box is useless
also. Have you returned the glass to whom you bought it from?
Have you sent it in to Sigma to have the tensioning bands adjusted?
These are alturnatives that should be explored.

Once again so remedial reading might have saved you the typing. I clearly stated I returned the lens and purchased a Canon 300mm 2.8 Non IS lens instead.

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Sigma does make some nice glass and I am glad
you like it. All three of my experiences with Sigma glass on my 1D
have been less than satisfying.

Click to expand...

Which I'm sorry to read because money is always a consideration
unless you're filthy rich, which I'm not.

This is too funny! Who said you have to be filthy rich to spend your money wisely? Where does that come from. So what you are saying really is, if you cannot afford or do not know how to save for the glass you want then you should settle for something less. I guess it all depends where your personal value system is. Tell me what your best picture is really worth to you? Can you put a price on it? Do you settle for less just because you do not want to get the best image possible? I guess our value systems are just different. I can always buy cheap tools and replace them many times, or I can buy one good set of tools and have them end up costing me less in the end because the do the job and last and last.

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

If if Sigma works for you then
great, buy it!

Click to expand...

Cool!

Jason Stoller said:

My experience has shown me that I am personally
better off to stay with Canon glass.

Click to expand...

We all gotta go with what works for us.

I think we are in agreement here. Again its the value you put in your tools and the results you get from them.

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

As far as Sigma kicking
Canon's butt, you can debate that all day long.

Click to expand...

The facts are on the table so there's no debate. All companies put
out bad products and that too is a fact. I currently seem to be
getting everybody's bad HD's. Just had to swap a bad one out and
spin up the backup drive.

Again we are in agreement here.

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

My final comment
is that you get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Said in a sideways, side of the mouth comment like; if you want to
buy cheap, you're gonna get cheap but if you want to buy quality,
then you better get Canon. If you're going to insult someone, do
it to their face.

Its not an insult, its a fact of life. Some people felt at one time the Yugo was a great automoblie and a great value and would get them by until they bought one and it fell appart. This is clearly not an insult at all. If you are not getting what you are paying for, then who else is getting it? Where did the word cheap come in and can you define that for everyone, or are your definitions just blindly accepted?

Jason Stoller said:
I got what I paid for, high quality glass at an excellent price.

Wait one minute here! Didn't you claim you were a fan of the best glass? What you really meant to say was the best glass for you in your opinion!!!! And your opinion is based on what? Your own words say that you settled for something less than the best because you are not ( how did you put it?) "filthy rich"! So which is it? Are you a fan of the best glass, or are you a fan of the best glass that you can afford based on your income? Please stop talking out of both sides of your mouth! You cannot have it both ways.

Jason Stoller said:
Here's my latest image. Check out the color of the blue of the flame.

I do not really need to look at your latest image. If you had the best glass and best technique, then you would consistantly produce good images and would not have to single any out to prove anything. In fact you would not feel the need to prove anything at all, because people would be lining up at your door to buy all those images you create with that best glass you say you own. You would not have time to post on here, because you would be too busy making all those images and selling them like hotcakes.

Jason Stoller said:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1349693&size=lg

It was capture with a D30 and a Sigma 180mm f/3.5 macro. Color was
balanced to tungsten on the CWB. ISO 1600, hence the grainy look.

Again why do I care? I did not comment in regard to the Sigma 180mm F/3.5 macro. I do not own that lens and do not want it. I commented about a totally different lens that I did own the Sigma 120-300 2.8 which is really what this thread is all about. Please learn to stay on topic.

Jason Stoller · Mar 8, 2003

Jason Stoller said:
Send you lens in, get the tension bands adjusted. The 120-300mm
f/2.8 is a killer lens. Canon doesn't even have a lens like the
one you have. Either that or get a 100-300mm f/4.0, since you're
shooting out doors sports, during the day or evening (ISO 400-800)
you'll have plenty of light. Canon doesn't have an equivalent of
this lens either. The best Canon has is the 100-400, which as you
know is a very slow lens. The only benny of the 100-400mm by Canon
is the IS.

Now this is getting redundant. If you have careful read the previous posts I said I returned the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and bought a Canon 300 2.8 lens. Hopefully the repetition here will help you.

Jason Stoller said:
Sigma is kicking Canon's fanny and I'm a big fan of this fact
because it puts, rightfully so, pricing/feature pressure on Canon
where there wasn't any before.

If that was the case, then why do so many other people post about Canon L glass and other Canon glass that they buy instead of Sigma? Are they all stupid and filthy rich? Hmmmmmmmm????

Jason Stoller said:
If anybody were to jam me about using Sigma glass, I'd just sneer
at them and tell them that it's their money to waste, not mine.

Yep we all must be idiots cause we do not buy Sigma, Tokina, or cheaper glass. Yep we all must be wasting our money.

Jason Stoller said:
And wishing you the best with your argumentative lens.

Hehe its your argument not mine. I posted my response in an answer to a question asked about the Sigma 120-300 2.8 which I actually have owned and used. I did not take the post out of context or move it in a different direction as you have. If you do not like my opinions, then use some self control and do not read them.

Stefan Schott · Mar 9, 2003

David Perkins said:
Stefan,

Have you had problem with the zoom ring being really stiff.

Did you not read my other posts in this thread?

Ciao
Stefan

Eugene Powers · Mar 9, 2003

Thomas.
If you are going to buy 300-800 you better be having that truck with V12.

I don't know about the picture quality but this lens is HUGE. I think my bowling ball weighs less.

Eugene

Thomas Gardner said:
Jason Stoller said:

Funny, I owned the Sigma lens and I just stated my opinion in
regard to it and explained what I did personally. Since you are
commenting on how good you think the Sigma 120-300 2.8 is at
different focal lengths, I am sure you have personal experience in
regard to this! So why don't you post some pictures from your
Sigma 120-300 if you even have one and help the original poster
make a good decision.

Click to expand...

Where did I make the comments you ascribe to me in your above.
You'll note that my comment is around the "FACT" that the Canon
300mm is a fixed focal length as opposed to the infinite range the
Sigma lens has between 120mm and 300mm. So to post a comment about
a totally different lens, is lame in my book. Nobody needs to own
the lens in question to recognize the difference in the two lenses.

I think I see an ego out of joint here.

I don't own the 120-300mm but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
know that a 300mm prime doesn't have the ability to take an image
at anything but it's only focal length. I guess you missed all my
smiley faces in my comments.

I do own a three lenses by Sigme; 100-300mm f/4.0, 15-30mm
f/3.5-4.5 and the 180mm f/3.5 macro. I'm happy with all three.
I'm also, based upon my experience, considering getting Sigma's
300-800mm f/5.6 zoom.

Sigma makes kick butt glass that just happens to be kicking Canon's
fanny and doing so at half the cost. I have some six Canon lenses,
three that are "L" glass, one that's a 300mm f/4.0L, so I do have
some experience in which to base my comments on.

Thomas Gardner · Mar 9, 2003

Jason Stoller said:
Yes that is the bottom line or you would not have gotten so upset
with my post or anyone elses to begin with.

I'm not upset with your post. You're running with the ball again. I'm supportin my comments and responding to your comments but I'm not upset at your comments or anybody else's comments.

Thomas Gardner · Mar 9, 2003

Jason Stoller said:
If you do not have favorites and are a fan of the best possible
glass then if you are not buying it then maybe thats the problem.

I'm not quite sure where you found this door. I'm currently paying off a purchase of a Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 and a Canon EF 1.4x II TC. I've added a Sigma 180mm f/3.5 and Sigma EX 1.4X TC to the plastic in the meantime. Can I pay the plastic off first? Give me a few weeks and then I'll be purchasing a $800.00 US panohead. After that get's paid off, then I'll decide whether or not to replace the 28-70mm f/2.8L with Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L. I can't do it all in a month

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Okay, you're weak in the wrist, that's not my fault and I won't
hold it as a fault against you.

Click to expand...

I love it when others make assumptions about me and take something
personal because they lack anything of substance to add. If you
need to make assumptions and appear cluessless so be it.

I read your post. I understand your complaing. It was a joke son, a joke. I appologize for leaving the smiley face off the end of the sentence. That was rude of me.

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Jason Stoller said:

Let me make
is simpler for you.

Click to expand...

Oh no. Please, keep it complicated so I'll have an excuse not to
understand what you're trying to explain to me

Click to expand...

Hahaha it obviously is to complicated for you even in simple terms.

Cool!

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Go pound some nails with a twenty-eight ounce hammer. Sixteen
penny nails. It does wonder for your forearm strength which is
where you get your wrist strength. Do about eight hours a day for
twenty years, you'll quit your complaining about weak wrists

Click to expand...

I really have to ask, do you have real or factual information in
regard to my personal strength, or do you always create information
that supports your comments so you can be right?

I don't know, will it be convenient for me? Are you a troll?

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Maybe the lens has a stiff zoom but there are people here that
whine about five pounds of glass and camera like it's five hundred
pounds.

Click to expand...

I did not know we were talking about other people here. My
experience with this lens is mine, and nothing else was claimed.

You're right. How silly of me to lump your individual complaint in with everybody else's complaint that requires a bit of effort

Jason Stoller said:
I bet you're complaining to much about this stiff ring and

Jason Stoller said:

don't realize that you're approaching the twist of the wrist from
the wrong direction. You're the first I've read about that is
unhappy with the amount of force necessary to twist a zoom ring.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should do more reading. If you had read some of the
first posts in regard to this lens in this and/or other forums then
maybe you would have known better.

I'm not omnicent and I do occationally miss things. Please forgive me

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Now that being said, what does any of this have to do with a 300mm
lens trying to get a shot at 200mm.

Click to expand...

Who claimed they were attempting to do that with this lens. Again,
this is just something you are making up for the sake of your
argument.

No. That was part of your original comments.

Jason Stoller said:
Call Norman Camera and talk to Kelly. The number is listed on their

website. http://www.normancamera.com Make sure you talk to Kelly. I > personally had one and decided to opt for the 300mm Canon. You can
do a search for my posts in regard to this. If you do buy it be prepared
for a very heavy lens with a very stiff zoom ring. Also I have seen them
on Ebay.

Yepper, right there

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Jason Stoller said:

The fact is the
stiffness of the zoom ring on the Sigma negated the use of its zoom
range for me. I am glad you like glass, but its moronic for you to
comment on how any lens performs at any focal length if you have
never owned it or used it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I have a 100-300mm f/4.0 and a 300mm f/4.0. I consider that
sufficent for my needs. If I had need of a 120-300mm f/2.8, I
wouldn't hesitate, based upon past experience and your comments to
get Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom.

Click to expand...

Ok lets try the remedial approach here and maybe you will get it
this time.

How kind of you to condecend on my account

Jason Stoller said:
By your own admission, you have never owned this
particular lens. How any other lens performs is irrelevent in
regard to the Sigma 120-300. Hey, I am all for it. Buy and
exchange as many copies of this lens until you find one you are
happy with, but the fact that you are even commenting here in
regard to the Sigma 120-300 2.8 quality and actually do not own one
or have not owned one is once again moronic.

Ignorant maybe but not moronic. A moron couldn't draw those conslusions but an ignorant of vast experiece, such as I can and does draw valid conclusions based upon. But if you want to see that behavior as moronic..... Cool!

Jason Stoller said:
Remember you said you
were a fan of the best glass possible. You never have used it, but
you know its qualiity. Next you will be telling others how great
Phoenix lenses are.

Wow, where did you read this?

Sorry you got such a bad copy that shoved a burr up your fanny. Has a way of souring one.

Thanks for your kind words

Thomas Gardner · Mar 9, 2003

Eugene Powers said:
Thomas.
If you are going to buy 300-800 you better be having that truck
with V12.
I don't know about the picture quality but this lens is HUGE. I
think my bowling ball weighs less.

Maybe a trailer is in the stars for me. The big gun tripod I have, Bogen 3258 is good up to 20Kg.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___5551___BO3058B___REG___CatID=2636___SID=F40D4947430

Couple that with the Wimberly head and I hope I'll have a match.

http://www.tripodhead.com/wim_close.htm

Now all I need is the spare $5,000.00 US

Jim Davidson91985 · Mar 9, 2003

The zoom ring is very stiff on my copy. This is not a problem for football, but I find it difficult to use for hockey because the action is so much closer. I'm hoping it loosens over time.

JimD

Thomas Gardner · Mar 9, 2003

Jason Stoller said:
Once again so remedial reading might have saved you the typing. I
clearly stated I returned the lens and purchased a Canon 300mm 2.8
Non IS lens instead.

So admittedly you didn't give Sigma a chance to correct the tension bands and image quality of the lens never came into the picture. (pun intended)

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Jason Stoller said:

Sigma does make some nice glass and I am glad
you like it. All three of my experiences with Sigma glass on my 1D
have been less than satisfying.

Click to expand...

Which I'm sorry to read because money is always a consideration
unless you're filthy rich, which I'm not.

Click to expand...

This is too funny! Who said you have to be filthy rich to spend
your money wisely? Where does that come from. So what you are
saying really is, if you cannot afford or do not know how to save
for the glass you want then you should settle for something less.

Let's see, I own six Canon lenses; stated in other posts. Three of the lenses are "L" glass. I own three Sigma lenses and my next lens is going to be either a Canon WA or a Canon "L" glass. I submit that I'm not settling for less but I am buying the best that's available and being considerate of my pocketbook in the process.

Jason Stoller said:
I guess it all depends where your personal value system is. Tell
me what your best picture is really worth to you?

Nothing. To put a price on an image an ego process. I've been doing this for forty years, have done so professionally and do it now for the love of the process and not for money.

Jason Stoller said:
Can you put a
price on it? Do you settle for less just because you do not want
to get the best image possible? I guess our value systems are just
different. I can always buy cheap tools and replace them many
times, or I can buy one good set of tools and have them end up
costing me less in the end because the do the job and last and last.

And I too follow the same principle. All my power tools are Milwakee. I have two sidewinder saws, one Skill and one Milwakee. But only the desperate are brand purists.

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

We all gotta go with what works for us.

Click to expand...

I think we are in agreement here. Again its the value you put in
your tools and the results you get from them.

Oh, I think he just tried to insult your abilities as a contractor slim

Jason Stoller said:
Jason Stoller said:

Jason Stoller said:

As far as Sigma kicking
Canon's butt, you can debate that all day long.

Click to expand...

The facts are on the table so there's no debate. All companies put
out bad products and that too is a fact. I currently seem to be
getting everybody's bad HD's. Just had to swap a bad one out and
spin up the backup drive.

Click to expand...

Again we are in agreement here.

Jason Stoller said:
Wait one minute here! Didn't you claim you were a fan of the best
glass? What you really meant to say was the best glass for you in
your opinion!!!! And your opinion is based on what?

Check out PhotoZone.net. They base their opinion on the opinion of several different magazines reviewers.

Jason Stoller said:
Your own
words say that you settled for something less than the best because
you are not ( how did you put it?) "filthy rich"! So which is it?
Are you a fan of the best glass, or are you a fan of the best glass
that you can afford based on your income? Please stop talking out
of both sides of your mouth! You cannot have it both ways.

Jason Stoller said:

Here's my latest image. Check out the color of the blue of the flame.

Click to expand...

I do not really need to look at your latest image. If you had the
best glass and best technique, then you would consistantly produce
good images and would not have to single any out to prove anything.

That must be it. I'm desperated and my ego demands this of me. Wow! You do stretch a ball while you run with it. It's normal to put up supporting images on this forum. Now I know you're a troll.

Jason Stoller said:
You would
not have time to post on here, because you would be too busy making
all those images and selling them like hotcakes.

I don't sell my images because this is my hobby. I have a day job. But thank you for the suggestion.

Thomas Gardner · Mar 9, 2003

Jason Stoller said:
Hehe its your argument not mine. I posted my response in an answer
to a question asked about the Sigma 120-300 2.8 which I actually
have owned and used.

And then preceeded to talk about a prime and not a zoom.

Jason Stoller said:
I did not take the post out of context or
move it in a different direction as you have.

Talking about a prime when asked about a zoom is taking a subject out of context and into another direction.

Jason Stoller said:
If you do not like
my opinions, then use some self control and do not read them.

O-kay.

Stefan Schott · Mar 9, 2003

Thomas Gardner said:
The big gun tripod I have,
Bogen 3258 is good up to 20Kg.

I wouldn't be that sure. My biga$$ Gitzo is rated for 15 kg but I found out that it's not even good for half that amount.
I lifted that 300-800 at photokina and just about collapsed. Not funny.
But a beautiful piece of equipment (if it's any good) ;-)
Let us know when you got it!

Ciao
Stefan

Eugene Powers · Mar 9, 2003

Just about my experience with this lens.
I picked it up at PMA and almost collapsed.
How does one carry this lens anywhere?
Especially in to the wilderness.

Eugene

Stefan Schott said:
Thomas Gardner said:

The big gun tripod I have,
Bogen 3258 is good up to 20Kg.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be that sure. My biga$$ Gitzo is rated for 15 kg but I
found out that it's not even good for half that amount.
I lifted that 300-800 at photokina and just about collapsed. Not
funny.
But a beautiful piece of equipment (if it's any good) ;-)
Let us know when you got it!

Ciao
Stefan

Thomas Gardner · Mar 9, 2003

Stefan Schott said:
Thomas Gardner said:

The big gun tripod I have,
Bogen 3258 is good up to 20Kg.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be that sure. My biga$$ Gitzo is rated for 15 kg but I
found out that it's not even good for half that amount.
I lifted that 300-800 at photokina and just about collapsed. Not
funny.
But a beautiful piece of equipment (if it's any good) ;-)
Let us know when you got it!

We all want to have at least one big gun in our kit. My only problem, I don't have a clue what to do with the lens once I get it. Because of that one little, minor detail, it will slow down my getting this ten plus pound chunk of glass.

I'll have the tripod, the head and the long lens technique but I won't know what to do with all those skills

And here's a slide of two blue bottle flies mating at four hundread yards. Now here's a slide of Mrs Guildersen, from the other side of town watering her lawn in a bright yellow Sun bonnet. In this slide we have an image of the flag from the local..... Well! You get the idea

I want the big glass for ego sake but I have to know what to do with it "BEFORE" I get the darn thing. What a concept

1280mm's on a 10D @ f/5.6, tripod mounted on Bogen's 3258 and a Wimberly head. That oughta make em jealous.

Sort of like a teenager driving a 67 fastback Mustang, with a blown destroked 289 and no race to go to

Saaaaaad

Stefan Schott · Mar 9, 2003

Thomas Gardner said:
I want the big glass for ego sake but I have to know what to do
with it "BEFORE" I get the darn thing. What a concept

I would have suggested "Go to Alaska, get yourself a cabin at Katmai National Park and photograph some bears," but chances are the rangers won't even let you on the platform with such a "mother of all lenses" because you'll be taking up three people's space ;-)

Even at your average ballpark you'll be having touble using that thing without hitting the people in the seats in front of you on the head...

Plus, you'll be the preferred target of low-lifes on the way back to the car park.

Ciao
Stefan

Search

Best Price - Sigma 120-300/2.8 EX

Jason Stoller

Veteran Member

Jason Stoller

Veteran Member

Jason Stoller

Veteran Member

Stefan Schott

Veteran Member

Eugene Powers

Guest

Thomas Gardner

Veteran Member

Thomas Gardner

Veteran Member

Thomas Gardner

Veteran Member

Jim Davidson91985

Leading Member

Thomas Gardner

Veteran Member

Thomas Gardner

Veteran Member

Stefan Schott

Veteran Member

Eugene Powers

Guest

Thomas Gardner

Veteran Member

Stefan Schott

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts