| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:23 am Post subject: FD 80-200mm f/4L is like a prime lens |
 |
|
Langstrum wrote:
The only zoom lens I'm using now and it's with me all the time since it's quite small to carry around. The lens has some fungus inside but the photos it took are still gorgeous. The sharpness is on par with many modern lenses and the bokeh is smooth enough for portraits. I mostly use 135-200mm focal length and all the photos below were taken at f4. The only thing I don't like is the push-pull zooming mechanism some time can be engaged spontaneously when I'm adjusting the focus, otherwise it's hard to find anything to complain about this lens. And I got it for $90...
Please click on the photos to see the high resolution one on Flickr
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
Posts: 3666
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
Very hard to argue against your POV with these samples.
_________________
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
Many people still have a prejudice that old MF lenses are just for fun, not for serious works, but I want to prove that it's wrong. When I showed the photos to other people, they just simply reacted by immediately finding more information on this zoom lens.
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 3462
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
_________________
"I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sjak
Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Posts: 696
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sjak wrote:
Indeed very nice pics!
I have a 3rd-party FD 80-200 zoom, the push/pull-zoom is fin! But I find it heavy and not well balanced on my Fuji. What is the weight of this one?
(I also find the FD-mount quite fiddly somehow, I always struggle with mounting/removing an FD-lens to/from the adapter.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
The weight is 679 g, and I found it's quite light (it's lighter and more compact than the non-L version), but still a bit unbalanced on my A7ii.
At first I had problem with FD adapter, too, then I found the way to manage it. There is an aperture lock ring, you should set it to ON position before mounting, so the lock will stay on the side of the lever in the mount and not stuck in the middle when you set it.
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6005
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Superb lens - and you use it so well.
Congratulations
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sjak
Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Posts: 696
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sjak wrote:
| Oldhand wrote: |
Superb lens - and you use it so well.
|
Indeed - flawless composition and framing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 577
Location: Zurich
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
wolan wrote:
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4088
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
The Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L has one lens made out of fluorite, a material with extremely low dispersion.
At f=200mm the lens has less CAs than e. g. the Sony 2.8/70-200mm G. Other aberrations are not so well corrected; for near-perfect images i have to stop it down to f8 or better f11. Distortion is quite visible at 80mm and in the 130 - 200mm range. In spite of these little drawbacks, 24MP FF images from the nFD 80-200mm L are very crisp and clear.
The Canon EF 4/70-200mm L is slightly better, but not that much.
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
Thank you Oldhand, Sjak and Wolan!
@Stephan: Thank you for the information! I didn't test the distortion but it's not important for my portrait so it's fine to live with it, and I can confirm that this lens is very well corrected for chromatic aberrations. The best sharpness probably can be reached at about f/8 but even the wide open is good enough for my usages.
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coase
Joined: 08 Aug 2016
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
coase wrote:
Nice shots. Still my favorite zoom lens and its light weight is a nice bonus.
I also mostly shoot it at 135-200, so I can set Steady Shot on the A7rii at 135mm and leave it there for some limited in camera stabilization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uddhava
Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Posts: 3072
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-06-21
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uddhava wrote:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tikkathree
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 755
Location: Lovely Suffolk in Great Britain
Expire: 2012-12-28
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tikkathree wrote:
Are you using a glazed adapter or unglazed?
| Langstrum wrote: |
The weight is 679 g, and I found it's quite light (it's lighter and more compact than the non-L version), but still a bit unbalanced on my A7ii.
At first I had problem with FD adapter, too, then I found the way to manage it. There is an aperture lock ring, you should set it to ON position before mounting, so the lock will stay on the side of the lever in the mount and not stuck in the middle when you set it. |
_________________
I used to think digital was fun but then I discovered film, then I found old lenses and then, eventually I found rangefinders.
EOS 5DII, loadsalenses
Canon G9 IR conv,
MF: TLR, 645 and folders
35mm: Oly OM Pro bodies 1, 2, 3 and 4; Soviet RF kit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
@tikkathree: I'm using this one
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tikkathree
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 755
Location: Lovely Suffolk in Great Britain
Expire: 2012-12-28
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
tikkathree wrote:
Okay, I'm guessing that this fits a non-Canon body which renders my question academic. Thanks
| Langstrum wrote: |
@tikkathree: I'm using this one
|
_________________
I used to think digital was fun but then I discovered film, then I found old lenses and then, eventually I found rangefinders.
EOS 5DII, loadsalenses
Canon G9 IR conv,
MF: TLR, 645 and folders
35mm: Oly OM Pro bodies 1, 2, 3 and 4; Soviet RF kit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Langstrum wrote:
Oh I see, I didn't mention that I used Sony A7ii. For Canon EOS, the only way to use this lens correctly is modifying the mount...
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andk
Joined: 21 Feb 2015
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
andk wrote:
Has anyone compared the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 to the Zeiss Contax 80-200mm F4?
I've read very positive reviews for both of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017
Posts: 291
Location: наша раша
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
recently received contax Zeiss 80-200mm F4. Weather is lousy, I managed only once to go with him to the street. Everywhere F4
    
back 80 and 200 mm F4
 
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4088
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| andk wrote: |
Has anyone compared the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 to the Zeiss Contax 80-200mm F4?
I've read very positive reviews for both of them. |
Are you talking about the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 or the Canon FD 80-200mm F4 L ?
I do have both Canon lenses, as well as the Zeiss Vario Sonnar 4/80-200mm.
The Zeiss is much newer (around 1992) than the Canon lenses (mid-1970s and mid-1980s). Generally, it is better corrected (less distortion, better corners at f4 and f5.6) than the Canon FD 80-200mm L, but the Canon has a better correction of CAs. Stopped down to f8, the Canon L images are more crisp, and colors are very clear.
The Zeiss mechanics are an absolute joy to use; the lens feels more precise than the Canon (whether it really is i don't know).
Both lenses (the Zeiss and the Canon L) are clearly better than the Minolta MD and the Leica R 70-210mm. Also the different Hexanon zooms (3.5/80-200mm and both 4/80-200mm) and the Pentax M 4/80-200mm are clearly inferior to the Zeiss. The AiS Nikkor 4/80-200mm and the 4/70-210mm both are quite good lenses, but i haven't tested them in detail yet. I would say they come close to the Zeiss (better than the Minolta), but this is a preliminary feeling and not the result of rigorous tests.
At f=200mm, the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm is almost indistinguishable from the Minolta MC 4/200mm (another very good vintage MF lens).
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andk
Joined: 21 Feb 2015
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
andk wrote:
Thanks Stephan.
I was talking about the Canon L version from the first post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200 is another contender, it matches the Vario-Sonnar in sharpness and lack of distortion, but has slightly more visible CA on the edges and the coatings are not quite as good so it flares and ghosts a little more. In real world usage however, if you keep the angle to the sun in mind, the Hexanon is capable of equally good results. I actually prefer the Minolta AF 4/70-210 because it has a vibrancy and overall aesthetic to it's images that I really like, in fact, it's a better lens than the modern Canon EF 4/80-200 L in many ways.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coase
Joined: 08 Aug 2016
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
coase wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
| The Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200 is another contender, it matches the Vario-Sonnar in sharpness and lack of distortion, but has slightly more visible CA on the edges and the coatings are not quite as good so it flares and ghosts a little more. In real world usage however, if you keep the angle to the sun in mind, the Hexanon is capable of equally good results. I actually prefer the Minolta AF 4/70-210 because it has a vibrancy and overall aesthetic to it's images that I really like, in fact, it's a better lens than the modern Canon EF 4/80-200 L in many ways. |
Do you mean the Minolta beercan? I've tried two because I wanted to have an AF (with adapter) lens for my Sony. But in both cases, I much preferred the Canon L. YMMV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Yes, the Minolta beercan, had mine since 1993 and will never part with it.
Minolta 70-210mm f4 versus Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4088
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| coase wrote: |
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
| The Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200 is another contender, it matches the Vario-Sonnar in sharpness and lack of distortion, but has slightly more visible CA on the edges and the coatings are not quite as good so it flares and ghosts a little more. In real world usage however, if you keep the angle to the sun in mind, the Hexanon is capable of equally good results. I actually prefer the Minolta AF 4/70-210 because it has a vibrancy and overall aesthetic to it's images that I really like, in fact, it's a better lens than the modern Canon EF 4/80-200 L in many ways. |
Do you mean the Minolta beercan? I've tried two because I wanted to have an AF (with adapter) lens for my Sony. But in both cases, I much preferred the Canon L. YMMV. |
I meant the Minolta MD-III 4/70-210mm (we're in a MF forum, aren't we?), but the "beercan" AF 4/70-210 has the same optics. Of course the Canon L has much less CAs than the MD/AF 4/70-210mm, even if David Kilpatrick and Ian claim the contrary. Davids image are simply green leaves (nothing red!), and when taking images only with green colors no (red) CAs will be visible, of course. A person as knowledgeable as David Kilpatrick does know that, i think.
I have tested the Minolta/Sony 2.8/70-200mm APO G side-by-side with the Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L, on a stable tripod (Kilpatrick: handheld ...), and using high res digital cameras, and i can publish these results. The Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L (as well as the Canon EF 4/70-200mm L) gives much cleaner colors than both the Minolta/Sony 2.8/70-200mm G and the Minolta MD/AF 4/80-200mm.
And claiming that the Hexanon UC 4/80-200mm is equal to the Zeiss C/Y 4/80-200mm is ... quite ridiculous. I have tested several samples of the UC Hexanon, and they are by far inferior to the Zeiss.
Stephan
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
