 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005lens choice
hi all I'm about to buy a digital SLR probably the Canon EOS 350D. I'll want a 7x or better zoom lens for general use. I have been told that Sigma is better than Tamron nowadays, better than the standard Canon kit lenses. Comments? Advice? David Kinston melbourne.au You must have been talking to someone in a camera store who has a bunch of Sigma crap to push! Stick to Canon and you won't go wrong, and your lenses will work on any future cameras, something the Sigmas probably won't do. B. Boudreau Canada > Stick to Canon and you won't go wrong, and your lenses will work on any > future cameras, something the Sigmas probably won't do. Not neccessarily true - EF-S lenses will work on the 350D but not on all Canon SLRs (digital or otherwise). Brian I have a Sigma 18-125; it's fast focussing, accurate, fairly quit, and delivers superb results. Don't hesitate to look at Sigma. > hi all > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > David Kinston > melbourne.au > hi all > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > David Kinston > melbourne.au No, just questions. 7x what? 7x100? 7x24? 7x11? And what is general to you? Architecture? Landscapes? Portrets? Do you know what youre talking about? Are you not looking for a point and shoot camera? Aad > No, just questions. > 7x what? > 7x100? 7x24? 7x11? 7x is the zoom ratio, so a 28-200 would fit the bill (albeit softly)  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> No, just questions. >> 7x what? >> 7x100? 7x24? 7x11? > > 7x is the zoom ratio, so a 28-200 would fit the bill (albeit softly) So is 100-700 or 10-70 but what the .. does he mean? Aad 7x is plainly 7 times zoom ratio. These are not bonoculars. General use is just that. Wide angle to telephoto. Macro desirable. For me, ideally 24 - 170mm approx (pre-digital equiv) High-quality results without being paranoid. >>> No, just questions. >>> 7x what? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So is 100-700 or 10-70 but what the .. does he mean? > Aad >>>No, just questions. >>>7x what? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So is 100-700 or 10-70 but what the .. does he mean? He's looking for a lens choice. There are not many 7x lenses, but the 28-200 is a fairly popular (if not very good) 7x lens. The two ranges you mention do not to my knowledge exist from any manufacturer. Before posting as you did in the previous post, you should learn a little more about camera lens designations and what the common flavours are, esp. considering your challenge: "Do you know what youre <sic> talking about?" Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > 7x what? Duh, 7x zoom. > 7x100? 7x24? 7x11? He was talking cameras, not bloody binoculars you know. What is 7x24 in the camera world please? >> 7x what? > > Duh, 7x zoom. But 7x what? >> 7x100? 7x24? 7x11? > > He was talking cameras, not bloody binoculars you know. > What is 7x24 in the camera world please? 168. "7x" is a multiplier; it doesn't mean a whole lot without something to multiply by. It just means that the longest focal length is 7x longer than the shortest; it leaves out what the shortest actually *is*. SLR lenses are generally never described with things like "7x". That is used with point-and-shoot cameras and video camcorders with fixed (non-removable) lenses. It lets the marketing people have a number that they can get all excited about being bigger than some other camera has -- nevermind that it's meaningless, and nevermind that larger numbers typically result in lower quality. They're marketing people, so facts and truth are unimportant to them. Personally, I don't get why someone would buy a decent SLR and then cripple it with a crappy high-range zoom lens. You might as well just get a point-and-shoot camera and spend less money; they make perfectly good pictures too. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> He was talking cameras, not bloody binoculars you know. >> What is 7x24 in the camera world please? > > 168. 168? Same in the automotive and computer worlds. Coincidence? I think not. mike >>7x what? > > Duh, 7x zoom. 7x what zoom? >>7x100? 7x24? 7x11? > > He was talking cameras, not bloody binoculars you know. > What is 7x24 in the camera world please? Maybe he was trying to be funny. So, again, what does 7x mean in the world of SLRs? Greg Signature"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late The battles we fought were long and hard Just not to be consumed by rock and roll" - The Mekons Gormless skrev: >>7x what? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He was talking cameras, not bloody binoculars you know. > What is 7x24 in the camera world please? 24-168 SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > hi all > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Comments? Advice? The only Sigma I would hands down reccommend is the 180mm f/3.5 macro lens. This is based on the work of a friend of mine who has one and makes magnificent slides with it (generally closeup and macro). On your Canon this works out to an equivalent of about 290mm however, which might be a bit constraining. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is one of the best macro and GP lenses that there are. I'm not famillar enough with other Tamron lenses. They don't make as many as Sigma, but (generally) the few that they have are very decent to very good. Canon kit lenses are typically, despite being kit lenses, quite decent. 7x zooms are _all_ pretty soft. Get a couple shorter zoom ratio lenses and the quality of your images will be much better. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >I'm about to buy a digital SLR probably the Canon >EOS 350D. I'll want a 7x or better zoom lens for >general use. Do you intend to use just one lense, or do you want to have several and just have the wide range lense for convenience over performance? If you want just one lense, then I would suggest you look at a good P&S camera like the Panasonic Lumix FZ models. They have a wide zoom range (12x) and can produce excellent pictures - better than a super zoom on a DSLR. But if you want to be able to change lenses with high quality optics, and have the added performance of an SLR, then you need to stay away from wide range zooms. If you're considering the 350D then you should also consider that you'll need to look at a minimum of two good lenses to cover the range you want, perhaps several depending on your needs. Take that into consideration before you buy a high performance body with a poor lense. >I have been told that Sigma is better than Tamron >nowadays, better than the standard Canon kit lenses. I've rarely been impressed with Sigma for performance, especially in a wide range zoom lense. Sigma has made a few good lenses, but you won't get one in a 7x zoom. Canon makes a 28-300 L lense that has good optical performance, but it also costs big money and is massive as well as heavy...not what I would consider a good walk around lense. Personally, I have two Canon lenses that I use the most - a wide angle 17-40 f/4 L and a telephoto 70-200 f/4 L. These two lenses cover 99% of what I need and they have excellent optics. They're also compact and light enough to fit in a shoulder bag with my camera body and all my typical accessories. I can carry this combo all day long and the image quality is very hard to beat. >> I'm about to buy a digital SLR probably the Canon >> EOS 350D. I'll want a 7x or better zoom lens for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (12x) and can produce excellent pictures - better than a super zoom on a > DSLR. Many people want the speed, fast focusing, low noise/high ISO performance of a DSLR. For them a P&S camera is not a solution. There is nothing wrong with a person wanting a one lens solution on a DSLR. > But if you want to be able to change lenses with high quality optics, > and have the added performance of an SLR, then you need to stay away [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > typical accessories. I can carry this combo all day long and the image > quality is very hard to beat. I have 2 excellent film SLRs, which I haven't used for 3 years now. Several excellent Tamron SP lenses, including the 90mm f2.8 macro. 2 well-performing digital compact cameras. (Sony DSC S85, and a 2MP Sony DSC-P50 stuck on the back of a 10" Meade SCT scope for astrophotography. I reckon that anyone who wanted to understand what I meant has had no trouble. The posers and put-downers should continue to augment the universe's background noise level. This camera is for fun, convenient, no-need-to-take-a-swag-of-lenses while-getting-sand-inside-the-camera use. DK melbourne.au >>I'm about to buy a digital SLR probably the Canon >>EOS 350D. I'll want a 7x or better zoom lens for [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > typical accessories. I can carry this combo all day long and the image > quality is very hard to beat. > I have 2 excellent film SLRs, which I haven't used for 3 years now. > Several excellent Tamron SP lenses, including the 90mm f2.8 macro. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no trouble. The posers and put-downers should continue to augment > the universe's background noise level. Ummm, so a 50-350 will work for you? > This camera is for fun, convenient, no-need-to-take-a-swag-of-lenses > while-getting-sand-inside-the-camera use. How ironic. A top-poster who doesn't know how to communicate. Again, what's 7x mean on an SLR? Greg Signature"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late The battles we fought were long and hard Just not to be consumed by rock and roll" - The Mekons > I have 2 excellent film SLRs, which I haven't used for 3 years now. > Several excellent Tamron SP lenses, including the 90mm f2.8 macro. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >>typical accessories. I can carry this combo all day long and the image >>quality is very hard to beat. While many may understand what you are asking, most cannot give a useful answer without some additional information. What we need to know is either the wide starting point or the tele ending point or 7x is of no use. You have been given some useful advice (and some just silly stuff), but nothing specific can be recommended without more input from you. You should be aware that the greater the zoom range the more difficult it is to design the lens and the more groups/elements it takes to make it work. e.g. Sigma 28-200 has 14 groups consisting of 16 elements. That's a huge amount of glass. You should also realize that each group presents 2 reflective surfaces that can cause lower contrast. I would thing that a reasonable plan would be to get a minimum of 2 lenses to attain your goals. Maybe something in the 17/18 to 55/70 range (which is what most would consider a good walking around range) and a 70/80 to 200 for those times you need to "reach out and touch" someone/something. Hope this help, Dave PS - I have owned and used both Tamron and Sigma glass so I won't get into the brand thing other than to say that all my glass is now Nikon. Just my personal preference. > hi all > > I'm about to buy a digital SLR probably the Canon > EOS 350D. I'll want a 7x or better zoom lens for > general use. 7x what? That could cover 10mm-70mm, 18mm-125mm, 24mm-168mm. > I have been told that Sigma is better than Tamron > nowadays, better than the standard Canon kit lenses. I'll take Tamron over Sigma every day. In either case I'll assume you're looking for something like the Tamron 24mm-135mm which works great for me. Greg Signature"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late The battles we fought were long and hard Just not to be consumed by rock and roll" - The Mekons The ONLY comment I have is something I read somewhere on SOME camera buliten board or website. That being: Stick w/the same brand camera you have when it comes to lenses. That way you'll KNOW that you'll maintain the integrgity of the camera. If you choose an off brand lense and it doesn't work correctly you won't know if it's the lense or the camera causing you fits. Where as if you match brand for brand and it doesn't work that's one less step for you to go over. That's my advice and it has worked well for me thus far. -- Chris visit: www.cjpphotos.com > The ONLY comment I have is something I read somewhere on SOME camera > buliten board or website. That being: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's my advice and it has worked well for me thus far. Works well if the camera manufacturer makes all the lens sizes you need. Several don't come close. Sorry, but this is just bad advice. > The ONLY comment I have is something I read somewhere on SOME camera > buliten board or website. That being: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > visit: > www.cjpphotos.com > hi all > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Comments? Advice? I bought a Sigma 18-200mm last June for my 300D and have been more than pleased with its performance. Most everyone that trashes the mega zoom lenses from Sigma and Tamron have never used them and therefore don't know what they are talking about. The response from the overwhelming number of Sigma 18-200mm lens users is positive. These people have hands on experience with the lens. I have several lenses in my bag for a variety of specialty uses and the Sigma is on the camera 80% of the time. Here's some links to actual photos I have taken with the Sigma 18-200mm (the pictures have been treated to a 50% resize to meet Photobucket's posting requirements and EXIF data is available): http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/People/CRW_7000a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/People/CRW_6933a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/People/IMG_5966a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/People/CRW_6700a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Pets/CRW_6703a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Misc%20Shots/CRW_7166a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Misc%20Shots/CRW_7101a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Misc%20Shots/CRW_6901a.jpg http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Misc%20Shots/CRW_6610a.jpg I have found this lens to be extremely versatile and the wide range allows me to get shots I would otherwise miss because of the time it would take to swap lenses. Is this lens the best quality you can buy? Of course it isn't but it also far from the worst and definitely not nearly as bad as many here make it out to be. I find the mud slinging interesting considering the majority of these people have never taken one picture with a lens they seem hell bent on bashing. My advice is to buy the Sigma 18-200mm, use it and enjoy it. >> hi all >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > My advice is to buy the Sigma 18-200mm, use it and enjoy it. Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is 11,11x so, not what he asked for. Aad >>> hi all >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is 11,11x > so, not what he asked for. Actually, if you read his original post again you will find he said 7X or better. In my world 11X is "better" than 7X so I did give him exactly what he asked for. ;) >>>> hi all >>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > better. In my world 11X is "better" than 7X so I did give him exactly > what he asked for. ;) In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) So we still don't know what the OP wants! Aad Big cut >>>> My advice is to buy the Sigma 18-200mm, use it and enjoy it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So we still don't know what the OP wants! > Aad And please don't forget; the OP is thinking about 1,6 crop camera. That will give him a wide end of (almost) 29 mm equiv. In that case is it's not a good lens for landscape, architecture or indoor shots. Aad > Big cut > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In that case is it's not a good lens for landscape, architecture or indoor > shots. Now who is making assumptions regarding the intent of the OP? He never mentioned what would be acceptable for his use. I find 18mm plenty wide for my use and the zoom lenses that are substantially wider are far from 7X which is not what the OP asked for. ;) >>>>> hi all >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) > So we still don't know what the OP wants! The OP said the lens was for general use and he mentioned Sigma and Tamron lenses in specific. Therefore I think it is safe to say that for him, in this thread, 11X is "better" than 7X. A person doesn't have to be the Amazing Kreskin to figure out the OP's intent. > In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) > So we still don't know what the OP wants! > Aad Hmmm. Well you appear to believe he's looking for binoculars ^^ up there. >> In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) >> So we still don't know what the OP wants! >> Aad >> > Hmmm. Well you appear to believe he's looking for binoculars ^^ up there. No I don't. I own a Canon 16-35 L. That's 2x zoom and optical a lot better then the Sigma 11x zoom. Aad >>> In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) >>> So we still don't know what the OP wants! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No I don't. I own a Canon 16-35 L. That's 2x zoom and optical a lot better > then the Sigma 11x zoom. What exactly does this have to do with anything in this thread? Do you want a pat on the back for owning a $1,300 lens? >>>> In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) >>>> So we still don't know what the OP wants! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What exactly does this have to do with anything in this thread? Do you > want a pat on the back for owning a $1,300 lens? No, I don't. It's just to tell you that more is not always better, as you suggested. That is, not when youre talking about zoom x. >>>>> In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) >>>>> So we still don't know what the OP wants! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, I don't. It's just to tell you that more is not always better, as you > suggested. That is, not when youre talking about zoom x. Well, like most things in life lens choice involves a series of trade-offs. I don't see where a 16-35 zoom of any quality can replace a 7X or 11X zoom if that is what the photographer feels he/she needs. Sometimes it isn't a case of getting the absolute sharpest, best color/contrast etc. but of just getting the shot. The 18-200mm range of the Sigma has allowed me to get many shots that I would otherwise miss if I had to stop and swap lenses. Personally, I would rather have a photo that is 85%-90% technically perfect but is framed right than have a technically perfect photo that lost its impact because the shot wasn't framed well. >>>>>> In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) >>>>>> So we still don't know what the OP wants! [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > technically perfect photo that lost its impact because the shot wasn't > framed well. Youre 100% right. For your personal situation. But, as we don't no anything about the OP's situation we can't give him any advice on what's best for him! Thats my point, you see? You give him advice on assumptions. I think you can't. Aad >>>>>>> In the pro world, less is better. (read better optical) >>>>>>> So we still don't know what the OP wants! [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Thats my point, you see? You give him advice on assumptions. I think you > can't. I suggest you read his original post again. It isn't that cryptic or difficult to understand. > Well, like most things in life lens choice involves a series of > trade-offs. I don't see where a 16-35 zoom of any quality can replace a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a technically perfect photo that lost its impact because the shot wasn't > framed well. Nikon has a new 18-200 (vibration reduction I think) which is very appealing to photo journalists so you are sure not to miss the shot while changing lenses. Unfortunately it's $700 or I might get one... plus I already have a 28-200 that was my initial kit lens for the D70. I didn't imagine myself wanting multiple lenses at the time so got that. I found it frustrating not to have enough wide angle though. And I did discover the image quality was less than I could get with better optics. One thing I noticed is the bokeh (out of focus character) can be pretty bad on that lens which is disappointing for a lot of the work I do like closeups of plants with a blurred background, the background would sometimes get quite ugly with busy looking donuts instead of nice soft blobs. Damn, my little 3MP P&S did better in that category. And it is not a fast lens, has no VR, and when I did want a really sharp telephoto image, I found that I wasn't able to get very sharp results. Being a slow lens, the viewfinder was quite dark and the manual focus jittery and unsure. So I eventually got a Sigma 12-24 and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR with 2x teleconverter (and others). Well the 70-200 is wonderful, the 2x TC is useful but it really is quite soft, argh, now I'm drooling for a 300mm prime. The Sigma wide zoom has been great fun and it's reasonably sharp but the color & contrast is poor. I saved a couple hundred bucks and thought it would be wise to go for full frame but alas, it seems unlikely that full frame will ever be needed. The bokeh is hideous but that's OK because it's not very fast anyways so I rarely do anything with signfificant OOF areas on that lens. Still I wish I'd got the Nikon DX wide zoom, I wish I'd got the regular kit lens too but oh well, live and learn. I had a great time with that lens and probably will use it again if I need to travel light and flexible. Anyways, just giving the OP some ideas about the considerations in choosing lenses. Really I think that's fine to get a 7x or 11x zoom, but I would advise getting something that starts with at least 18mm at the wide end. One more thought. Now that I have specialized lenses, it is an interesting exercise to be limited by the lens, it forces me to see things differently and I usually just accept that rather than switch unless there is a strong reason. I shoot for pleasure so can afford that approach, a photo journalist doesn't have the luxury. I would recommend the OP go for a cheap 18-whatever super zoom for learning and get a fast cheap 50mm prime for the times when a really sharp image is desired and for the experience of having fast glass and a compact simple setup. A 24mm prime would be better but that starts costing money again. >>>> hi all >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> I have been told that Sigma is better than Tamron >>>> nowadays, better than the standard Canon kit lenses. >>> I have found this lens to be extremely versatile and the wide range >>> allows me to get shots I would otherwise miss because of the time it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > better. In my world 11X is "better" than 7X so I did give him exactly > what he asked for. ;) True, in the vernacular, "better" can mean "larger" or "more." That's what I took him to mean, which is why I stayed out of the conversation. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is 11,11x > so, not what he asked for. The other person is clueless. There is currently nothing close to 7x. He can go with something like a 24-135 or an 18-200. Greg Signature"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late The battles we fought were long and hard Just not to be consumed by rock and roll" - The Mekons >> Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is >> 11,11x so, not what he asked for. > > The other person is clueless. There is currently nothing close to 7x. > He can go with something like a 24-135 or an 18-200. The Sigma 18-125 is very close to a 7X zoom. >>> Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is >>> 11,11x so, not what he asked for. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Sigma 18-125 is very close to a 7X zoom.' Ye, you're right. But is 18x1,6=28,8 wide enough if OP wants to shoot a lot of indoor birthdays? Or is 125x1,6=200 long enough if OP wants to shoot the birds in his backyard? Or, why is'nt OP telling us what he wants? >>>> Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is >>>> 11,11x so, not what he asked for. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > backyard? > Or, why is'nt OP telling us what he wants? The OP wants a "general use" lens. For the vast majority of us that means a wide end of 17-28mm and a long end of 200-300mm. Either you are just trying to be argumentative or you are just plain anal. >>>>> Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is >>>>> 11,11x so, not what he asked for. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a wide end of 17-28mm and a long end of 200-300mm. Either you are just > trying to be argumentative or you are just plain anal. Youre advice is about the same as one can get from most sales people. They don't ask you anything but only want your money, and they hope you leave the shop asap. Aad >>>>>> Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is >>>>>> 11,11x so, not what he asked for. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > They don't ask you anything but only want your money, and they hope you > leave the shop asap. Except my reply is based on 7-8 months of personal experience with a popular, 11X, general purpose lens while providing personal photos using said lens to back up my statements. Add that I won't make a dime from whatever the OP buys and, frankly, I really don't see the point of your post or, for that matter, any of your replies in this thread. Except that you appear to like being rude. I have given far more relevant and cogent advice than you. > >> Nice story and nice pictures but OP asked voor a 7x lens. 18-200 is > >> 11,11x so, not what he asked for. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Sigma 18-125 is very close to a 7X zoom. I stand corrected. I only checked the Tamron zooms before posting (as far as I can see Tamron doesn't have one and Tamron is my preferred non-Canon lens), I should have checked Sigma and Tokina, too. Greg |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.