Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: 16-35 VR

  1. #1
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

    16-35 VR

    Just thought I would ask this esteemed group for some thoughts here.

    I need a wide angle zoom for events/wedding work. I'm torn between the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 VRII f4. Both are wonderful lenses and about the same price, so I guess it all comes down to quality.

    What say you??
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    They say the 17-35 needs to be stopped down to around f8 to get maximum sharpness.
    Also the 16-35 is said to draw more contrasty/with more pop.
    So I assume iamge quality wise at comparable f-stops the 16-35 shoud beat the 17-35.
    On the downside the 16-35 is larger than the 17-35 and doesnt have f2.8.
    But then again the 16-35 has IS.

  3. #3
    Senior Member routlaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Muelver View Post
    Just thought I would ask this esteemed group for some thoughts here.

    I need a wide angle zoom for events/wedding work. I'm torn between the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 VRII f4. Both are wonderful lenses and about the same price, so I guess it all comes down to quality.

    What say you??
    Jason, I used to own the 17-35 and regardless of this lens somewhat cult status I found it to be rather mediocre at best regardless of the f-stop used. It was built well and focused fast, thats about it. I know of others whose opinion I trusted felt the same way about the lens. Lets face it many of these older legacy lenses were built for film days and the newer entries have been totally redesigned and at least theoretically improved upon. With few exceptions this has been my experience.

    As for the 1 stop slower speed of the 16-35 VR given the excellent high ISO performance of Nikons cameras especially the D3 series, its probably a moot point loosing this one stop. The VR capabilities will probably serve you well for the type of photography you intend to do with it.

    So my vote hands down the 16-35 VR.

    Hope this helps.

    Rob

  4. #4
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,874
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    I also owned the 17-35 and was never happy with its performance. I actually owned to samples of this lens, so else both were bad or this lens in general was/is not a winner.

    I assume that the new 16-35 being one of Nikons latest designs and incorporating nano coating and VR will easily top the 17-35.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Jason,

    I just bought the 16-35mm VRII f/4. I'm getting it tomorrow. I, also, just put my 14-24mm f/2.8 up for sale in this forum. Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by m_driscoll View Post
    Jason,

    I just bought the 16-35mm VRII f/4. I'm getting it tomorrow. I, also, just put my 14-24mm f/2.8 up for sale in this forum. Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
    Matt, why are you selling 14-24?

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexLF View Post
    Matt, why are you selling 14-24?
    Good question! It's one of my all-time favorite Nikon lenses. I did a 3 hour shoot on Monday, and probably used the 14-24 for 85% of it!

  8. #8
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,874
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd View Post
    Good question! It's one of my all-time favorite Nikon lenses. I did a 3 hour shoot on Monday, and probably used the 14-24 for 85% of it!
    Maybe it is size? This would be my only reason to use the 16-35 instead of the 14-24.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd View Post
    Good question! It's one of my all-time favorite Nikon lenses. I did a 3 hour shoot on Monday, and probably used the 14-24 for 85% of it!
    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Maybe it is size? This would be my only reason to use the 16-35 instead of the 14-24.
    Lloyd/Ptomsu: The 14-24mm is a great lens! One of my all time favorites. However, I'm selling it because the 16-35mm is smaller, lighter, has VRII, more useable zoom range (IMHO), takes a filter, and has very good reviews. I'll see how i miss the speed, the 14mm wide end, and if the increased distortion at 16mm over the 14-24 bothers me.

    Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by m_driscoll View Post
    Lloyd/Ptomsu: The 14-24mm is a great lens! One of my all time favorites. However, I'm selling it because the 16-35mm is smaller, lighter, has VRII, more useable zoom range (IMHO), takes a filter, and has very good reviews. I'll see how i miss the speed, the 14mm wide end, and if the increased distortion at 16mm over the 14-24 bothers me.

    Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
    Matt, in case you still keep them both could you please make pics from both (equal in focal length and aperture, on a tripod and with MUP)? I hope that's not too much

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexLF View Post
    Matt, in case you still keep them both could you please make pics from both (equal in focal length and aperture, on a tripod and with MUP)? I hope that's not too much
    Alex: At the moment, I have both. I'll see what i can do tonight. What's MUP?

    Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

  12. #12
    Subscriber Member Corlan F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,433
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    381

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by m_driscoll View Post
    ... What's MUP?
    Master in Urban Planning?
    You should know that, Matt

    Looking forward to reading your results. Those two lenses get a lot of opinions here and there, and many are contradictory.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Comparison photos of 16-35mm f/4 VRII and 14-24mm f/2.8. I'll post more at 24mm (both) and 35mm (16-35mm). Cheers, Matt

    1. 14-24mm; 14mm; 1/2000s @ f/2.8; ISO 320


    2. 14-24mm; 14mm; 1/250s @ f/8; ISO 320


    3. 14-24mm; 16mm; 1/1250s @ f/4; ISO 320


    4. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/800s @ f/4; ISO 320


    5. 14-24mm; 16mm; 1/250s @ f/8; ISO 320


    6. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/200s @ f/8; ISO 320


    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com/img/v14/p632928518-5.jpg

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Second round. Hope i didn't screw them up. The 16-35mm F/4 VRII is a very good lens. Build quality isn't as stout as the metal 14-24mm f/2.8. OOF is better at f/2.8 (need to get the 24mm f/4). So far no reason to regret selling the 14-24. Cheers, Matt

    1. 14-24mm f/2.8; 24mm; 1/1600 @ f/2.8; ISO 320


    2. 14-24mm f/2.8; 24mm; 1/640 @ f/4; ISO 320


    3. 16-35mm f/4; 24mm; 1/800 @ f/4; ISO 320


    4. 14-24mm f/2.8; 24mm; 1/250 @ f/8; ISO 320


    5. 16-35mm f/4; 24mm; 1/160 @ f/8; ISO 320


    6. 16-35mm f/4; 35mm; 1/800 @ f/4; ISO 320


    6. 16-35mm f/4; 35mm; 1/200 @ f/8; ISO 320


    http://mdrioscoll.zenfolio.com

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Matt, thank you very much! MUP was mirror lock up and should be really MLU Don't know why I typed MUP...

    Sorry to bother you again but if you haven't deleted the original images could you please share crops at the bottom left corner for example? This would be enough to evaluate sharpness of both lenses!

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexLF View Post
    Matt, thank you very much! MUP was mirror lock up and should be really MLU Don't know why I typed MUP...

    Sorry to bother you again but if you haven't deleted the original images could you please share crops at the bottom left corner for example? This would be enough to evaluate sharpness of both lenses!
    Alex: Sure, I'll do it tonight. Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

  17. #17
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    I think you typed MUP cause isn't that what it says on the dial? :-D

    OK, Matt. Great shots. Is it a keeper? The 16-35 is a more usable range for me too!

    Looks like a keeper from those shots.
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Interesting comparisons. From what I can tell looking at the shots with both lenses at 24mm, the 14-24 seems to hold a little more detail in the tree trunk. Granted, there are lots of variables at play that could impact that impression, and it's just pixel peeping to the enth degree, so it's just my take. That's wide open for both lenses however, so you'd think the 16-35 @ f4 would have the edge.

    I think for me, the appeal of the new zoom is the range, there are lots of times I wish the 14-24 had just a little more on the high end, shooting a wedding, for example. I know in my PJ days, it would have been a no-brainer. I would have gladly given up a little speed and absolute IQ for the greater utility. Especially on a camera capable of great results at high ISO. (Hmm, sounds like my explanation about selling the 200/2, doesn't it.)

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by Lloyd View Post
    I think for me, the appeal of the new zoom is the range, there are lots of times I wish the 14-24 had just a little more on the high end, shooting a wedding, for example. I know in my PJ days, it would have been a no-brainer. I would have gladly given up a little speed and absolute IQ for the greater utility. Especially on a camera capable of great results at high ISO. (Hmm, sounds like my explanation about selling the 200/2, doesn't it.)
    Hi Lloyd
    Certainly I found that I used the 14-24 less than I might have liked because of the limiting long end - if I were in the market I'd certainly prefer the 16-35 as long as the quality was consistent.
    I had two 17-35 and I thought both of them were suspect at the corners - so, if I were the OP I'd definitely be going for the 16-35 for wedding work.

    Just this guy you know

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    I'm going to buy one of those lenses next week. But as I said in another thread it's all for landscapes so every pixel counts At the end of the month I'm flying to Spain and France .. hopefully (I already bought tickets but no visa yet). And I'm taking my LF gear and Nikon with 24-70 + this my future lens. Obviously, no way I could carry both Linhof and Nikon in the mountains (well, I'll ask my wife if she'd take Nikon with 2 lenses ... to haul ). But it will depend on a hike which one to get.

    BTW, I turned down the Zeiss and PC-E 24 because I have LF camera and lenses - I have Rodenstock manual focus lenses and tilt-shift on my Linhof so why get all that manual stuff for Nikon..

    Matt, thank you in advance.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Here's some crops in the lower left corner. There are slight differences in color. Maybe a little more contrast with the 14-24? I set the Aperture and let the camera select shutter speed and ISO. That could account for the color variation? I think the lens is a keeper. The biggest con is probably the increased distortion over the 14-24. I can live with that. Cheers, Matt.

    1. 14-24; 16mm; 1/1250 @ f/4


    2. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/800 @ f/4


    3. 14-24; 16mm; 1/250 @ f/8


    4. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/200 @ f/8


    5. 14-24; 24mm; 1/1000 @ f/4


    6. 16-35mm; 24mm; 1/610 @ f/4


    7. 14-24; 24mm; 1/1000 @ f/8


    8. 16-35mm; 24mm; 1/160 @ f/8


    PS: I always pull out those purple flowering weeds about now and plant annuals.

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Matt, me and Nikon owes you Seriously, the difference is really not big at all. Looks like 14-24 a little bit sharper and a bit more contrasty. So I personally would go with 14-24 just because I make pretty big prints.

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexLF View Post
    Matt, me and Nikon owes you Seriously, the difference is really not big at all. Looks like 14-24 a little bit sharper and a bit more contrasty. So I personally would go with 14-24 just because I make pretty big prints.
    Alex: No problem. It was fun. Those are the differences that I see, also. You can see that in the first two images. But, It's pretty close. You also shoot with the D3x, right? You can take advantage of any difference in sharpness. Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by m_driscoll View Post
    Alex: No problem. It was fun. Those are the differences that I see, also. You can see that in the first two images. But, It's pretty close. You also shoot with the D3x, right? You can take advantage of any difference in sharpness. Cheers, Matt

    http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
    Matt, yes, I shoot with D3x and I bought it for landscapes too (never done them with it though ... yet ). So it's going to be the winning combo.

  25. #25
    Subscriber Member Corlan F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,433
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    381

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Matt, thanks for enlightening with this comparison.
    From your tests here (and a couple others) i must say that in my eyes and from my perspective, the 14-24 has overall a clear advantage -in terms of micro-contrast, sharpness, distortion, color. Btw the color aspect (from this series but also other shots) makes me think that the newer lens could take advantage of some kind of profile in C1 or the new LR3/ACR etc. Just a thought from the first samples. Maybe i'm wrong.

    Then i remember preferring -significantly- the ZF21 over the 14-24... hmmm. Why Zeiss don't make AF lenses in F-mount?

  26. #26
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Corlan, I am with you. I pickedd the ZF 21 over the 14-24 mainly due to size and didn't think I would shoot much below 17 or so.

    The 16-35 is right in the focal legnth wheelhouse that I'm looking for. I do wish it was a 2.8 though.
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  27. #27
    Member jlancasterd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Garndolbenmaen, Wales
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Thanks to the excellent performance of the D700 at high ISO I don't find the f4.0 minimum aperture of the 16-35 much of a problem - even hand-holding shots in poorly lit situations, as in the following (converted to mono because of colour casts due to mixed lighting)

    Attachment 31303
    Last edited by jlancasterd; 13th September 2012 at 13:42.
    John L Dobson
    Editor, Ffestiniog Railway Magazine

  28. #28
    Subscriber Member Corlan F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,433
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    381

    Re: 16-35 VR

    You always find incredible machineries, John.
    I'm not into trains myself but always look at your photos closely, they feature a lot of surprising details -this one's indeed particularly "bristling" with details.

    (sorry for the OT )
    Last edited by Corlan F.; 27th May 2010 at 15:20.

  29. #29
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Muelver View Post
    Just thought I would ask this esteemed group for some thoughts here.

    I need a wide angle zoom for events/wedding work. I'm torn between the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 VRII f4. Both are wonderful lenses and about the same price, so I guess it all comes down to quality.

    What say you??
    Couple of things that I don t think were mentioned. Why do you need anything wider than the 24 on the 24-70/2.8 nikkor? Since it came out the 24-70/2.8 seemed like the one lens solution for most weddings .

    Wider than 28mm causes too much distortion in a face unless its centered.

    There are a few shots of the church interior where a wider lens maybe useful but these are just a few and the 24 on FF is pretty wide.

    Why do you care about corner sharpness for a wedding ? Doesn t seem to be a factor in many shots.

    I am sure there are exceptions but I would bet that the 17-35 would be used at 24-35 which could be handled with the 24-70.

    I would rather have a fast 50 or 85 on my 2nd body to control the background and give me the speed to balance with the ambient light.

    F4 for weddings wouldn t work for me.

  30. #30
    Member jlancasterd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Garndolbenmaen, Wales
    Posts
    164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by Corlan F. View Post
    You always find incredible machineries, John.
    I'm not into trains myself but always look at your photos closely, they feature a lot of surprising details -this one's indeed particularly "bristling" with details.

    (sorry for the OT )
    The Ffestiniog Railway is home to lots of peculiar machinery - that's one of its attractions! Also, there's so much preserved steam and other old machinery in the UK that it's relatively easy to find more. people involved with the FR are also pretty inventive - witness some of the participants in the recent 'Quirks and Curiosities' event:

    Attachment 31310

    Attachment 31313

    Attachment 31311

    Attachment 31312
    Last edited by jlancasterd; 13th September 2012 at 13:42.
    John L Dobson
    Editor, Ffestiniog Railway Magazine

  31. #31
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Couple of things that I don t think were mentioned. Why do you need anything wider than the 24 on the 24-70/2.8 nikkor? Since it came out the 24-70/2.8 seemed like the one lens solution for most weddings .

    Wider than 28mm causes too much distortion in a face unless its centered.

    There are a few shots of the church interior where a wider lens maybe useful but these are just a few and the 24 on FF is pretty wide.

    Why do you care about corner sharpness for a wedding ? Doesn t seem to be a factor in many shots.

    I am sure there are exceptions but I would bet that the 17-35 would be used at 24-35 which could be handled with the 24-70.

    I would rather have a fast 50 or 85 on my 2nd body to control the background and give me the speed to balance with the ambient light.

    F4 for weddings wouldn t work for me.
    Roger,

    You are addressing all of my concerns! I have the Beast... the 28-70. For wide shots (ie church exteriors and what not) I have my ZF 21 2.8.

    A guy I shoot with was getting some wonderful shots with his Canon 16-35 2.8, which was making me think about the switch. I'm wondering if my money is better spent getting the 24-70 which is legendary. Or the older 17-35 workhorse.

    I too am concerned about f4 on the big side.

    Ugh.

    Everyone else, great input here and wonderful images!!! Lots to consider for sure!!!
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Muelver View Post
    Roger,

    You are addressing all of my concerns! I have the Beast... the 28-70. For wide shots (ie church exteriors and what not) I have my ZF 21 2.8.

    A guy I shoot with was getting some wonderful shots with his Canon 16-35 2.8, which was making me think about the switch. I'm wondering if my money is better spent getting the 24-70 which is legendary. Or the older 17-35 workhorse.

    I too am concerned about f4 on the big side.

    Ugh.

    Everyone else, great input here and wonderful images!!! Lots to consider for sure!!!
    I know we're getting a bit OT, but it's all about the viability of the 16-35, right?

    My main lens for weddings is my 28-70 (wish it was the 24-70, but I don't own one). Actually, I wish they would update the 24-120, as I often wish I had a little more reach on the long end. Second body usually has the 85, but occasionally the 50. HOWEVER, during receptions, I most often use the 14-24. I like the wide perspective, and I'm just getting fun shots most of the time. I'll even occasionally use the fisheye during dances, "look who's here" shots, etc. This is where I think I'd use the 16-35.

    As for aperture, since in a lot of indoor weddings I have to use flash, I'm most often at 5.6 anyway... it's what David Ziser calls the "aperture of convenience". I use the prime for wide open, soft background, available light stuff.

    You can get great shots with wide lenses, and I often use it even for portraits. A lot of brides I shoot these days want funky, urban stuff, and wide works well there, but often even classic portraits can be done wide with a little care. For example, this one shot with the 14-24 @21mm. I used to do environmental portraits as a PJ with my 20/2.8 all the time.

    Attachment 31327
    Last edited by Lloyd; 28th May 2010 at 07:53.

  33. #33
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 16-35 VR

    Lloyd... I know you're a huge fan of the 14-24 and I'm kicking myself for not buying Matt's.

    Sunday I've got my usual kit and I'll see if I think I'm missing something on the wide end. I never feel like I do when I'm there, but then I see other's work with UWA lenses and I wonder.
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •