snubbr.com

How important are good lenses?
All the time on comparison threads and on review sites, people say that good glass is just as if not more important than good bodies, but I get the feeling that people just say that because everybody else says it. They say that anyone can produce good pictures as long as there is a good lens in front of the camera. Is that true? So the lens has less distortion, less chromatic aberration. Big deal!.

I understand that one gets greater aperture control and can use faster shutter speeds but that cant be the reason to spend so much on lenses can it?Daniel..

Comments (33)

I would say, very important. Too great a distance range (18mm-200mm for example) in a lens tends to show in image quality. If you want exceptional images, have at least one good quality prime such as a micro and when you want to photograph a person at their best. Look at examples from the lens forums and find out about 'brokah' which is the defocused area of image.Will..

Comment #1

Clearly you do not want to believe that good lenses are important. I can certainly understand why. Lens costs lots!.

Unfortunately, IMO the adage is true. If you become at all serious about photography you will need to spend and spend on lenses. Each standard, wide angle, telephoto or macro lens can easily cost the same or more than an beginners DSLR camera body. You will see the difference in resolution/sharpness, color and constrast in addition to decreased chromatic aberrations and distortions. If you are not willing or able to spend some money on lenses, I recommend that you consider staying with a point and shoot camera. There are many very good choices for not much money. You can get better overall image quality with a good P&S camera when compared to a DSLR with cheap glass...

Comment #2

All the time on comparison threads and on review sites, people saythat good glass is just as if not more important than good bodies,but I get the feeling that people just say that because everybodyelse says it. They say that anyone can produce good pictures as longas there is a good lens in front of the camera. Is that true? So thelens has less distortion, less chromatic aberration. Big deal!.

I understand that one gets greater aperture control and can usefaster shutter speeds but that cant be the reason to spend so much onlenses can it?.

It depends how serious you are about image quality. Cheap lenses are excellent value and can produce fine looking results if you are not making big prints: there is no point spending $1000 on a lens if you are going to make 4 x 6 prints from it. But the $1000 lens will produce a much sharper, more pleasing image than the $100 kit lens and the difference is obvious in big prints.

Here is an example which is apparent even at a small, low-res size.. This was taken with my cheapo Pentax 50-200 lens, at 200mm and f/5.6, i.e. the poor-performing extreme. It is almost always the case that at the long end of the zoom range and at the widest aperture the image quality suffers, and this shot is quite 'soft'..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Now compare it to some of these... plucked at random from the 'samples and galleries' forum, but taken with high quality lenses. Ignore the fact that these photos are inherently much better than mine in all sorts of ways and just look at the sharpness of the pics....

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=28563106.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1005&message=28564347.

If you printed the pictures at 16 x 12 inches you would really notice the difference. Of course I *can* get much better image quality with my cheap lens if I take care to stick to the mid-range of the zoom, and use f/8 or f/11, where the resolution is much better than it is at f/5.6. But a good (= expensive) lens will perform well throughout it's range, and will probably have a wider maximum aperture also. 95% of the time I cam quite happy with the image quality of my 50-200 lens, but occasionally I am not and would like a DA* 50-135 f/2.8....

People get hung up on the quality of their camera body and how many toys it has built in and how many megapixels it has. But it is the lens that determines the quality of the picture. What is the point in paying for 10 or 12MP DSLR and then putting a poor lens on it that cannot resolve half that much detail and puts purple fringes on any high-contrast edges? If you want to improve the quality of your images, the order of things to do is (i) learn to post-process well, (ii) get a better lens, (iii) use a tripod whenever possible - and only then is it worth (iv) buying a better camera body. People may argue about the order of (i) - (iii) but (iv) is definitely in the right place..

Best wishesMike..

Comment #3

Profborg wrote:.

All the time on comparison threads and on review sites, people saythat good glass is just as if not more important than good bodies,but I get the feeling that people just say that because everybodyelse says it. They say that anyone can produce good pictures as longas there is a good lens in front of the camera. Is that true? So thelens has less distortion, less chromatic aberration. Big deal!.

I understand that one gets greater aperture control and can usefaster shutter speeds but that cant be the reason to spend so much onlenses can it?Daniel.

Good lenses have made taking pictures a lot easier for me. I bought a few fast primes to compliment my kit lenses until I can afford a good mid-range zoom. I find myself using the primes much more often. I know you can get great shots out of the kit lenses but I find it much easier with the primes. Low light, moving subjects and hands shaking. Nothing trips them up...

Comment #4

I was under the impression that kit lenses can resolve their sensors (talking about 10mp here) but I see what everyone is getting at. Thanks people!.

Please if anyone has anything else to add please do because I am not wholly wholly convinced even though deep down I know that you are all right!Daniel..

Comment #5

Well I dont know about resolving. Im sure the kit lenses can easily resolve the sensor. Of course the DX lenses wont work at full size on the FX frames but beyond that I doubt there is a 6mp limit for DX lenses. The other way around, though, I hear there is a sweet spot for the full frame lenses on the smaller sensors. Dunno what the extra light does to contrast though, Im no scientist..

My understanding has always been you pay the money for the faster glass with fewer foibles like CA or barreling, the build quality is usually also a bonus...

Comment #6

They are the eyes of the camera. Everything after that just degrades what comes thru the lens. Start with higher quality you usually end up with higher quality..

If you think that makes sense, then you must have read someone else's post!..

Comment #7

If you can't afford expensive glass don't buy it. A kit lens or step up from kit lens may be all you need for what you are doing with it..

Just don't buy a "semi pro" camera model and shove a $100 kit lens on it. That would be a sin..

There is very little difference in image quality from entry level cameras compared to higher end models. (excluding full frame).

Good lenses will last a lot longer than a good body will..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #8

The lens is probably the most important component in the system. A good lens on a budget body can produce excellent results, but a pro body can't compensate for a poor lens. It was just the same in the film days. Having said that, you don't necessarily have to buy the most expensive lenses available to get results that are very satisfying..

I tend to agree with the usual advice to spend on lenses, not bodies, but with some reservations and caveats. I would never buy a body I felt uncomfortable with, just because it's "cheaper", because it's going to remind me of this every time I use it. I put off buying a DSLR for years because I couldn't get on with the small entry level bodies and couldn't afford anything else. I finally got a 30D at a good price, and I'm glad I waited. It just feels right in my hands. A lot of posters also suggest that the bodies don't really matter because you'll upgrade every couple of years anyway.

I don't and my 30D will have to do for the foreseeable future, which is another reason why I'm glad I bought a camera I'm comfortable with...

Comment #9

But a good photographer is more important than both..

Profborg wrote:.

They say that anyone can produce good pictures as longas there is a good lens in front of the camera. Is that true?.

Anyone who says that doesn't know what a good photo is..

Good gear in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to use it is like putting a $4000 Les Paul in the hands of someone learning to play guitar..

Conversely Jimmy Page could do some amazing things with a $150 Wal-Mart Guitar, but he's even better on a $4000 Les Paul..

Comment #10

I agree with other participants here..

I personally did 2 wrong purchases at the beginning of photo-hobby..

Soon I found kit lens too soft in image detail, and chiepy telephoto purple fringing in contrasty areas..

After starting using http://old.photodo.com and buying older model lenses that have MTF close or over 4.0 - no mistakes..

I'm still chiepy... I try to find most inexpensive with good MTF score..

Why not default kit lens instead?.

I shot for my own pleasure and like the knowledge that images look same good in detail at high resulution, as they look at 4X5..

Http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..

Comment #11

Hi,.

A lot of the quality is there but not seen in the better lenses. Simply because people don't always shot at f/2 and so never notice. Try f/2 with a poor lens and you'll see what the difference is. The other difference comes at the edges (soft) and corners (darker). But a lot of people shoot at high ISO settings and the lens is closed down to f/56 to f/8 and so never notice..

Just look at those disposable 3 film cameras: My money's on the lens being about f/12 and the ISO about 400: result, no one notices..

And ask people about their favourite camera and most will mention one lens they had on it first..

Regards, David..

Comment #12

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but the photo of the fox looks like the focus is behind the animal slightly, on the foliage. Or the animal moved during capture (in which case, of course, an expensive, faster lens would have helped a bit) I personally wouldn't put the softness of the fox down to glass quality issues. Or were you on about the image as a whole?.

Only my observation/opinion.Cheers..

Comment #13

Elvis2000 wrote:.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but the photo of the fox looks likethe focus is behind the animal slightly, on the foliage. Or theanimal moved during capture (in which case, of course, an expensive,faster lens would have helped a bit) I personally wouldn't put thesoftness of the fox down to glass quality issues. Or were you onabout the image as a whole?.

Only my observation/opinion.Cheers.

My thoughts too. Look at the dark green leaves which are sharp... I think this is very good considering it's not focused on the fox (kit? a small fox, right?) and/or the shutter speed may not have been fast enough to deal with slight movement of the animal...

Comment #14

In the old days, a film camera was just a box to hold the film. The lens was all important. The camera just gave you features to help you take images. The glass was where you wanted to spend money if you were on a budget..

Today, it's a bit different. A good body with a top notch sensor helps to create great images. A quality glass viewfinder helps you see those great images..

Finally great glass helps to put that image on the sensor..

I've owned numerous digital and film cameras over the years and some are better than others. For example, the Nikon D300 helps me be a better photographers. I have less blown highlights than with my D80. I also have some great glass like my 85 1.4 and it's a combination of a good camera and great glass that contributes as well as the confidence you get from good equipment..

That said, primes are no longer always better than zooms. Take the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 zoom as an example. It's probably a better lens than any prime in it's range. There are others. Olympus' super wide zoom is probably better than any prime lens in it's catagory as well..

Canon has recently created so damn good zooms as well..

Don't get me wrong. Inexpensive glass and consumer cameras can take great images in the hands of a good photographer, but top equipment can make it easier..

Cheers, Craig..

Comment #15

Put an empty milk bottle bottom on a D3 and you are good to go .

No, seriously? I think that, given limited means, you would choose wisely to spend 50% on the body and 50% on the lens. That keeps the balance..

Putting a 2000$ lens on a 6Mp starter body 400$ like my K100D-Super would be an overkill as my camera cannot extract all of that latent quality. Opposite, if I were rich and owned a K20D (or any other decent 12+ MP DSLR out there, I would degrade the results by putting a 69$ no-name lens on it..

That 50% should be spent on your main (and maybe only for the time being) lens, so try and find something else than the awful 18-55mm standard zooms and go for a Sigma instead if your brand does not offer a better quality replacement..

I know it limits your options, but most people who opt for the most expensive camera+standardzoom they can afford, end up strapped for cash afterwards. Great camerabody, but the images will look as if they came out of something less accomplished..

Remember, whichever brand you choose (and I do really believe that they are all decent, none excluded), you are buying into a system and can always switch to another body..

Lots of wisdom with your choices!.

Http://www.pbase.com/newmikeyPCLinuxOS Digital Photography Editionhttp://www.dfpe.pclinuxos.nl/..

Comment #16

My thoughts too, the foliage behind the fox looks more in focus. I have learned that pics I think are soft often are OOF. This is often due to the fact that I am not using a tripod (still waiting for my Markins M10 ballhead) in combination with a too slow shutter speed at a long focal length..

But I agree, there are big differences between lenses. I am looking for faster glass now, unfortunately, there are few cheap alternatives. The Tamron 90 Di Macro is a lot of bang for the buck, though, e.g...

Comment #17

Profborg wrote:.

They say that anyone can produce good pictures as longas there is a good lens in front of the camera. Is that true? So thelens has less distortion, less chromatic aberration. Big deal!.

Some of the most evocative images I have seen have been produced using a pinhole, some of the most "ordinary" using an "L" lens: Go figure.:-)..

Comment #18

Guidenet wrote:.

That said, primes are no longer always better than zooms. Take theNikon 14-24 f2.8 zoom as an example. It's probably a better lens thanany prime in it's range. There are others. Olympus' super wide zoomis probably better than any prime lens in it's catagory as well..

Canon has recently created so damn good zooms as well..

I think you may be comparing old primes vs new zooms..

Possibly because Nikon, Olympus, and Canon currently put more effort into making zoom lenses. It doesn't follow that a prime couldn't be better if the same modern design effort was expended...

Comment #19

In two parts..

If you're buying a P&S or a bridge camera look for the complete package. You can't change lenses nor body/sensors. Some have good sensors and mediocre lenses, others have good lenses and mediocre sensors. Judge the output results you need..

If you're buying a SLR or a camera where you can change lenses and bodies go with the lowest end body with the specs you need and buy the best lenses you can afford. The theory is you'll keep the good lenses and upgrade bodies over time. It's less expensive over the long run if you purchase this way..

Your results will vary depending on your output. 4x6 prints or web output won't tax a lens much. 16x24 or larger fine art prints will tax both lens and body/sensor. IMHO..

Do not rule out photographic technique. Good light. Good Composition. Stable shooting position and breathing for handheld shots, using a monopod if possible. A stable tripod with mirror lockup and remote release is even better. Good technique will get the most out of your equipment, and it's not possible to buy equipment as an alternative...

Comment #20

Especially for Pro.but for start - better begin investment from more expensive body..

This can result(for same price) better pictures, than, spending for AUX lenses .

But if you cannot spend too much - stick to Kit glass, because alternative - simple not affordable by anyone, except pro, again ;P..

Comment #21

Mrxdimension wrote:.

Guidenet wrote:.

That said, primes are no longer always better than zooms. Take theNikon 14-24 f2.8 zoom as an example. It's probably a better lens thanany prime in it's range. There are others. Olympus' super wide zoomis probably better than any prime lens in it's catagory as well..

Canon has recently created so damn good zooms as well..

I think you may be comparing old primes vs new zooms..

Possibly because Nikon, Olympus, and Canon currently put more effortinto making zoom lenses. It doesn't follow that a prime couldn't bebetter if the same modern design effort was expended..

You might be right, but they're not expending the same effort. I'm not sure the 14-24 could be improved on, though. With modern techniques, who knows?Cheers, Craig..

Comment #22

Again, thanks all for your very informative responses, and I think that they can be summised in that better lenses provide sharper, brighter pictures with more detail and colour tone collected..

About primes and zooms though, how much development can you really put in to a prime that hasn't been covered already? With zooms there are motors, floating elements moving barrels and much more to take into consideration. With primes there is left only improving the glass/plastic.Daniel..

Comment #23

Newmikey wrote:.

Putting a 2000$ lens on a 6Mp starter body 400$ like my K100D-Superwould be an overkill as my camera cannot extract all of that latentquality. Opposite, if I were rich and owned a K20D (or any otherdecent 12+ MP DSLR out there, I would degrade the results by puttinga 69$ no-name lens on it..

I'm going to disagree with you here, and from experience. My first DSLR was the *ist DL, which shared the same 6MP sensor that the K100D Super uses. I shot a lot of images with the kit lens, with the DA 14mm, and with the FA 31mm Limited on that camera there was a distinct and noticeable difference between using the kit lens on that body and the FA 31mm.. more noticeable than the jump in quality from the *ist DL to the K10D..

At the end of the day, I'll take lower resolution and a good prime over higher resolution and a kit zoom any day of the week..

Jim.

Http://www.downeffect.com/jim/portfolio..

Comment #24

Jpfisher wrote:.

Newmikey wrote:.

Putting a 2000$ lens on a 6Mp starter body 400$ like my K100D-Superwould be an overkill as my camera cannot extract all of that latentquality. Opposite, if I were rich and owned a K20D (or any otherdecent 12+ MP DSLR out there, I would degrade the results by puttinga 69$ no-name lens on it..

I'm going to disagree with you here, and from experience. My firstDSLR was the *ist DL, which shared the same 6MP sensor that the K100DSuper uses. I shot a lot of images with the kit lens, with the DA14mm, and with the FA 31mm Limited on that camera there was adistinct and noticeable difference between using the kit lens on thatbody and the FA 31mm.. more noticeable than the jump in quality fromthe *ist DL to the K10D..

At the end of the day, I'll take lower resolution and a good primeover higher resolution and a kit zoom any day of the week..

I may not have made myself clear. What is the price of the 31mm? 800$ and something. That would be within range and I should have said "at least 50% on the lens, preferably more". I wanted to make it clear that marrying an 800$ body with a 75$ standard zoom is not a good idea..

So yes, buy the best lens you can afford while still leaving enough money to buy a body to make up the budget..

I invested in the DA16-45mm which was about 450$ while my camera body cost me 300$ after I sold the 18-55 through fleebay..

Http://www.pbase.com/newmikeyPCLinuxOS Digital Photography Editionhttp://www.dfpe.pclinuxos.nl/..

Comment #25

Profborg wrote:.

Again, thanks all for your very informative responses, and I thinkthat they can be summised in that better lenses provide sharper,brighter pictures with more detail and colour tone collected..

About primes and zooms though, how much development can you reallyput in to a prime that hasn't been covered already? With zooms thereare motors, floating elements moving barrels and much more to takeinto consideration. With primes there is left only improving theglass/plastic.Daniel.

I think you came close to answering your own question. Primes are simpler than zooms, both in terms of lens design, number of elements involved, and mechanics. A first pass approximation leads me to think the simpler design should be superior if proper attention is payed to the critical details..

PS: For good primes you want glass elements and metal bodies. I submit Leitz M primes from many years ago are excellent by todays standards. Leitz isn't the only one, the do have the most consistant excellent performance. Zeiss, Voigtlander, Pentax, etc also make top notch primes, not all of which are in the same league as Leitz...

Comment #26

Mrxdimension wrote:.

Profborg wrote:.

Again, thanks all for your very informative responses, and I thinkthat they can be summised in that better lenses provide sharper,brighter pictures with more detail and colour tone collected..

About primes and zooms though, how much development can you reallyput in to a prime that hasn't been covered already? With zooms thereare motors, floating elements moving barrels and much more to takeinto consideration. With primes there is left only improving theglass/plastic.Daniel.

I think you came close to answering your own question. Primes aresimpler than zooms, both in terms of lens design, number of elementsinvolved, and mechanics. A first pass approximation leads me tothink the simpler design should be superior if proper attention ispayed to the critical details..

PS: For good primes you want glass elements and metal bodies. Isubmit Leitz M primes from many years ago are excellent by todaysstandards. Leitz isn't the only one, the do have the most consistantexcellent performance. Zeiss, Voigtlander, Pentax, etc also make topnotch primes, not all of which are in the same league as Leitz..

Sometimes it comes down to preference. For example, I think that Nikon's 85 f1.4 is best in class. I think it's better than the Zeiss equivalent, but others might not agree. All the big boys have made great lenses over the years, but I believe that some of the great zooms coming out rival or beat some of the great primes, especailly in the wider ranges..

All of them can create great lenses. For example, Nikon and Canon make the lenses that engrave the curcuits in computer chips. They own 97% of that market. These are $100k lenses. Most of the Cine lenses in the motion picture business are the same thing. If Nikon and Canon can do that, it's trivial to create top notch lenses for our cameras.

Olympus makes extremely expensive microscope and imaging glass.Cheers, Craig..

Comment #27

Guidenet wrote:.

All of them can create great lenses. For example, Nikon and Canonmake the lenses that engrave the curcuits in computer chips. They own97% of that market. These are $100k lenses. Most of the Cine lensesin the motion picture business are the same thing. If Nikon and Canoncan do that, it's trivial to create top notch lenses for our cameras.They just have to decide if it's finacially worth it.



Are the lenses in optical steppers used to make semiconductors zoom or fixed focal length? Do they use the same frequencies of light that ordinary photographers use?.

This is specialized equipment..

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography..

Comment #28

Profborg wrote:Big deal!.

Wrong, huge deal..

I suppose there are two premises that you could work from here on the relationship between body and lens- a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link or garbage in, garbage out. At this point in SLR body development, the second is much more true than the first..

It is true that there are differences among bodies. Pro grade gear is going to do a little better on image quality than a D40 or rebel 300D or something. The thing is, these differences are not huge in many circumstances these days. As far as I am concerned, any body from the last 4 years or so is going to render pretty good images. Heck, in most circumstances, very good images. There are three main ways they are going to differ on image quality- high ISO noise, dynamic range, and resolution.

Really, once we passed about 4 MP, we got to the point where adding resolution is just icing on the cake, unless you are making huge prints. Up to about 8x10, adding resolution shows no noticeable improvement in print. For 4x6s, the extra data is thrown out (most comercial printing is at 300ppi, which requires about 2mp). Everything exceeds this. There are differences in high iso perfrormance, and this is important, but only in some circumstances.

I'm not saying some bodies don't produce better IQ, but in practical terms, the differences are night and twightlight, not night and day. And the cost of improving IQ is huge..

Lenses, in constrast, are all over the map, the differences are bigger. This brings me to the GIGO argument. Your lens is the first step in the image path, and what you lose there can't be recovered. If your lens has lots of CA, a better body is just going to hightlight this. If the lens isn't sharp, more MP isn't going to get it back. Lenses differ in a number of ways.

The differences between a cheap kit lens and pro glass are huge, and will show on any body..

A couple examples..

1. Recently a coworker was complaining about her images compared to a friend wit h the same body (d300). The difference- person one was shooting with an 18-200 , which is OK, person 2 was shooting with an 85 1.4, which is magic..

2. I use a variety of lenses on a D70. Old body, not specatular by current standards. I can see huge differences lens to lens. A recent example- I rented a 17-55 2.8, but normally shoot in that range with a 18-70. The 18-70 isn't bad, but the 17-55 blows it out of the water.

They are much sharper, the color is better. With the 18-70, I correct saturation, contrast, color balance, add some USM, and they generally look not bad. With the 17-55, I added a little USM to most shots (I don't use in camera sharpening) and that was it. Done. And great looking..

A final point, aperture is so much more important than your original statement. it provides creative control, and by letting in more light, greatly impacts the circumstances you can get sharp pics in..

For me, lenses are super important. At some point, I will upgrade bodies, but I am replacing 3 of my lenses with top notch stuff before that happens...

Comment #29

Jrkliny wrote:.

You can get better overall imagequality with a good P&S camera when compared to a DSLR with cheapglass..

I disagree. Virtually all P&S cameras produce inferior results to any DSLR with even the most modest lens..

Certainly, good glass is necessary to really take full advantage of DSLR technology. But even crappy glass is better than most P&S, IMO.....

Comment #30

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

But a good photographer is more important than both..

My take is.

Good light is more imporant than a good lens which is more important than a good body, but it takes a good photographer to frame a good shot and figure out how to get the most out of the other 3..

Good gear in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to use it islike putting a $4000 Les Paul in the hands of someone learning toplay guitar..

Interestingly, Page,did a fair amount with a Danelectro, which is kind of a POS by most objective standards, but he knew how to deploy it correctly.

Conversely Jimmy Page could do some amazing things with a $150Wal-Mart Guitar, but he's even better on a $4000 Les Paul.

A small but growing collection of my photos can be seen athttp://www.pbase.com/poliscijustin..

Comment #31

Digirob wrote:.

Jrkliny wrote:.

You can get better overall imagequality with a good P&S camera when compared to a DSLR with cheapglass..

I disagree. Virtually all P&S cameras produce inferior results toany DSLR with even the most modest lens..

Certainly, good glass is necessary to really take full advantage ofDSLR technology. But even crappy glass is better than most P&S,IMO....

Maybe if you are simplifying it to just those P&S cameras that have microscopic sensors and tiny glass. My old sony bridge camera with the large zeiss lense had excellent sharpness and impressive low-light abilities. Definately on par (actually a bit better) than the kit lense that came with my SLR. My Nikkors though can blow it away..

The lense is possibly the most important link in the chain. No light, no shot. The more light the more you can do on the back end. Not to mention things like CA, barreling, ect..

A great sensor is worthless if you are throwing a dark, distorted image on it...

Comment #32

It is a personal thing in terms of what is acceptable to you but also quantifiable in terms of image quality, if that really matters to you..

(also, as others have said, what you can afford).

Last year I owend a Nikkor 18-200 and have won competitions with images shot with that lens. I now own Nikkor 17-35 2.8, 50 1.4, and 70-200 2.8. The IQ is much much better now. So much so that I am having to try to re-shoot several locations. Not saying the 18-200 is bad, just the other lenses are better..

It matterd to me and the quality improvement is very visible so I am glad I changed..

Brian..

Comment #33

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.