Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2015, 02:51 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WV
Posts: 1,495
QuoteOriginally posted by frogfoot Quote
18-135 is very good in the range of 21-50 mm both center and corner. At 31 mm it's as good as 31/1.8 Lim ).
On my wall is a 16 x 20 metal print of Neuschwanstein Castle taken with the 18-135 at 31mm.

I do not disagree with your statement.

10-14-2015, 04:19 PM   #32
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,220
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pericombobulation Quote
The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM really is a great lens. Apart from some vignetting at the low end, it is a stellar performer, optically. True, it's not weather sealed, and admittedly, it's heavy. But it's pretty awesome. Have you considered adding just one more lens to your walkabout bag? I've found the DA L 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR to be a good performer, especially for the price. It would be a good and affordable way to cover the long end of your focal range. It's a very likable lens, and doesn't take up much space or weight.
I do have the HD DA 55-300 WR which covers more at apparently a better IQ, so I am covered for the telephoto end

QuoteOriginally posted by frogfoot Quote
I've got 18-135, 16-85 and signa 17-50.
16-85 is the best in terms of IQ. I highly recommend it. But there is a probability of buying decentered one.
I will test whatever lens I get for decentering. If it has decentering, I will send it back and ask for another one. If I buy used I will specifically ask the seller about decentering, if s/he says there is none but I find some, I'll just send it back. For me decentering is a nuisance because I will have to test for it and maybe go through a couple of copies, but there really isn't any risk of getting a decentered lens and being stuck with it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Blackwater Quote
The 16-85 can be found for just under 400, and from what I've used of it so far on the hills, it's going to be my first choice for that sort of trip in the future.
Yeah, I'm getting a feeling that I will ultimately end up with that one

QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
For bang-for-buck, **low $-depreciation factor** high IQ at the true telephoto FLs -- at a dead minimum of carry weight -- there is no better value to be had currently [to my knowledge] than a refurb Sony A5000 20.3mp body (< $150) + Commlite Canon EF to Sony E smart adapter ($69) + Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, current version (~$170 new at eBay) ...IF (!) you are willing to accept sluggish or non-existent auto-focus with the A5000's non-hybrid, contrast detection only sensor (as used in the K-S1 & K-S2)... AND you appreciate the advantages of carrying a second, 9+ ounce (!) body, which can, of course, take Pentax lenses happily.
I am not going to change systems. I am young and (reasonably) strong, and the weight of my camera is of little concern to me. I want something rugged with an optical viewfinder, great ergonomics and high image quality - that's why I shoot Pentax. It will be a cold day in hell before I buy a DSLM
10-14-2015, 05:14 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Where can you buy this camera for this price? I can't find it for anything like that low. That would make for a nice body for me to take to Europe in the spring. Is there a wide to normal combo that's that good and cheap?
Hi, UncleVanya... Thanks for taking an interest in my out-of-left field post. I bought my A5000, as new, with a total shutter count of 51 on eBay for comfortably under $150 at auction. With a full 3rd party warranty of 60 days and return privileges. A6000 bodies were going used... some well used... for circa $425. And yes, I really believe (provisionally, and not from first hand experience) that the Sony 20.3mp sensor is something of a sleeper, even in this feature-humble Sony, which uses the same Bionz-X processor as does the A6000... and that it will equal or beat (in subjective terms, my guess) the A6000 for IQ near base ISO, which is what I wanted it for, complementing my full frame A7 and K3. I embrace the monopod, I might add, especially for the EVF-less A5000 and its ilk. The beauty of Canon lenses with the Sonys is that their IS and STM features work! I bought the very good 40mm f2.8 STM new for $104, also on eBay, for my A7 to complement my C-V MF 40mm Ultron. I like having a choice of renderings -- a way to compete with the guys sporting Zeiss Batises and such. Not that those guys necessarily know how to take a great picture without a lot of luck or some frame blitzing exercises being involved.

And, yes, there is a total no-brainer choice for at least the ultra-wide to wide-versatile range on APS-C -- again, it's Canon's own 10-18mm IS STM, weighing a scant 8 ounces! But here, I'd say you'd have a serious auto-focusing problem with the A5000. I myself take the long view and see Sony's A7R II BSI hybrid sensor as pointing the way downmarket Sony sensors are headed pretty soon. I will probably buy that 10-18mm Canon sooner rather than later as well, and just put up with loss of auto-focus, in order to get better, more consistent IQ and FAR less weight than I could from using the 10-20mm Sigma, popular here, on my K3. I already have the DA 15 Limited on hand, and vintage 17, 20, 21, 24, and 25mm primes for the A7. I'm not so sure about vintage primes on the A7 below 24mm vs. the truly modern, high performance WA zoom, even used on APS-C. Hence my interest in an 8 ounce solution to complement my present options for going really wide.

For a more practical travel solution, choices for Sony in E-mount are still quite limited. There's Sony's own 10-18(?)mm wide zoom for APS-C. It's decent, they say, but I am frankly underwhelmed by the price performance ratio of pretty much all of Sony's "better" zoom lenses for e-mount. That one is more "worth it", but does seem to fetch well over $400 used on eBay (a bit much as yet, in my view). And it doesn't quite get you a "normal" FL, or a fast f-stop. It will, however, do O.K. on FF, too, at 16mm and above, a very nice plus. The small kit zooms for Sony APS-C are not so hot, relatively speaking, but the more wide ranging alternatives are better regarded. I think you have something like 18-105mm and 18-250mm options (don't quote me). The former seems to be a smart choice -- it is VERY well liked by video-centric shooters, especially. See YouTube on that one. My own choice for you, if not the former zoom, would be the compact Sigma 19mm and 30mm prime lens combo for E-mount. They're all you really need for travel. Unfortunately, they are sought after, so draw high-ish prices used in auctions, compared to just buying new. I just have the A5000 for telephoto reach, some macro, and to have a grab-&-shoot 2nd body with a complementary FL lens attached when I have a prime or ultra wide zoom mounted on the K3 or A7. It's so small, it can clip on to you anywhere it's most handy. All hypothetical, of course, since I'm still disabled... for now.

The easiest way for Pentaxians to get up to speed on Sony E and A-mount Sony/Minolta lens options is probably Kurt Munger's website. It's a bit dated, but still handy and comprehensive, with helpful image comparisons backing up his judgments. I think Kurt's eye is very reliable here; though I don't believe he emphasizes much of a high end sensibility, so just don't over-rate what lenses you look at there as a result of Kurt going a little easy on them. BTW, I think the sleeper telephoto zoom for A-mount, adaptable for E-mirrorless, is the older Minolta 100-200mm f4.5 zoom -- it's incredibly tiny and weighs just 13.3 ounces in all metal, old school form! It's a little jewel. I got my one happy owner, minty example on eBay for $21 at auction. Yep, no one wants 'em these days. People can be very stupid. That fellow, age 70+, decided to go in his retirement to just the new 24-225mm full frame super zoom for his A7 II. He said the old Minolta was still a bit better within its range -- again, on the FF A7 II! The further beauty of this lens is that it is optimum across 2/3 of the frame at f5.6. The far corners sharpen up at just f8 (with the center now being slightly DIFFRACTION LIMITED!) The fabled and huge "beer can" 70-210mm zoom is effectively about 1 stop SLOWER attempting to match the IQ of the $21 special, if Kurt's images are representative. So basically, you can pre-set this baby at f5.6 or f6.3 using any old Minolta film body... and then forego the price-y Sony smart adapter... and just use the circa $15, no-electrics Minolta to E-mount adapters from Amazon or eBay! So, 150mm to 300mm FF-equivalent, none of that f8-f11+ for "acceptable" IQ stuff... fits in your pocket... does full frame perfectly... and $36 all in. Nice! Good luck making your choices. I think the super cheap refurb A5000 makes a great complement to a Pentax rig. I'm guessing that mine was never disfunctional or returned -- just the remainder from some vendor or distributor splitting a Sony kit package for more profit. It does swell video, too, as you can see on YouTube. One A6000 semi-pro owner with a channel there uses the A5000 preferentially to shoot his videos for YT. FWIW. And one more thing -- I have seen the DSLR-styled A3000 with the same sensor and somewhat low rez EVF go in minty shape for as low as $109. I don't recall if it uses the Bionz-X processor like the A5000/A6000, but it is better than its successor model, the A3100 [?].

---------- Post added 10-14-15 at 09:12 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
I do have the HD DA 55-300 WR which covers more at apparently a better IQ, so I am covered for the telephoto end



I will test whatever lens I get for decentering. If it has decentering, I will send it back and ask for another one. If I buy used I will specifically ask the seller about decentering, if s/he says there is none but I find some, I'll just send it back. For me decentering is a nuisance because I will have to test for it and maybe go through a couple of copies, but there really isn't any risk of getting a decentered lens and being stuck with it.



Yeah, I'm getting a feeling that I will ultimately end up with that one



I am not going to change systems. I am young and (reasonably) strong, and the weight of my camera is of little concern to me. I want something rugged with an optical viewfinder, great ergonomics and high image quality - that's why I shoot Pentax. It will be a cold day in hell before I buy a DSLM
Excuse me, but I was NOT advocating the purchase of Canon DSLRs over Pentax. Or going mirrorless only with Sony or anyone else. So get off your high horse. I have no intention whatsoever of switching out of Pentax in any foreseeable future and never even hinted such a thing. I never even paid attention to Canon before I got my A7, for reasons well understood here. The A7/A5000 acquisition changes things quite a lot, given the new lens options. But you apparently missed my point completely. ALL the qualifiers were in there -- you just ignored them; then acted insulted: fine if that's not for you, he-man. But you really need to read more carefully. And don't flatter yourself to think I proposed all that just for your benefit.

And all that is too shabby for someone stepping up from the 18-55mm kit lens? ...Really? Pray tell, where did you get all your experience and knowledge all of a sudden?

Where do you think you're going to find a 375mm FF-equivalent (and let's say cropped to 400mm, even)... to shoot at *f5.6* at that FL... which MOST Pentaxians here wouldn't mind too much carrying... and would consider highly affordable... that won't produce sub-enthusiast level results under those conditions? The DA 60-250mm would be the obvious candidate, but besides the often discussed IQ compromises near the 250mm end which you have to consider vis-a-vis price and bulk, how many others here would wish to climb with that one ALONG WITH A SET OF MEDIUM TELE MF PRIMES UP TO 200mm, as in my case? I see the Canon as a complement to my primes, not a replacement. There is nothing like a comparable Pentax or third party equivalent. If you don't see the value of a lightweight second body, fully usable with all suitably proportioned Pentax lenses... again, fine. But as a former pro who needed that second body at the ready, I can assure you that I know what I'm talking about. I have no intention at my age of carrying two 29 ounce DSLRs. Or 50+ ounce long primes or Sigma 120mm's-to-whatevers... And with the A7 and its EVF, I can now PROPERLY focus the fine Zeiss primes and purpose-selected vintage glass I own under a wide variety of circumstances. And get the FF advantage and so many more options on the wide end. Your snobbery just shows your ignorance.

You'll let us know all about the overall superior options to the above which you'll being enjoying soon, won't you now?

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 10-14-2015 at 07:08 PM.
10-14-2015, 07:07 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Where can you buy this camera for this price? I can't find it for anything like that low. That would make for a nice body for me to take to Europe in the spring. Is there a wide to normal combo that's that good and cheap?
I just saw your gear list, UncleVanya. You'd love the 'Nikon Museum' here at my place: FT2, FT3, EL2 Nikkormats... F Photomic, F2AS + eye level and 6x mag. finders, [exiting, 2 F2's, F3HP and F4S]... FE, FE2, FG-20, [exiting, 'new' FM2n]... N75 and N80... and those are just the keepers (unless prices start to escalate again!) Oh, well. I do figure to get out with my Fujifilm 6x9 as a mainstay [Yashica MAT124G exiting, probably]. I've mostly resisted the urge to get any of the vaunted integrated lens film cameras, figuring that I have that ground covered with a C-V 40mm Ultron SL II on the rather nice & very smooth FG-20 (13 oz. & full featured)... a Canon 40mm/2.8 STM on a Rebel G (even lighter, + AF)... or such as an S-M-C Takumar 35 or 40mm Limited on a ZX-M or ZX-5 (you can tell I really learned my chops on a Rollei B35, eh?). How much do you still shoot film?

10-14-2015, 07:45 PM - 1 Like   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
My experience with the DA 17-70 vs DA 18-135 would lead me to pick the DA 18-135 unless I needed the constant f4 and the extra 1mm width but it is a nice lens. I prefer a soft 135 over no 135.
In addition to the DA 17-70 and Sigma 17-70 C, I also have the DA 18-135. You get the Pentax color with the DA 18-135 but the contrast is not at the same level as the DA 17-70. Lastly, the 1 mm focal length difference at the wide end is really more than 1 mm because the DA 17-70 has less barrel distortion. BTW, I like my DA 18-135 and it is the most compact of the three.
10-14-2015, 07:53 PM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,229
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
I just saw your gear list, UncleVanya. You'd love the 'Nikon Museum' here at my place: FT2, FT3, EL2 Nikkormats... F Photomic, F2AS + eye level and 6x mag. finders, [exiting, 2 F2's, F3HP and F4S]... FE, FE2, FG-20, [exiting, 'new' FM2n]... N75 and N80... and those are just the keepers (unless prices start to escalate again!) Oh, well. I do figure to get out with my Fujifilm 6x9 as a mainstay [Yashica MAT124G exiting, probably]. I've mostly resisted the urge to get any of the vaunted integrated lens film cameras, figuring that I have that ground covered with a C-V 40mm Ultron SL II on the rather nice & very smooth FG-20 (13 oz. & full featured)... a Canon 40mm/2.8 STM on a Rebel G (even lighter, + AF)... or such as an S-M-C Takumar 35 or 40mm Limited on a ZX-M or ZX-5 (you can tell I really learned my chops on a Rollei B35, eh?). How much do you still shoot film?
Sadly I haven't shoot film since I bought my k100d Super!

---------- Post added 10-14-15 at 11:00 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
In addition to the DA 17-70 and Sigma 17-70 C, I also have the DA 18-135. You get the Pentax color with the DA 18-135 but the contrast is not at the same level as the DA 17-70. Lastly, the 1 mm focal length difference at the wide end is really more than 1 mm because the DA 17-70 has less barrel distortion. BTW, I like my DA 18-135 and it is the most compact of the three.
I can agree with that. My DA 70 Is slightly nicer than my dad's 17-70, and my DA 15 Is a bit sides and nicer in many ways on the wide end but even shooting into a moonlit scene with the moon in frame the 17-70 really holds up nicely at the wide end.

The reason I would prefer the 18-135 is strictly for versatility. However now that I have a k3 cropping might make the 17-70 more viable as the all around lens. But 135 gives such nice pseudo macro and it lets me shoot far more distant objects.

Sigh. Wanted 1-1000mm f/2 weighing 100g waterproof and perfect optics. Must cost $50 or less.
10-15-2015, 12:43 AM - 2 Likes   #37
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,220
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
Excuse me, but I was NOT advocating the purchase of Canon DSLRs over Pentax. Or going mirrorless only with Sony or anyone else. So get off your high horse. [...] But you apparently missed my point completely. ALL the qualifiers were in there -- you just ignored them; then acted insulted: fine if that's not for you, he-man. But you really need to read more carefully. And don't flatter yourself to think I proposed all that just for your benefit.
I read the entire post, and there was not a single qualifier in there (if by qualifier you mean the requirements I have outlined). I asked for one lens with a versatile range, from wide-angle to moderate telephoto (not a super-zoom though). You suggested a Tamron and a tele-zoom. I would prefer (but not necessarily need) weather sealing, your suggestion doesn't have it. I'd like a faster and silent AF drive and you suggest a combination that has, as you put it yourself, "sluggish or non-existent auto-focus".

QuoteQuote:
And all that is too shabby for someone stepping up from the 18-55mm kit lens? ...Really? Pray tell, where did you get all your experience and knowledge all of a sudden?
I'm stepping up from the kit for certain aspects only, I already own two primes and a tele-zoom, and I wasn't aware experience was linked to gear. There are people who produce outstanding images with kit lenses and those who produce rubbish with Canon L stuff, or Pentax Limited, or Leica lenses ... If you think just because I used my kit lens for certain stuff until now I am inexperienced and in no position to reject suggestions that have nothing to do with my requirements, then you're mistaken.

QuoteQuote:
Where do you think you're going to find a 375mm FF-equivalent (and let's say cropped to 400mm, even)... to shoot at *f5.6* at that FL... which MOST Pentaxians here wouldn't mind too much carrying... and would consider highly affordable... that won't produce sub-enthusiast level results under those conditions?
I don't know - and why? I was asking for an all-around standard zoom in the 16-85 mm range, not a 375 mm FF equivalent. I already have a tele-zoom, so how did the talk come to the DA* 60-250?

QuoteQuote:
Your snobbery just shows your ignorance. You'll let us know all about the overall superior options to the above which you'll being enjoying soon, won't you now?
You're the one who replied to a thread asking for suggestions for a standard-zoom with reasonably fast AF for my K3 with the suggestion to get a Sony a5000 + Canon tele-zoom combination with, as you put it yourself, "sluggish or non-existent auto-focus". I simply replied that I don't mind the weight of my camera, so I don't need the lightest setup, and for my use I prefer something with weather sealing anyway. And the "Cold day in hell" comment was meant in good humour, as made obvious by the winking smiley behind it.

Your suggestion ignored every single requirement I outlined in my first post, and because I rejected it for that reason I'm suddenly insulted, snobbish, ignorant, sitting on a high horse, inexperienced ... From the way you're reacting it appears you're the one acting insulted.

Last edited by FantasticMrFox; 10-15-2015 at 02:10 AM.
10-15-2015, 12:45 AM - 1 Like   #38
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow
Posts: 69
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
Same can be said of any lens...in fact photozone went through a few 18-135mm's in his testing and didn't get a good one.
I found a number of complaints about decentered 16-85s on forums. And if we take into account that this lens is comparably rare because it's new and pricey then we must admit that this lens is more prone to decentering than others.. My own experience prove it: my first 16-85 was badly decentered, my second one is nearly perfect.
I think photozone's 18-135's were ok. 18-135 are just very weak on the long end at borders. And I never heard of decentered 18-135. Well, maybe I am just, more "lucky" with 16-85' complaints

10-15-2015, 01:00 AM   #39
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,220
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by frogfoot Quote
I found a number of complaints about decentered 16-85s on forums. And if we take into account that this lens is comparably rare because it's new and pricey then we must admit that this lens is more prone to decentering than others.. My own experience prove it: my first 16-85 was badly decentered, my second one is nearly perfect.
Photozone's test sample had light decentering too. Looks like Ricoh needs to step up the quality control a bit.
10-15-2015, 02:10 AM   #40
Pentaxian
timb64's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Here, there and everywhere.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,158
As mentioned on another thread 14 reviews of 16-85 on B&H make no reference to problems with decentering.
10-15-2015, 02:29 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,856
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
I am young and (reasonably) strong, and the weight of my camera is of little concern to me.
Oh to be young and foolish again.
10-15-2015, 02:45 AM - 1 Like   #42
Pentaxian
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,220
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
Oh to be young and foolish again.
Of foolishness I am certainly not short
10-15-2015, 04:53 AM - 2 Likes   #43
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,597
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
So get off your high horse.
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
Pray tell, where did you get all your experience and knowledge all of a sudden?
Now where does this come from?

QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
Where do you think you're going to find a 375mm FF-equivalent
Who asked for one?

QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
IQ compromises near the 250mm end
From 60 to 250mm, that lens is probably my best.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
You'll let us know all about the overall superior options to the above which you'll being enjoying soon, won't you now?
Totally uncalled-for. The OP asked for opinions and advice, and instead of trying to help it seems to me you argued about why YOU chose YOUR system. You can do that in a post you create, and maybe help others along the way. But now you're coming off as recommending a SUV to someone who asked about the best sedan...
10-15-2015, 05:27 AM - 1 Like   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13,019
I don't think you can really go wrong with whatever you choose, MrFox.


I took snapshots at the weekend with both the Sigma 17-70 (on-camera fill flash):





and the Sigma 17-50:





I have the Tamron 17-50 too and it's also very good, while being a bit smaller and lighter than the Sigma.


The DA 20-40 and 16-85 look to be wonderful lenses in their own ways.

Last edited by clackers; 10-15-2015 at 05:33 AM.
10-15-2015, 07:24 AM - 1 Like   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 563
I love my Sigma 17-50 HSM and pack it with me often on the East Coast Trail here (interestingly the rocks and layers here have counterparts in sourthern Scotland left over from prehistoric Avalonia). The runner appeared quite Scot as well!

Love it, but I gotta' say: It's heavy. I carry my camera in a pack not around my neck as it is just too much on the rougher portions of my hikes. (These pics are open high country, of course).

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
40mm, a7, af, canon, da, f/2.8, film, frame, image, iq, k-mount, lens, lenses, level, mm, options, pentax, pentax lens, primes, quality, range, sigma, slr lens, sony, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need a versatile all around lens! northmole Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 10-07-2013 03:00 PM
Sigma or Tamron all around lens (picture quality) jrcastillo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 10-02-2013 08:09 PM
Best All-around Lens? McDunk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 45 05-22-2011 02:39 PM
Good all-around portrait Lens ~$300? cputeq Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 04-26-2008 12:11 AM
lookin for good all-around lens pentaxk100d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 03-06-2008 09:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top