Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:55 pm
by SOAPboy
Doombrain wrote:Since I have your attention soap. This new mobo I’m getting is SATA and I only have two ATA133 HDs. Will it come with some sort of adapter, or will I have to buy a new HD? And what about my DVD burner and other CD drives? Fucking PCs, load of shite.
itll have IDE on the board.. so dont worry
Cheers :icon25:
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:06 pm
by Don Carlos
Doombrain wrote:I'm paying no more than £22. Is it as cheap as that.
Like I said, I use Macs more now.
lol fair enough
Thats very fuckin cheap...
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:56 pm
by Guest
Doombrain wrote:PS Toxic,
I'm thinking about selling my Canon 75-300 USM and getting this
AF 28-300mm XR Di LD Aspherical Macro IF f3.5-6.3
From what i've seen it's 'almost' as good as some of Canons L range
As good as the Canon L lenses LOL!
I wouldn't go with that, I prefer primes, unless its telephoto. IMO keep your 75-300mm, it's ok if that's all you can afford, othewise sell it and get a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 or a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 (depending if u want 200mm or 300mm but losing light) OR get a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 THAT IS A FUCKING SICK LENS! But it's a bit more expensive.
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:12 pm
by Doombrain
I didn’t say better; I said almost as good as some on the lens. I’ve used almost every lens Canon has to offer so I think I know what I’m talking about.
Na. My 75-300 sucks. I'm getting prime 50mm 1.4 USM and was going to get an 'L' but when I tried them at a trade show I just couldn't justify it, yet. I knew you were going to say Sigma though, nice lenses but I believe the Tarmon 28-300 is slightly better.
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:43 am
by Guest
A 28-300mm Tamron is better than a Sigma 100-300 f/4? LOL
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:56 am
by Doombrain
No, ffs, I didn't say that. Can't you read?
The Tamron AF 28-300mm XR Di LD Aspherical Macro IF f3.5-6.3 is better than the Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro. Please stop being a dick.
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:31 am
by Guest
But they both suck!
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:50 am
by o'dium
Doomy, at the risk of sounding like a twat...
Your a dipshit for buying a "new card" thats only got 128meg... And ATI, for that matter, on an slow cpu...
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:58 am
by Doombrain
but i've only got a xp2400 and the card only cost £22 AND i'm used to a MX
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:00 pm
by Doombrain
ToxicBug wrote:But they both suck!
Not true.
When you get to play around with stuff like I do, then you can talk down to me.
Hands up whos used a Canon 5D *puts hand up*
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:39 pm
by o'dium
Doombrain wrote:but i've only got a xp2400 and the card only cost £22 AND i'm used to a MX
In that case, FUCK you will see some changes.
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:29 pm
by prince1000
Doombrain wrote:ToxicBug wrote:But they both suck!
Not true.
When you get to play around with stuff like I do, then you can talk down to me.
Hands up whos used a Canon 5D *puts hand up*
*aye*
newb
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:56 pm
by Doombrain
prince1000 wrote:Doombrain wrote:ToxicBug wrote:But they both suck!
Not true.
When you get to play around with stuff like I do, then you can talk down to me.
Hands up whos used a Canon 5D *puts hand up*
*aye*
newb
*aye*
once and asshole, always an asshole