The cheap Ultra-wide alternative

[DonSchap]

One way to avoid paying significant money for an ultra-wide lens is simply this.

Buy an EF 28mm f/2.8 prime (169.95 @ B&H) – filter ring = 52mm

Get your hands on a 0.45 wide angle screw-on lens ($69). (This is how those Canon Powershot S2/S3 IS guys do this, so you know it has to work. :D They are quite a picky bunch, too :p ) These add-on lenses come with several ring size adapters (49, 52, 55, 58), so there is some flexibility on what you slap them on.

Screw the 28mm f/2.8 and the add-on lens together and you have a 13mm UW lens on a FF or 35mm-film camera. When placed on a Canon APS-C sensor body (XT, XTi, 20D or 30D), you wind up with effectively a 20mm lens. Sounds cool, right?

I know what you’re thinking, the mind is racing… I see those mental catalog pages flippin’ back and forth, but stop. Sure, Canon already makes a EF 20mm f/2.8 USM lens (filter ring = 72mm) ($419 @ B&H)… yeah, they do… but it’s 20mm on a Full Frame camera… when you place it on an APS-C sensor body… the 1.6x DFC steps up and viola, instant 32mm! Not very Ultra, huh?

“Hey Don!” you say, “What about the EF 14mm f/2.8L USM ($1800 @ B&H)?”… What? What was that? Yeah, $1800… and then the second you stick on the 30D… DCF strikes back… Viola, 22mm! A high-end Ultra! Not really much for that kind of scratch. In fact, you have to use gel filters in this lens’ rear slot, not the conventional type of screw-ons.

Sure, you can get a Tamron, Sigma, Canon, or Tokina UWA zoom… for about $450-$600, but the light levels start at f/4.5 and go to f/5.6. These lenses are also designed to ONLY work on APS-C sensors, so you are stuck in that way. No full frame or film with these lenses. Filter ring size… yeah, roughly 77mm! Filters aren’t cheap at that size.

So, with this little and rather cheap ($240) combination (the 28mm f/2.8 and the wide angle screw-on lens)… your worst light level is f/3.5 (with the f/2.8 lens) with a wider field than most anything else out there. If you already have the 28mm lens… then all the better.

Hey, it does work… use it myself… WHEN I NEED SOME LIGHT!

[forno]

Sample pics please

[michaelb]

1. I second the request for sample pics!

2. What about vignetting?

3. Couldn't I use one of these with my crappy 18-55?
(I realize that it wouldn't let in nearly as much light.)

If IQ was decent it would allow me to do more with my 50mm f/1.8 which I usually find too long due to the 1.6 crop factor of my XT.

4. What about IQ? This would be the biggest concern for me.

[Wesan]

...This is how those Canon Powershot S2/S3 IS guys do this, so you know it has to work. :D ...

I must say - those S2/S3 IS guys are smart! ;) But we already knew that. Right, Don? ;) :D

[DonSchap]

Okay okay... my fans clamour... I must respond. :D

This is the rig... in 13mm mode (EF 28mm f/2.8 + 0.45x wide angle)... aboard a EOS-3 35mm-film camera
16496

Effectively a 20mm Sample with pop-up flash, on the EOS 20D, in the darkened studio
16497
EXIF data: Reading 28mm @ f/5 - 1/60-sec - ISO-200 - pop-up flash - handheld

I see no serious vignetting, here. The flash seems to have lit the room uniformly, also. True, there is some barrel distortion... but come on, ultra wide? At 13mm, it is tolerable. 14mm is the normal breakover point, anyway. Oh, is that the EOS-3 & EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM on that Bogen-Manfrotto tripod, over yonder? Why, yes it is. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'll do more when it quits raining for five minutes. Geez Louise. Enough with the water works, already. I had not thought of placing it on the 18-55mm kit lens, making it 8-28mm!!! :eek: After DCF... hmmm, effectively 13-44mm. Great idea... I'll post results as time permits. Have a critique, tomorrow. Ah, the adoring crowds... :rolleyes:

[unix04]

what about the 24-70 L?

perhaps this a cheap and creative way to simulate the 16~35 focal range (at the cost of 2/3 stop, which doesnt seem like such a bad compromise) :D

[adam75south]

what about the 24-70 L?

perhaps this a cheap and creative way to simulate the 16~35 focal range (at the cost of 2/3 stop, which doesnt seem like such a bad compromise) :D

my thoughts exactly!

[michaelb]

Don,

1. Thanks for posting at least one photo....awaiting more, especially outdoor shots. Perhaps a couple of landscape or architecture shots?

2. I agree, no significant vignetting. I expected some barrel distortion.

2. What brand is your "wide angle screw on lens"? Did it come with several ring size adaptors?

3. I almost got one of these for my S2 at one point. It's so cheap I may have to get one to try on my kit lens and 50mm 1.8.

IQ has to suffer with these type of screw on lenses, however. The question is, how much does it suffer.

[DonSchap]

When I originally got this Phoenix 0.45x lens, it was with the intent of using it exclusively for the SONY A100. I didn’t have an UWA for the Minolta cameras to use, just your standard AF 28mm f/2.8 w/ 49mm filter-ring. With 35mm-film cameras, the 28mm lens is usually adequate to grab that extra-wide stuff. With the APS-C or DCF-bodies, that no longer holds true. You need at least 18mm to have an equivalent focal length. To be honest, I have found that the SONY 18-70mm kit lens is not very sharp, overall, and I want that in my images. (You want to talk about Image Quality issues… you can start with a kit lens. IQ? What’s that? Kit lenses don’t know.) Personally, I also don’t have another $500 to drop on another UWA Zoom.

In my bag o’ glass, my TAmROn SP AF11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 DiII LD only fits the Canon-mount. You can get this lens in the mount of your choice (Nikon, Canon, SONY, Pentax). The true beauty of this $69 screw-on idea is that it fits right on top of my standard lenses… NO MATTER WHO MAKES THEM. I believe that generic tools have a real place, here, especially with multiple brand systems... old and new. I like being able to leap back and forth between them without having to sort through different mounts. My biggest concern is to have the correct filter ring adapter ready. The Phoenix lens comes with several. It is design with a 52mm on the lens itself, and then there are 49mm, 55mm, 58mm, and 62mm adapters after that. That’s flexibility in my book.

I admit that I tend to rush things a bit. I do believe that tendency comes from my currently tight schedule of a 40+ hr/week job, three creative photography classes at night & on weekends… and a full family life… complete with live-in parent (not mine), dog and RV. Not to mention participating on this forum. The American Dream? Not quite, but close enough for the moment.

With that being said, the cheap alternative to Ultra-Wide Angle obviously needs some exploration. I haven’t given it a lot of work to do, but I will do the “wax on/wax off” approach, perhaps this weekend, where the screw-on lens will be trialed with the:


EF 28mm f/2.8,
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6,
EF 50mm f/1.8 II,
and I may just toss in the TAmROn AF18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DiII LD, for those folks interested in how the “utility lens” may work with it.

“Michaelb”: I do believe, as you have suggested, a piece of architecture would be the most appropriate, to show the immediate overall effect of the added lens and the parallel distortions, both horizontal and vertical. I will also try a group shot, outdoors, if possible, just to see if the folks on the two ends get a little… bent.

Please realize that while grid patterns can reveal precise problems, I tend to look for the real-world overall effect on my images. Also, as far as minimal lighting goes, I want to do some f/1.8 – f/2.8 shots w/o flash assist, also. Perhaps… just some incandescent lamp light or even a candle for a light source.

Test Plan:

Basically, it will be:

Take the shot with the base lens only… to get a feel for the lighting.
Maintain settings and take the shot with the add-on in place.
Take the shot with (CP) polarizer filter in between base lens and add-on lens, to see if there is a vignette-effect to worry about, by extending the lens a little further (1/4”-3/8”) away.

EF 28mm f/2.8 – 52mm filter-ring
28mm f/2.8
28mm f/5.6
28mm f/8

EF 50mm f/1.8 II – 52mm filter-ring
50mm f/1.8
50mm f/2.8
50mm f/5.6
50mm f/8

EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 – 58mm filter-ring
18mm f/3.5
18mm f/5.6
18mm f/8

28mm f/4.5
28mm f/5.6
28mm f/8

55mm f/5.6
55mm f/8

TAMRON AF18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DiII LD – 62mm filter-ring
18mm f/3.5
18mm f/5.6
18mm f/8

28mm f/4.5
28mm f/5.6
28mm f/8

50mm f/4.5
50mm f/5.6
50mm f/8

100mm f/5
100mm f/8

130mm f/5.6
130mm f/8

200mm f/6.3
200mm f/8

I figure that this will, at least, provide a decent “feel” to how this add-on lens responds and what you can expect to get from it. IQ may suffer slightly, but come on. It’s not a coke-bottle bottom. It is a three element lens. Also remember, any investigation further than this exceeds my personal interest in the lens, because… it’s just a quick and cheap solution. Ultra-wides are not noted for their focus characteristics… they usually are used to get “everything in front of you” in the shot. Usually high contrast in nature, the close-up close-up is not what you are after. You are after good Depth of Field and the all-inclusive nature of the UWA. But, I am not abject to some relative “willing” me their personal fortune. It will be then that I’ll explore buying the brand-specific UWA zooms and I’ll make sure IQ is at the top of the list in determining which lens I pick. Obviously, professional budgets can afford such things, without much thought. Last time I looked in the flip-up mirror, I didn’t see a pro-photographer… just a rather severe hobbyist.

I know, I know… join the club. Membership forms on the right.

[michaelb]

Image Quality issues… you can start with a kit lens. IQ? What’s that? Kit lenses don’t know.)[/COLOR][/SIZE]


The 18-55 is not that bad in real world use. Below is an example; two nearly identical leaf shots, one with 18-55 and one with 50mm 1.8.
.....I tend to look for the real-world overall effect on my images.....

On this, we are agreed.....I await your tests!



First pic: 18-55, f/9, 1/125, 55mm, ISO 400, hand held, No PP:

[michaelb]

Now, 50mm f/1.8: f/6.3, 1/100, ISO 400, hand held, No PP:

The two shots look look pretty equivalent to me.

[michaelb]

Anyone know how I can post these two pics side by side?

[DonSchap]

Stacked!
16519
16520

Or resized... in Photoshop
16521

Look, I'm not going to get in debating the quality of KIT lenses... some are horrible, others better. Everyone has their tale of woe with these beasties. Heck, I even tried to give mine away and could not get the guy to take it. LOL

The bottom line in this particular discussion is using the 0.45x lens to alter the base lens that it is screwed on to in such a way as to make efficient use of its properties. For a mere $69, it can offer some impressive results. I know I can feel the $1700 savings, already, not having to buy a EF 14mm f/2.8L USM.

I know... "What's that you say... the very cost of another EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM?

You betcha! :D

BTW: Where are the rest of the "optical heroes" on this? Awfully quiet out there... usually they're all over this kind of thing.

[cdifoto]

BTW: Where are the rest of the "optical heroes" on this? Awfully quiet out there... usually they're all over this kind of thing.

It's a stupid idea.



Happy now? :D

[DonSchap]

You'd rather pony up the $1800... and see the stock market nudge up over 12000, again, right? I gotcha. ;)

Oh, and BTW... I've had worse :p

[RichNY]

It's a stupid idea.
Happy now? :D

Coldy- Is that you? ;)

[michaelb]

I will hold my judgement until I see the real world test shots. I'm generally not a pixel peeper - if the shots look decent to my eyes I may consider trying it. (As I continue to save for the 10-22 ;) )

p.s. Don, thanks for posting my pics stacked and side by side.

[ktixx]

...(As I continue to save for the 10-22 ;) )


And a good idea that is :)
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b255/Ktixx/DC%20Resource/Windsor.jpg
Canon 10-22 @ 10mm

[DonSchap]

Okay... some testing has been sliced off... and here's what it looks like:

Time: Noon

18mm w/o lens
16539

18mm w/ lens
16542

I need to explain something with this one: One unfortunate part of this is that the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens has a big ol' 58mm-filter ring. Because of that, the adapter is larger than the rear of the 0.45x lens, thus clearly creating the vignette-effect @ the 18mm setting of the lens. It's unavoidable, because at that wide a focal-length setting, the lens actuallty sees the edges of the first element. I believe with JUST the 52mm-to-58mm ring-adapter and no lens, you would still get this vignette-effect... so you have to crop. Admittedly, it does work best on 52mm-filter ring equipped lenses or less (ie, EF 50mm f/1.8 or EF 28mm f/2.8)

28mm w/o lens
16540

28mm w/ lens
16543

55mm w/o lens
16541

55mm w/ lens
16544

In summary: These tests show the vignette problems you have with 18mm and the 0.45 because of the adapter ring. It also effectively "fisheyes" on you. But please keep in mind, aside from the adaprer ring, the lens was attached to a UV-filter... which pushes it out about another 1/4" from the base lens.

The better results are to follow with the fixed primes 28mm and 50mm. It just takes time to post this stuff. Oh, by the way... at aperture f/8 there was no real perceptible difference in shutter speed time, which speaks well of the minimal light reduction introduced by the add-on lens.

[DonSchap]

Test sequence:

Time: 5PM

f/2.8
16546

f/2.8 w/ lens
16549

f/5.6
16547

f/5.6 w/ lens
16550

f/8
16548

f/8 w/ lens
16551

With this sequence, you can clearly see how the shutter speed is only minimally affected by the addition of the lens and no vignetting to speak of. Also, the huge difference between 28mm and 13mm (effectively 44mm and 20mm on an EOS 20D).

[DonSchap]

This series presented a surprise I had not anticipated. An optical distortion that only appears at extremely wide apertures. You will notice it immediately as the sequence begins.

@ f/1.8
16554

@ f/1.8 w/ lens
16556

@ f/2.8
16555

@ f/2.8 w/ lens
16557

@ f/5.6
16553

@ f/5.6 w/ lens
16558

@ f/8
16552

@ f/8 w/ lens
16559

Obviously, the wider aperture of the EF 50 f/1.8 have some issues with the edges of the 0.45, causing a severe softening.

Once again, though... as you will recall from my initial post in this thread, this idea was designed for the EF 28mm f/2.8 lens. That lens offers the best results... and what I hoped to get from it. The other lens tests were in support of DRCP member requests.

What have we learned of significance? -> You may have not thought it important before, but as has been clearly (well, actually kind of fuzzily) demonstrated, APERTURE makes a real difference in how this type of contraption works.

Anyway... that's enough of that. :rolleyes:

There's your "test shots", boys... enjoy. :cool:

[Rhys]

Interesting. Now how about a pinhole in a body cap and using the camera as a pinhole camera?

[DonSchap]

That usually requires a "Laser Bore" to do it properly. I noticed some guy was offering that service somewhere... either ebay or some place on the Internet. the cost was around... $60, if I remember correctly.

I mean, $60 for a friggin' hole in your lens cap? If that isn't literally tossing your money in a black hole, I don't know what is.

Personally, I've got way too much cash tied up in REAL glass than to be interested in "pinhole" photography. Heck, if I had wanted that... I'd have never spent the cash on this stuff, that's for sure.

Although, as Adm. Dewey once said, "YOU may fire when ready, Gridley!" LOL :D

16562

[DonSchap]

from the lack-luster response, either what I presented was overwhelming (yeah, right... :rolleyes: ) or rather -yawn- unexciting.

Really take a moment to inspect the comparisons... they reveal that in some situations and attached to other lenses (other than the 28mm), this nifty solution, like most, has issues, but for the most part... it can offer a quick fix to those tight situations. When your 28mm lens just is not enough... and last time you checked, you didn't have another $500 to toss away on a UWA zoom. (You know who you are.... ;) )

[cdifoto]

from the lack-luster response, either what I presented was overwhelming (yeah, right... :rolleyes: ) or rather -yawn- unexciting.

I think it's because people with dSLRs want good IQ so they buy the proper lensing to get the job done right. Cheap add-on adapters are for P&S cams where you have no choice. I don't think too many people care what a craptastic add-on looks like on a dSLR lens.

[DonSchap]

Well, I guess that makes the argument, then: "In for a penny, in for a pound."

If you go DSLR... you stay with the hearty prices of lensing and all the frills to go with it. Just reach into that old wallet and rake out the cash... because, apparently, there is no other way. Creative photography need not apply. It will be standard images only with a standard lens.

If you go P&S... all bets are off... whatever gets you through the shot. Maybe Ed Greene had a point, but just didn't know what he was on to. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm sorry, then, because I come from a world of "invent it, if you can't get it". A throwback to the 60's... where people actually thought for themselves. Perhaps, "pre-packaged" may be to wave of the future, but I'm not buying it, yet. Too early in my schedule, I suspect... or I'm just not that lazy... or maybe too lazy to buy into it. It's a flip of a coin, I suppose, and all depends on how you view things... and just what point in time you arrived.

Thanks for your viewpoint, CDI. It clearly is a peek into the attitudes of the coming days.

[cdifoto]

Well, I guess that makes the argument, then: "In for a penny, in for a pound."

If you go DSLR... you stay with the hearty prices of lensing and all the frills to go with it. Just reach into that old wallet and rake out the cash... because, apparently, there is no other way. Creative photography need not apply. It will be standard images only with a standard lens.

If you go P&S... all bets are off... whatever gets you through the shot. Maybe Ed Greene had a point, but just didn't know what he was on to. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm sorry, then, because I come from a world of "invent it, if you can't get it". A throwback to the 60's... where people actually thought for themselves. Perhaps, "pre-packaged" may be to wave of the future, but I'm not buying it, yet. Too early in my schedule, I suspect... or I'm just not that lazy... or maybe too lazy to buy into it. It's a flip of a coin, I suppose, and all depends on how you view things... and just what point in time you arrived.

Thanks for your viewpoint, CDI. It clearly is a peek into the attitudes of the coming days.


That would be a fine and dandy argument if your little attachment was actually invented by you and not manufactured by a corporation/factory. Not to mention your gear list contradicts this very premise.

[DonSchap]

The entire idea behind this was to "save a buck or two" and still...

GET THE SHOT!

Regardless of what I personally happen to haul around in my bag o' tricks, this idea still works. I use it for the SONY, because I don't have a UWA that fits the mount. My Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 does fit, though. It's admittedly a quick and dirty solution, but it simply works... and provides quite a bit of aperture, I might add.

Doing the math: 28mm f/2.8 * 0.45x * 1.5x (SONY DCF) = 18.9mm @ f/3.5

...and that, my friend, is all she wrote. :eek:

[Riley]

hi Don
i think thats an interesting trial you took on, and you deserve a more satisfying reply

in the P&S world the extreme WA converters/adapters are better avoided because, and i speak generally, they do lack quality and usually massive distortion, but at no loss in lens stops.

that said they are a common solution and have become popular for 2 reasons. they add flexibility to an inflexible system, and the appearance of OEM converters which are of greater quality, some in fact are purpose designed for a given lens. as always, some work out better than others

usually this type of converter is between .8x and .7x. main stream manufacturers such as sony olympus canon panasonic minolta nikon and others all partake. they are not necessarily cheap solutions as some are around US$400+.

this is also true to video, where there are numerous 72mm screw mounts, which is industrial quality right on the door of broadcast quality and often used by street news crews. the sony vcl-hg0872 is one of those and distortions/abberations are so low as to be almost non existent.

i think then the problem with the idea is that accessing better quality converters/adapters would then limit you to .7x and cost maybe 3x what the demonstration lens cost. going to extreme quality video glass isnt going to be cost/quality efficient against existing wide lenses except in terms of speed/aperture when mounted on a fast prime.

Riley

[DonSchap]

You know, the one part about all this was... I wasn't looking for approval.

That being said... (<-- which is a very common line for: "I really don't give hoot what you say, here's my take..." or which is similiar to the more common word: "BUT..."), I think this adaptive lens offers some quick solutions, demonstrated by this image.

16578
16579



In the second shot you see all 36-feet of the motorhome... and then some. You just can get more information into the shot with this adapter. The lighting is similar... requiring only a little more time at the shutter. Sure, there's distortion... but at an acceptable level. (I kind of wish I had brought the TAmROn SP AF11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 DiII LD to shoot alongside, just to see if at 13mm, the same degree of distortion exists. I suspect it does.) I wanted the fence in the image to demonstrate the level of distortion you can expect. Be assured, it is straight as she goes.

[cdifoto]

In the second shot you see all 36-feet of the motorhome... and then some. You just can get more information into the shot with this adapter. The lighting is similar... requiring only a little more time at the shutter. Sure, there's distortion... but at an acceptable level.

"Acceptable level" is subjective. In this case, it is your OPINION that the distortion is acceptable.

You stated it like it's a fact, when it's definitely not.

[DonSchap]

I will have to reshoot with the TAmROn... just for the comparison. Let's just see if you "get what you pay for..." Cripes, you just can not make some people unhappier. :rolleyes:

The rain has returned, so this will have to wait. But mark my words, (like Yogi Berra)


"It ain't over..."
16581

[cdifoto]

I will have to reshoot with the TAmROn... just for the comparison. Let's just see if you "get what you pay for..." Cripes, you just can not make some people unhappier. :rolleyes:

The rain has returned, so this will have to wait. But mark my words, (like Yogi Berra)


"It ain't over..."
16581


Even if the Tamron looks the same and you use that as a defense of the add-on, my response will be the same. Acceptable to you, but not to me.

[ReF]

schap: if you want to do a meaningful test do one with crops from the center, a corner from the forground (close up), and something that's not close from another corner - trees or branches would have a dual purpose of testing for CA. test at varying apertures tripod mounted and at comparable effective focal lengths.

[Riley]

just about every lens as wide as that comes with distortion for free, pp will remove it. the worst things converters cause are chromations and aberations

usually the best sharpness is 2 stops up from wide open
Riley

[michaelb]

Don,

Tonight is the first time I have had a chance to see your post....thanks for doing these tests....I was interested to see the results.

My take....The 28mm f/2.8 isn't too bad with the adaptor at f/5.6 and a little better at f/8, but the 50mm f/1.8 examples look very soft at the edges to me, even at f/8, unfortunately, and that is at a "real world" viewing size. I don't need 100% crops to see the softness.

I don't care about barrel distortion, that I can fix in PP, but the edge softness is a deal breaker.

Interesting testing Don, but I think I will continue saving for a true UWA.

[DonSchap]

Look... I hate to break this to ya... but a 50mm f/1.8 on a APS-C camera (Canon XT, XTi, 20D or 30D) with the 0.45x lens only will provide effectively a 35mm lens. In that case, I suggest buying the EF 28mm f/2.8 prime lens for wide angle shots (effectively 44mm) . You can then use the 0.45x on it to get to an effective 20mm and get the UWA-shot.

I never intended on seeing the 0.45x lens used on a EF 50mm f/1.8. I only did the test for effect... and had never planned on using it that way.

True, you can use this 0.45x lens set at 28mm or slightly less (24mm) on the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. That'll get you down to about 17mm... without too much more distortion or excessive softness. Personally, for Image Quality-sake, I suggest buying the low-cost prime lens... and forget using this rather marginal "kit" lens for this purpose. For one thing, the light levels stink. At 28mm, you are at f/4.5 at the max!

Another aspect, which I THOUGHT I had made clear, was that the 58mm filter ring requires an adapter ring for the 0.45x lens to fit on it properly. That caused the base lens to see the outer diameter of the attached lens... also it was mounted on a UV filter, which pushed it out that much further.

Using the real Canon EF 28mm f/2.8... like I originally stated, when I started this idea, you will get the effective 20mm ultra-wide focal length and a maximum effective aperture of f/3.3. That is better than any of the available UWA zooms can do... and that's the point. It has a much "cleaner" connection, because of the 52mm filter ring size of the 28mm lens... which is the "native" size of the add-on 0.45x lens.

For a simple $69... it solves the problem... until the time comes when you can fork over the $500... for a UWA Zoom or prime. In fact, you will probably spend almost $69 for a "quality" filter for the 77mm filter-ring on your new UWA zoom. I know, I have a HOYA multi-coated UV filter on mine. ;)

Hey... I'm wondering... did some one just pass away and leave all this money laying around? I must have missed that part. Hmmm... :rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

I'd rather save my $69 and put it towards a true UWA.

[DonSchap]

You're right, it's probably better to miss those wide shots for a mere $69.

Just raise your right hand to the collected group of subjects in front of your camera and say the magic CDI words...

"Just wait here... I'm saving up for a wide angle lens. Thanks."

Man, thanks for the support. Oh, the next group is right behind me. Want me to tell them to... uh, wait? :o

16649