Torn between Prime (85/100) and Zoom (24/28-135)

[jreades]

<p>So after a lot of time spent discretely surfing the web at work

(certain aging event starting in 3 and ending in 0 coming up far too

quickly and family wants suggestions), I have 'settled' down to being

completely torn between two competing approaches to photography:</p>

 

<ol start="1">

<li>In the zoom corner:</li>

<ul>

<li>Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($229 at B&H)</li>

<li>Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 ($319 at B&H)</li>

<li>Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS ($394 at B&H)</li>

</ul>

<li>In the prime corner:</li>

<ul>

<li>Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM ($319 at B&H)</li>

<li>Canon 100mm f/2.0 USM ($369 at B&H)</li>

</ul>

</ol>

 

<p>I should be clear: I am a competent hobbiest, but I cannot pretend

to be 'serious' in the way that some hobbiests are 'serious' about

photography. I would like my own ability to be the weak point rather

than the equipment... professional equipment would be wasted on me.</p>

 

<p>Obviously, these are different lenses that (can) do very different

things. My current main lens (the original that came with my Elan II

has never made it out of the box) is a 35mm f/2.0 which I used partly

as a challenge (wanted to focus on manual settings and aperture/speed

interactions) and partly because it's was the fastest, cheapest thing

available (about $80 used at B&H, IIRC).</p>

 

<p>I've tried to rationlise my thinking but keep coming around in

circles. What would probably help me most is insight from people who

have direct experience of two or more of these lenses -- does the

extra 30mm and IS make spending an extra $170 worth it in the zoom

lens department? did you buy the 28-135 but find that a 35-ish and a

100 really covers most of your needs and has noticeably superior

optics?</p>

 

<p>I realise that there are many ways to skin this cat and I've read

all of the reviews that I can find on photo.net (and a good few others

besides), but a little guidance from those with more experience (and

more lenses) than I have would be very much appreciated.</p>

[rtrace]

Jon,

 

It would help a lot if you can tell us what you like to photograph. Zooms are good for convenience, but primes are almost always better optically, they're faster, etc. Both zooms and primes have their place and uses.

 

That being said, I can't really say what you should get until you say what you photograph. Would you NEED a zoom? Do you need fast lenses with large apertures for shallow DOF and low-light photography, etc.?

 

Bogdan

[aaron_lam]

Hey,

 

Aside from the zoom vs prime question.

 

Your zoom selection seems all on top of each other. For the same money, you could almost get a 17-40 F4 and 28-135 IS.

 

Also, the 85 and 100 are pretty close and serve the same purpose as a portrait lens. You could even get the 24-85 (similar to the 28-105) and the 100mm (this is a kit I had for a while and loved... along with a 50 f1.8.

 

The 50 1.8 is a super cheap zoom also and you can probably pick one up new for 70-90 bucks.

 

My 2 cents on zoom vs prime. I like to use a zoom most of the time since the quality of the ones I have are pretty good (17-40 F4 and 28-135 IS). I got the IS for the IS. The primes are great for low light, portraits and when I want better quality. You already have a 35... adding a cheap 50 would be easy. The 100mm is one of my FAVORITE lenses and although I ended up with 3 other lenses that cover it, I couldn't part with it.

 

Hope this didn't make it worse on you.

 

best of luck, aaron

[shambrick007]

85/1.8 - sharp, fast

[shambrick007]

if you don't need the speed, get the canon 28-whatever

[charles_lipton]

Jon..

I was in a similar dilema...I have an EOS3, 28-70L, 70-200 4L, a 50mm MK I, and the 85mm 1.8...I shoot alot of candids at parties and have done a wedding...for it I used the 28-70 and 70-200 with spectacular results..

I am going to the Med on a cruise shortly and wanted a good all purpose carry lens...and light weight too...I settled on the 24-85mm...you might check it out..

As for the 85mm vs 100...with the 100 you will be a little further from your subject...I've used the 85mm and I can say it's a phenominal performer...I like to be a little closer to my subjects...

Anyway...if you can afford it...check out the 28-70L on ebay...this is one of Canon's best ever zoom...and if that's out of your range..then look at the 24-85mm...Like I said I just bought one and am anxiously waiting it's delivery..

 

good luck..

chuck

[dogbert]

I think to give a definitive answer I would have to agree it all depends on what you want to shoot. But I will have a stab in the dark anyway. Having gone from zooms to primes and back to zooms over about 20 years of hobbiest photography, I would choose zooms if you main use is taking photos while travelling, sightseeing, etc. Having to change lenses to often in these situations can detract from the experience. If you are doing photography simply for enjoyment, choose primes as I expect you won't mind taking your time to set up the photograph, and frequent lens changes won't bother you as much. If photograhing people in social situations is you main bent you could go either way, ie just using 1 prime or 1 zoom. Personally I find 1 zoom more useful (wide end for group shots, long end for candids and individuals) but indoors a flash is pretty much always needed. On the other hand a lot can be accomplished with a 50mm prime. If you do a lot of portraiture then a fast prime around 50-80 mm is pretty much a given. I am not sure why you haven't used your 35 mm. If I was restricted to only using one focal length I think this one is the one I would choose.

[thomas_munch]

It's very easy to think in circles when trying to consider lens purchases, unless you have some photographic objective in mind. That said, I'll give you my 2 cents, recognizing that I too will probably talk in circles.

 

 

Given your prime choices, you appear to want a mid-range telephoto lens, and your zoom choices give you that telephoto plus some extra wide angle coverage. If you plan on using the lens primarily for portraits and/or other "traditional" mid-tele shots, then I think you'll enjoy either of the primes. The zooms are a bit more flexible because you get a wider view, but they are slower so you might need to rely more on faster film or a tripod (although I almost always use a tripod, even with fast primes).

 

 

From my own experience, I used a 24-85 Minolta AF lens as my primary general purpose lens (e.g., snapshots, travel, outdoor events) and used Minolta prime lenses, along with a Contax G+3 primes for most of my personal hobby photography. I've switched to Canon, and now use a 10D with Canon primes (35/2 and 50/2.5 macro). My next purchase will be a prime in the 85mm-200mm range, depending on how my budget works out. Sometimes I consider a zoom (I'd like the wide angle on the 17-40L, and the 24-85 looks appealing; I'll probably eventually end up with a zoom in this range), but I enjoy using the selective focus that a fast prime gives you, I appreciate the brighter viewfinder with primes, and I find the faster shutter speeds that are possible with the primes very useful. Finally, and probably most importantly, I like the high quality and compact size of the primes.

 

--tom

[chris_carroll]

I think the 35/2 and 24-85/3.5-4.5 make a good combination. 35

and 28-whatever doesn't give you many options at the wide end.

If you like long lenses, perhaps consider a 70-200 type lens

rather than a superwide-ratio zoom.

 

On the other hand, 35 and 100 are an excellent combination of

prime lenses. These are the two lengths I mostly use when I

haul out my trusty and aesthetically-pleasing (in ways a plastic

camera never can be) black Olympus OM2n.

 

Like the others said, you have to figure out what you want to do.

Do you want to shoot more portraits, or do you need an all-in-one

walkaround lens?

[taner]

I believe that the two focal lengths that compliment the extraordinarily versatile 35mm perspective are the 85mm, and 24mm. If you find that the 35mm is wide enough for you, then perhaps a 200mm prime later down the road. Cheers.

[tom_burke3]

FWIW - I have a 24-85 Canon zoom which I love; it's better than the 28-105 (either

version) IMHO. I've never used the 28-135, but I gather it's a very good lens. However, to

me one of the best things about the 24-85 is the extra 4mm at the wide end. I do also

have the 17-40 but I use that almost exclusively for its wide end. That is, when I'm doing

wide angle stuff I'll stick with the 24-85 and shoot at 24mm for as long as I can, but if I

switch to the 17-40 it's to use it at 17mm. If I then find myself moving back up towards

40mm I'll swich back to the 24-85.

 

To complement these two zooms I bought the 100 f2. This is an excellent lens, both in

terms of reach and quality. Part of the reason I chose this over the 85mm was that it

wasn't duplicating a focal length I already had. Then I also have the 50mm f1.8 and the

28mm f2.8, both bought s/h and used either when I specifically want to play with them, or

in low-light situations, or when I want the in-focus/out-of-focus contrast.

 

Frequency of use: 24-85 - 50%; 17-40 - 25%; 50mm - 15%; 100mm - 5%; 28mm - 5%.

[jltaft]

Jon,

 

I recently used a Canon 24-85mm zoom and 100mm f2 prime for an wedding and found it to be a very useful comibation. I happen to like the 24mm perspective, but not everyone does. The zoom provided much flexibility for candids and formal shots. The 100mm was perfect for low light and tighter portraits, especially of the bride and groom.

 

However, the copy of the 24-85 I had was very loose in the front element so I returned it, even though the photos turned out fine. It was used from KEH and I wasn't sure how long it would hold up. KEH took it back with no problem. After reading the reviews on the Tamron 24-135 (http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Tamron/PRD_85173_3128crx.aspx),I bought one used from KEH. So far I have only run a test roll of film through it but it seems quite good at all focal lengths.

 

So, my plan is use the zoom for flexibility and in situations when flash is appropriate. I will continue to use the 100mm f2 (my favorite lens), 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f2 primes for low light or other situations where I can be more deliberate in making a photograph.

 

I also have the Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 and it works fine on my film cameras. However, they are also a bit loose in the front and let dust in. I use that one in rougher situations such in the rain forest in Costa Rica.

 

Finally, I buy most of my gear used from KEH. Their "bargin" grade stuff is very usable and a good way to get started without a huge cash outlay.

 

Importantly, have fun.

[jreades]

<p>Thank you everyone, for your thoughtful replies... I realised after I headed home for

the evening (UK time) that an understanding of how/what I shoot would have been useful,

and I'm happy to see that several of you picked up on that. :) </p>

 

<p>Based on experience I'd say that my tendencies are as follows:</p>

<ul>

<li>I'm not good at getting in close to people ans being very up front about a picture --

when using the 35/f2.0 it's purely with friends who know that they being shot or people

who mistakenly believe that they're outside the viewing radius. I've even shot from the hip

using the autofocus for some interesting candids.</li>

<li>My shooting strengths are, I believe, nature and architecture in an urban context --

landscapes and building details -- probably the result of growing up in Canada but living

in New York and

London.</li>

<li>With the 35/f2.0 I get the capability to shoot in quite low light and in a fairly

'immediate' way (this is, as I understand it, a popular lens spec with photojournalists) and

since I don't have a flash beyond the built-in one (though reading up on equipment I'm

feeling that I should definitely consider an upgrade) the larger aperture is a nice feature to

have.</

li>

<li>However, the convenience factor of a zoom would mean fewer "can't you just take the

damn picture" comments from friends and family.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>I think that what is giving me fits is the tradeoff between optical quality and

convenience -- since I don't normally shoot people then I do have the flexibility to move

around and compose the shot 'properly' with a prime, but the flexibility of simply being

able to quickly move in up to 135mm seems quite alluring after two years with a 35mm

lens...</p>

 

<p>Don't know if this will help, but I certainly appreciate the input so far.</p>

[dogbert]

It sounds like the zoom is the way to go. My reasoning: quick composition for friends and family (avoid the just take the dam picture comments); For those occaisions when you want high quality and have the time, use a tripod and stop down - this will eliminate most of the advantage primes have; and for arhcitechture and landscape you don't need bokeh. 24-85 slighly more useful for architechture and landscape, 28-105 more economical, 28-135 IS maybe the most versatile of the bunch. Throw in a 50 f1.8 for hand held, low light with bokeh. It is so cheap it is a no brainer and will allow you to stand back a bit relative to the 35f2.

 

When you say nature, if you mean animals then you need more than 135mm.

[jreades]

<p>Sorry, to be clear nature == landscapes for the time being.</p>

 

<p>There is a long-term purchase plan for the 70-200mm f/4.0 USM for real wildlife

photography... or with a 1.4x or 2x extender (although my understanding is that the 2x

doesn't work for autofocus on lower end Elans) I can at least do a passable imitation of

real wildlife photography. My plan, however, is to wait until I have booked a flight to

Africa/Asia before purchasing such a beasty.</p>

[jreades]

<p>Ah, I do wish that there were an 'edit' feature on photo.net, then I could condense all

of the information that I'm receiving into just one or two posts rather that a whole

series...</p>

 

<p>If I were to sum up the wisdom so far, it seems to me that:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>People are very passionate about the extra 4mm on a 24-85 vs. a 28-*. This isn't

something that I would have immediately expected, but it's a sentiment that I've seen

expressed on other sites where I've done my research too and has given me pause.</li>

<li>The 24mm range also seems to be particularly relevant to landscape and architectural

photography which are definitely my stronger points (not that one should neglect the

weaker ones, but it helps to play to strengths).</li>

<li>The 100mm f/2.0 seems to be considered a good complement for the 35mm f/2.0 if I

wanted to stick with primes (the 35/f2, just to respond to Geoff for a moment, is the

*only* that I use right now; it's the 'default' 28-85mm f/5.6 that came with the camera

that I haven't taken out of the box).</li>

<li>No one seems to be seriously considering the Sigma lens (all of the lens feedback

clearly covers Canon lenses) -- this may be a function of the fact that no one who has

responded *owns* a Sigma lens, but I find it both intriguing and relevant nonetheless.</

li>

</ul>

 

<p>Once again, I can't thank you all enough -- since this is a serious amount of money to

be laying down on a lens (even if I'm earning pounds) it's so helpful to have the informed

persepctive of the photo.net users.</p>

[ian_hobday]

I think that for your stated uses wide angle is more important than the long end of things.<br>

<br>

That said, only <i>you</i> know what you feel you are missing with your current lens. One point you mentioned was complaints from friends about the time it takes you to frame a shot. Zoom will help with this, certainly!<br>

<br>

But which zoom? When you are framing your shots, do you feel that you want a larger FOV to include more in the image? Or do you often find yourself wishing you could get closer in or magnify certain areas of the image more?<br>

<br>

If you often find yourself wanting a wider/larger FOV, maybe you should look at the Canon 20-35 zoom. It is about the same price as the others you have listed.<br>

<br>

If you often want to get closer to what you are shooting, then the 24-85 might be a good compromise, or the 28-135 IS if you feel that you don't need that extra 4mm. The IS will help a <b><u>lot</u></b> in low light, also helping to avoid the "hurry up and take it!" comments.<br>

<br>

Good luck with your shopping, be sure to let us know what you decided to get!<br>

<br>

Ian<br>

--<br>

Ian Hobday<br>

Osaka, Japan<br>

<a href="http://hobday.net/photos" target="_blank">http://hobday.net/photos</a> (Opens in a new window.)

[tom_burke3]

Jon : Sigma Lenses

 

I have, and have had, several. Currently I own a really old, poor-quality 70-210 that I

bought some years ago prior to a visit to the USA, 'just in case', and a 24mm f1.8 that I

bought at Focus on Imaging this year for low-light wide-angle use. I've used the 70-210 a

bit - eg, while whale-watching (with 'not bad' results), and again a couple of years later

from the Staten Island ferry at NYC - results that time, pretty awful. This was on either EOS

100 or 600 bodies. The 24mm I've hardly used; it turns out that I don't do low-light wide-

angle photography, I prefer to use the 50mm for that. I suppose the Sigma lens is a pretty

good lens, but it's quite big. It did give me an 'err99' on my D60 once; turning the camera

off, unmounting the lens and switching the camera back on cleared the error. When the

lens was remounted it worked fine.

 

I've also had a 17-35 EX f2.8-f4 wide zoom. This was mainly used on an EOS 100 body. I

felt this was a bit soft at the 35mm end, and in the end I sold it and subsequently bought

my 17-40.

[aquilanebula]

For a good zoom lens, I can recommend the Tamron 24-135. The first one I had was a lemon (very soft corners), but the replacement I got is excellent. From recent posts on Photo.net, I understand that all the manufacturers occasionally produce lenses that don't match the normal standard.

 

The Sigma 24-135 has a slightly wider aperture, but I suspect the lens isn't useful when used wide open, and the Tamron has a better close focus ability and a more helpful filter size.

 

In due course, you can buy more primes. The Canon 50/1.8 is excellent because it's cheap and allows you to get photos in low light. You might also want to add the Tamron 90/2.8, Canon 100/2.8 or Sigma 105/2.8 macro lenses to your list of options. In addition to the macro facility, they make good portrait lenses.

[szwayko - photography]

I use only prime and I take photos on weedings. The 100/2 is my favourite lens. I had problem between 85 or 100. But I've had a 50/1.4 and I decided on 100 mm - because was longer. Today my the best kit on weedings are 2 cameras SLR and 3 lenses:

24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.

 

I would like to add EF 28/1.8 for these. 28/1.8 will be better for weeding and people than 24/2.8 (+1,5EV, and fast, outstanding bokeh like a 50/1.4 and a 100/2).

 

Do you want zooms? At the begining I had two zooms for EOS system 35-80 and 75-300. But now I know that prime are more comfortable and unconspicuous and have f/2 or even f/1.4 ;-)))

 

Maybe buy a couple:

28/1.8 and 85/1.8 or

35/2.0 and 100/2

but when you use 1,6x the first kit will be better

 

My weedings galeries are here (click on photo):

 

http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/slubne/slubne.html

 

Paul

[rtrace]

I agree and am in a similar situation with Paul these days. After going through numerous

zooms (16-35mm, 17-40mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm) for ME and for what I shoot

(weddings, events, and personal phtojournalistic stuff), I realized that not only do I get

better quality with primes, but by using just a few focal lengths my picture compositions

are more consistent and thought out. That's not to say I wasn't thinking when using

zoooms, but I just like the consistent look most of my images share now that I only use

two lenses.

 

On my 10D I use the 24mm f/2.8 (38.4mm FOV) and the 50mm f/1.4 (80mm FOV).

 

On my 1V I use the 35mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8

 

As you can see 4 lenses but the same (or very close) FOV. I found that these work best for

me. I also

shoot architecture, street stuff, etc.

 

Paul,

 

I don't know about the 28mm f/1.8. Why do you think it wll be better? Actually the 28mm

f/2.8 is considered the better lens if you want that focal length, but from what I've read

and seen the 24 and 35 are better than the 28 in terms of quality. If I were you I'd get the

35mm f/2, since if would give more space between the 24mm and the 50mm.

 

Also, are you using a DSLR or film body?

 

Bogdan

[szwayko - photography]

Bogdan,

<br><br>

<i>I don't know about the 28mm f/1.8. Why do you think it wll be better? Actually the 28mm f/2.8 is considered the better lens if you want that focal length, but from what I've read and seen the 24 and 35 are better than the 28 in terms of quality.</I><br><br>

 

Yes 28/2.8 is better, but what is it better in - only sharpness (and If you close f/1.8 the differences aren't huge).<br>

When you take nature or architecture is major, but I mainly take people and situastions, and for me better will be 28/1.8 because have +1,5EV and in this photos important is bokeh.

<br><br>

24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2.0 like a 50/1.8 - are sharp but the bokeh is weak. And for quickly situations they haven't got USM, and they aren't silent for a church or theatre.<br>

Bokeh with 28/1.8 is outstanding like in a 24/1.4L or 35/1.4L.

<br><br>

TOday I prefer lenses that have a soul. ;-)

Sharpness has to be on acceptable level but the bokeh has to be the best like 50/1.4, 100/2 which I have. I have a 24/2.8 and had 50/1.8 and it is/was worse.

<br><br>

<I>Also, are you using a DSLR or film body? </I><br>

<br>

I use film bodies. On my recently weeding I had also EOS 10D but in church and outdoors the prints was better from Fuji NPH and Reala than digital body. But I also don't have time and don't feel like playing on computer in PS at nights.<br>

 

<br>

My galery from this weeding:<br>

<A target=_blank href=http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/slubne/31/index31.html>galery</A><br>

 

<br>

Paul

[dogbert]

It seems that a lot of advice is here is getting of the topic. I am not sure why wedding photographers who have a preference for primes, think their advice would be so relevant for someone who shoots lanscapes and architecture for a hobby and snapshots of friends and family.

 

Jon shooting lanscape and archetecture are my hobbies too, and my friends and family get annoyed when I take too long to take their pics.

 

If you are only going to buy one lens at this stage, I think the extra 4mm on a 24-85 zoom will be more useful than the extra 20-55 mm on a 28-105 or 28-135 for lanscape and architecture - especially if you are planning to get a longer zoom later. For landscape and architecture you will want to be stopping down, thus elminating the main things people choose primes for. And the quality of good zooms stopped down to f8 and on a tripod will come pretty close to primes, especially if you are not doing enlargements greater than 8x10. At the 85 end you should have enough reach for friends and family, though bokeh will be lacking compared to primes, so ask yourself whether you really want bokeh. More dramatic lanscape effects require an ultrawide lens. I have a Sigma 12-24, which is use on both film and a Dreb.

 

If you want to shoot indoors in low light, eg inside churchs or musuems, the Canon 28-135 IS might be a consideration.

 

I would also get out your kit lens and give it a try. Stop it down, put it on a tripod and compare it with the 35 before you throw it away. I have a Canon 50f2.5 macro, considerd to be one of Canon's sharpest yet I would not say it is vastly superior to some of the kit lenses I own when they are stopped down and on a tripod. Remember despite all the talk in these forums, good light and good technique make most of the photo. The lens counts for about 5 per cent.

[jreades]

<p>After a great deal of time spent reading your suggestions, doing additional online research, soul-searching, and being thoroughly indecisive, I think that I've reached a decision... <drumroll></p>

 

<p>Although I was sorely tempted by the 100mm f/2.0 because of the rave reviews that it has received across the board from users on photo.net (and the clear quality of the shots that I've seen posted both as part of posts in this thread and elsewhere in photo.net) and on other camera review sites, I've settled on the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 as my next purchase.</p>

 

<p>Why?</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Focal Length: the 100/f2 would obviously fill a significant gap in the mid-length zoom department for me, but with the 24-85 I get both a wide-angle and a short zoom. Also, given that (the 100/f2 notwithstanding) I expect my next zoom purchase to be the 70-100/f4 this gives me a good coverage without unecessary duplication of function between two heavier lenses (i.e. two zooms that overlap between 70 and 135).</li>

<li>Price: frankly, this lens it as a price point that I feel more comfortable asking someone else to stomach. The same is, unfortunately, not true of the 100/f2. My feeling is that if I decide that I have to have this lens (which I undoubtedly will at some point since the work I've seen with it is quite amazing) then I will be the one to scrimp and save.</li>

<li>Convenience: the ability to quickly crop/frame a photo with the zoom lens will, I hope, make life for my travelling companions by giving me a bit more flexibility of composition for quick shots.</li>

<li>Aperture: obviously, it would be nice if this lens opened to f2.0, but as a compromise (given that the 35mm f/2 is so small that I can easily keep it with me for low-light shooting where a flash is not possible) in terms of price and performance I think that this lens offers an attractive package.</li>

<li>Flexibility: I recognise that the compromise with a zoom lens is the optical quality; however, in this case I feel that I will be purchasing a reliable lens of good quality (provided that I recognise and remember the limitations around the hood and vignetting when the lens is wide open), and that many photographers of far superior skill to my own are very happy with.</li>

<li>USM FT/M: this wouldn't necessarily have been a deal-breaker, but it is also true that having the USM and Full-Time/Manual focussing is a clear plus.</li>

<li>Range: this comment doesn't apply so much to the 100, but rather to the other lenses that I was considering. Not <i>one</i> person in an online forum attempted to seriously argue that the extra 30mm to 60mm (for the 28-* lenses) made them the only choice, but there were many, many postings arguing that the extra 4mm at the bottom end made the 24-85 a much more useful lens.</li>

<li>Innate Suspicion: I can't help but be slightly suspicious of the 28-135mm range. This is not necessarily a rational position, but I can't help but feel that the larger the range of focal lengths in a zoom the lower the overall suitability of the optics to any one particular focal length. This is, of course, an argument in favour of primes, but since I've discounted the primes for the reasons listed above, that suggests that I look for a more tightly 'focussed' (i.e. targeted) lens.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>As I've said several times -- thank you very much to everyone who contributed their insights and opinions. No advice was ignored or discounted and I think that <i>every</i> lens suggested was, at some point, in my B&H wish list basket. :)</p>

 

<p>All the best</p>

 

<p>Jon</p>