Nikon AF Long Lens under $9,000 !! <s>

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by John Smith, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    surfing, and wildlife photography.

    I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
    $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

    Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
    reasonable cost?

    With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
    an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

    TIA---
     
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
    <> wrote:

    >I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >
    >I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
    >$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >
    >Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
    >reasonable cost?
    >
    >With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
    >an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.


    Have you considered a 200-400m m f/4 +TC? I use one with aTC-C14 all the
    time, and a TC-2 under favorable conditions.
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Thanks kindly. I've heard good things about the 200-400, but I'm wary of the
    teleconverters for both quality and speed reasons.

    What's been your experience with both the TC14 and TC20?

    Would the 200-400 even be able to autofocus with the TC20? I thought the
    widest f/stop had to be no less than f/5.6. I think the TC20 would turn the
    200-400 into a 400-800 f/8 if I'm no mistaken?

    Thanks...




    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >>surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>
    >>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
    >>at
    >>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>
    >>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
    >>more
    >>reasonable cost?
    >>
    >>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
    >>need
    >>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

    >
    > Have you considered a 200-400m m f/4 +TC? I use one with aTC-C14 all the
    > time, and a TC-2 under favorable conditions.
     
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2009
    #3
  4. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:23:44 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
    <> wrote:

    >Thanks kindly. I've heard good things about the 200-400, but I'm wary of the
    >teleconverters for both quality and speed reasons.
    >
    >What's been your experience with both the TC14 and TC20?
    >
    >Would the 200-400 even be able to autofocus with the TC20? I thought the
    >widest f/stop had to be no less than f/5.6. I think the TC20 would turn the
    >200-400 into a 400-800 f/8 if I'm no mistaken?
    >


    For reference I've lived with the 70-2-200mm f/2.8 VR +TC2 for years.
    Starting with a D70, moving to a D200 and next a D300. I added the
    200-400f/4 a while back. I use it all the time with a TC-14. In good
    conditions on the D300 you can use the TC2 with it.
    http://edwardgruf/bluebird.html
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #4
  5. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <>
    >wrote in <%_97l.28052$>:
    >
    >>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >>surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>
    >>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
    >>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>
    >>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
    >>reasonable cost?
    >>
    >>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
    >>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

    >
    >Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.


    He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #5
  6. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Thank you. Exactly my response...


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <>
    >>wrote in <%_97l.28052$>:
    >>
    >>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>>
    >>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
    >>>at
    >>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>>
    >>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
    >>>more
    >>>reasonable cost?
    >>>
    >>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
    >>>need
    >>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

    >>
    >>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

    >
    > He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.
     
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2009
    #6
  7. John Smith

    Pete D Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <>
    >>wrote in <%_97l.28052$>:
    >>
    >>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>>
    >>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
    >>>at
    >>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>>
    >>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
    >>>more
    >>>reasonable cost?
    >>>
    >>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
    >>>need
    >>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

    >>
    >>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

    >
    > He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.


    Too late he already did it would appear and this is why I have him
    killfiled, what a goose.
     
    Pete D, Jan 1, 2009
    #7
  8. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    No, he's right. A reply suggesting a P&S really is idiotic...



    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:50:27 -0500, wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <>
    >>>wrote in <%_97l.28052$>:
    >>>
    >>>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >>>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>>>
    >>>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses
    >>>>but at
    >>>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>>>
    >>>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
    >>>>more
    >>>>reasonable cost?
    >>>>
    >>>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
    >>>>need
    >>>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
    >>>
    >>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

    >>
    >>He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.

    >
    > The only thing idiotic there is your response.
    >
    > --
    > Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
    > John
     
    John Smith, Jan 1, 2009
    #8
  9. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >
    >>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

    But why don't you post the original images instead of down sizing them?

    >Sample images:
    > * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
    > * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>

    posted as 800x600


    > * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>

    posted as 800x600
    original:
    # Image Width = 965 pixels
    # Image Height = 724 pixels

    You must be changing these as I post
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #9
  10. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, in rec.photo.digital you wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, John Navas
    >
    >>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

    >
    >Sample images:
    > * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>

    # Image Width = 1913 pixels
    # Image Height = 1421 pixels
    But posted as 800x594

    > * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>

    # Image Width = 1879 pixels
    # Image Height = 1409 pixels
    But posted as 800x600

    > * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>

    # Image Width = 965 pixels
    # Image Height = 724 pixels
    But posted as 800x600


    If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?
    Do you need to down sample and sharpen the images to make your point?
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #10
  11. John Smith

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, John Navas
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <>
    >>wrote in <%_97l.28052$>:
    >>
    >>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>>
    >>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
    >>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>>
    >>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
    >>>reasonable cost?
    >>>
    >>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
    >>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

    >>
    >>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

    >
    >Sample images:
    > * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
    > * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
    > * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>


    You've succeeded in proving your point *if* your point is that images
    from a bridge camera like an FZ8 or FZ20 (not a true P&S, but a bridge
    camera that loses the main advantage of a P&S, pocket portability) can
    look as good as a DSLR if it was taken in nice bright sunshine and
    scaled down to 800x600 and if you don't care about making the image
    really look better by blurring the background, which would have been
    nice in the bird pictures. As a substitute for what a D3 can do,
    you've proven nothing. But congrats anyway.

    Steve
     
    TheRealSteve, Jan 1, 2009
    #11
  12. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:45:06 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:32:49 -0500, wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?

    >
    >I made my point.


    Which is you're point is lacking.. I posted full frame dslr photos for
    comparison..
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #12
  13. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:59:28 -0500, wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:45:06 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:32:49 -0500, wrote in
    >>><>:
    >>>
    >>>>If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?
    >>>
    >>>I made my point.

    >>
    >>Which is you're point is lacking.. I posted full frame dslr photos for
    >>comparison..

    >
    >I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping pissing
    >contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.


    Then you are just pissing into the wind.

    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photo..._4099acr_ni_musm_cr1600x1200_bcsrp800x600.jpg
    is an iso 1600 resampled image from my old D70. Post a link to anything
    comparable to this from your P&S.
     
    , Jan 1, 2009
    #13
  14. John Smith

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:57:37 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:47:20 GMT, TheRealSteve <> wrote
    >in <>:
    >
    >>>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
    >>>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
    >>>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.
    >>>
    >>>Sample images:
    >>> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
    >>> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
    >>> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>

    >>
    >>You've succeeded in proving your point *if* your point is that images
    >>from a bridge camera like an FZ8 or FZ20 (not a true P&S, but a bridge
    >>camera that loses the main advantage of a P&S, pocket portability) can

    >
    >Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.


    Here, you're rationalizing your purchase. You must feel really
    threatened. Hell, my DSLR fits in my jacket pocket too. But I don't
    always wear a jacket.

    >>look as good as a DSLR if it was taken in nice bright sunshine and
    >>scaled down to 800x600 and if you don't care about making the image
    >>really look better by blurring the background, which would have been
    >>nice in the bird pictures. As a substitute for what a D3 can do,
    >>you've proven nothing. But congrats anyway.

    >
    >You must feel very very threatened. :)


    Why would I feel threatened? I have 2 DSLRs *and* 3 digital P&Ss so I
    know what each is capable of doing and use the one suited for the job
    at hand. You're the one who seems to feel threatened. At least
    that's what it looks like when you try to justify your pseudo P&S
    purchase by claiming that it somehow can replace a D3 in a
    professional photographer's arsenal.

    Steve
     
    TheRealSteve, Jan 1, 2009
    #14
  15. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Well put, Caesar. I could give a rip about pixel count.

    All I wanted was recommendation on a lens...




    "Caesar Romano" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, John Navas
    > <> wrote Re Re: Nikon AF Long Lens under
    > $9,000 !! <s>:
    >
    >>I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping pissing
    >>contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

    >
    > There seems to be a lot of pixel-envy in this NG. A lot of people here
    > seem to think that the quality of their images is directly related to
    > the number of pixels. Well, that's understandable. If they can't
    > produce an artistic image, at least the can produce one with a lot of
    > pixels saying: "... this camera cost so much $$ the images must be
    > good.."
    >
    > What a bunch of uncreative morons.
     
    John Smith, Jan 2, 2009
    #15
  16. John Smith

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:12:54 -0600, Caesar (color me Maroon) Romano
    wrote:

    >> I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping pissing
    >> contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

    >
    > There seems to be a lot of pixel-envy in this NG. A lot of people here
    > seem to think that the quality of their images is directly related to
    > the number of pixels. Well, that's understandable. If they can't
    > produce an artistic image, at least the can produce one with a lot of
    > pixels saying: "... this camera cost so much $$ the images must be
    > good.."
    >
    > What a bunch of uncreative morons.


    There are also some people in the ng that can't produce reasonable
    replies, and they make up for lack of quality by the sheer number of
    their low quality, uncreative, noisy, sock-puppet replies.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 2, 2009
    #16
  17. John Smith

    Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:12:54 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Caesar Romano
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, John Navas
    ><> wrote Re Re: Nikon AF Long Lens under
    >$9,000 !! <s>:
    >
    >>I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping pissing
    >>contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

    >
    >There seems to be a lot of pixel-envy in this NG. A lot of people here
    >seem to think that the quality of their images is directly related to
    >the number of pixels. Well, that's understandable. If they can't
    >produce an artistic image, at least the can produce one with a lot of
    >pixels saying: "... this camera cost so much $$ the images must be
    >good.."
    >
    >What a bunch of uncreative morons.


    If one is interested in nature photography, isn't the magnification/# of
    pixels, one the concerns if one wishes to print one's photos?
     
    , Jan 2, 2009
    #17
  18. John Smith

    Pete D Guest

    "John Smith" <> wrote in message
    news:%_97l.28052$...
    > I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    > surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >
    > I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
    > at $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >
    > Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
    > more reasonable cost?
    >
    > With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
    > need an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
    >
    > TIA---
    >



    Have you had a look at the Bigma, I know it works well for many users and it
    is quite cheap, not sure how it will perform on the D3 though, sorry.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Jan 2, 2009
    #18
  19. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Thanks Paul, for you kind and reasoned reply - unlike the self-idolizing
    hype from this San Francisco egomaniac IT salesman named Navas.

    Isn't the world already full enough of these assholes who really believe
    their own hype?



    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:And7l.7910$...
    > John Smith wrote:
    >> I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >> surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>
    >> I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
    >> at $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>
    >> Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
    >> more reasonable cost?
    >>
    >> With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
    >> need an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

    >
    > I would suggest a 300mm f/2.8 and 1.4x teleconverter to give 420mm f/4.
    > There's a bunch of different versions:
    > http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html
    >
    > I have a manual focus Tokina which has a good reputation and works very
    > well for me but I am lusting for a nicer modern AF Nikkor. The one I
    > really want is a new VR which costs $4,500 :-( but the point here is that
    > anything longer is going to cost more like $7,500 - $9,500 as you
    > mentioned so this is what we can afford, if anything. Earlier AF versions
    > can be found used for around $2,000 and Sigma's is worth looking at too.
    > Old manual versions can be found for $500 to $1500.
    >
    > Nikon's 1.4x teleconverter works great on these lenses: f/4 is still fast,
    > it's really small & a nice piece of optics. The 2x is not as great but is
    > excellent as 2x converters go. 600mm f/5.6 should AF pretty well,
    > especially with an AF-S version.
    >
    > --
    > Paul Furman
    > www.edgehill.net
    > www.baynatives.com
    >
    > all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    John Smith, Jan 2, 2009
    #19
  20. John Smith

    John Smith Guest

    Thanks Pete!




    "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    news:495d61fc$0$22098$...
    >
    > "John Smith" <> wrote in message
    > news:%_97l.28052$...
    >> I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
    >> surfing, and wildlife photography.
    >>
    >> I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
    >> at $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
    >>
    >> Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
    >> more reasonable cost?
    >>
    >> With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
    >> need an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
    >>
    >> TIA---
    >>

    >
    >
    > Have you had a look at the Bigma, I know it works well for many users and
    > it is quite cheap, not sure how it will perform on the D3 though, sorry.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Pete
    >
     
    John Smith, Jan 2, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gary Bettan

    Canopus Edius NX for under $1,000!!

    Gary Bettan, Sep 18, 2005, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    285
    Gary Bettan
    Sep 19, 2005
  2. thebokehking

    Is f/ 1,000,000 a Possible Aperture?

    thebokehking, Nov 12, 2006, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    85
    Views:
    1,454
    thebokehking
    Nov 20, 2006
  3. Paul D. Sullivan
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    605
    dj_nme
    May 27, 2007
  4. Paul D. Sullivan

    What P&S Super Zooms have 205,000-230,000 pixel EVF's?

    Paul D. Sullivan, May 24, 2007, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    143
  5. Pete D
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    416
    Ray Fischer
    Nov 19, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page