prime for pentax

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by manyBobs, Apr 11, 2009.

  1. manyBobs

    manyBobs Guest

    I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    but still good?

    thanks
     
    manyBobs, Apr 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. manyBobs

    Sander Guest

    manyBobs wrote:
    > I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > but still good?
    >
    > thanks


    FA 35mm f/2.0 AL.

    S.R.
     
    Sander, Apr 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "Sander" <> wrote in message
    news:b10c4$49e041bf$4dfa3230$...
    > manyBobs wrote:
    >> I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    >> around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    >> but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    >> but still good?
    >>
    >> thanks

    >
    > FA 35mm f/2.0 AL.
    > S.R.


    If you can get one they are a great lens.
     
    Pete D, Apr 11, 2009
    #3
  4. manyBobs

    manyBobs Guest

    Thanks,

    The FA 35mm 2.o AL seems tober selling at the high end of my budget
    and I will look into it as a definate possibility. What about non
    Pentax ( Sigma?) Are other mfg. worth considering?

    thanks
    >
    > > FA 35mm f/2.0 AL.
    > > S.R.

    >
    > If you can get one they are a great lens.
     
    manyBobs, Apr 11, 2009
    #4
  5. manyBobs

    Steve Guest

    "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    Thanks,

    The FA 35mm 2.o AL seems tober selling at the high end of my budget
    and I will look into it as a definate possibility. What about non
    Pentax ( Sigma?) Are other mfg. worth considering?

    thanks
    >
    > > FA 35mm f/2.0 AL.
    > > S.R.

    >
    > If you can get one they are a great lens.




    Sigma 30mm f/1.4 works well.


    --
    Steve Kenney Photography

    410 533-1404

    www.stevekenneyphotography.com

     
    Steve, Apr 11, 2009
    #5
  6. manyBobs

    Nobody Guest

    smc DA Pentax 35mm f:2.8 Macro is was CAD $450 but April 1st jumped to $700
    CAD. Hoya doesn't want to sell Pentax lenses.... As Pentax prices jumped
    from 10% to as high as 200% on some items.


    "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > but still good?
    >
    > thanks
     
    Nobody, Apr 11, 2009
    #6
  7. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > but still good?
    >
    > thanks


    When I bought my DS many years ago the first lens I bought was a DA16-45mm
    F4, not overly fast but a brilliant lens, it is the main lens I use on my
    K10D. I am still using a good example of the 18-55 kit lens on my DS and
    getting good results, are you shooting to its strengths?

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Apr 11, 2009
    #7
  8. manyBobs

    manyBobs Guest

    On Apr 11, 4:47 pm, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > >I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D.  Something
    > > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > > but still good?

    >
    > > thanks

    >
    > When I bought my DS many years ago the first lens I bought was a DA16-45mm
    > F4, not overly fast but a brilliant lens, it is the main lens I use on my
    > K10D. I am still using a good example of the 18-55 kit lens on my DS and
    > getting good results, are you shooting to its strengths?
    >
    > Pete


    I like shooting available light, so I'm using the kit lense wide open
    at higher ISO, so no I'm not shooting to it's strengths ;-). The 1.4
    would be nice for the lowest light conditions but from the reviews
    I've looked at , the 2.0 is the better lens overall in most available
    light situations.
     
    manyBobs, Apr 12, 2009
    #8
  9. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Apr 11, 4:47 pm, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > >I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > > but still good?

    >
    > > thanks

    >
    > When I bought my DS many years ago the first lens I bought was a DA16-45mm
    > F4, not overly fast but a brilliant lens, it is the main lens I use on my
    > K10D. I am still using a good example of the 18-55 kit lens on my DS and
    > getting good results, are you shooting to its strengths?
    >
    > Pete


    <I like shooting available light, so I'm using the kit lense wide open
    <at higher ISO, so no I'm not shooting to it's strengths ;-). The 1.4
    <would be nice for the lowest light conditions but from the reviews
    <I've looked at , the 2.0 is the better lens overall in most available
    <light situations.

    I have an FA 50 1.4 and it is a seriously great lens, sharpens up nicely
    from F2, the 35mm is sharp wide at f2. If you want to play around the
    seriously most lovely lens for low like shooting I have is an old M42
    Taukumar 55mm F1.8, tack sharp wide and the creamiest bokeh I have ever
    seen, manual all the way though but worth it if you have the time.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Apr 12, 2009
    #9
  10. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Sander <> wrote in news:b10c4$49e041bf$4dfa3230$7975
    > @news.chello.nl:
    >
    >> manyBobs wrote:
    >>> I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    >>> around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    >>> but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    >>> but still good?
    >>>
    >>> thanks

    >>
    >> FA 35mm f/2.0 AL.
    >>
    >> S.R.

    >
    > Or 45mm f2.8 pancake. About $300.00.


    Perhaps you mean the 40mm?
     
    Pete D, Apr 13, 2009
    #10
  11. manyBobs

    manyBobs Guest

    On Apr 12, 5:27 pm, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Apr 11, 4:47 pm, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >news:...

    >
    > > >I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > > > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > > > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > > > but still good?

    >
    > > > thanks

    >
    > > When I bought my DS many years ago the first lens I bought was a DA16-45mm
    > > F4, not overly fast but a brilliant lens, it is the main lens I use on my
    > > K10D. I am still using a good example of the 18-55 kit lens on my DS and
    > > getting good results, are you shooting to its strengths?

    >
    > > Pete

    >
    > <I like shooting available light, so I'm using the kit lense wide open
    > <at higher ISO, so no I'm not shooting to it's strengths ;-). The 1.4
    > <would be nice for the lowest light conditions but from the reviews
    > <I've looked at , the 2.0 is the better lens overall in most available
    > <light situations.
    >
    > I have an FA 50 1.4 and it is a seriously great lens, sharpens up nicely
    > from F2, the 35mm is sharp wide at f2. If you want to play around the
    > seriously most lovely lens for low like shooting I have is an old M42
    > Taukumar 55mm F1.8, tack sharp wide and the creamiest bokeh I have ever
    > seen, manual all the way though but worth it if you have the time.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Pete


    OK, lets open this up the manual focus. Are there older manual focus
    lens in the 35mm to 40/45 mm range that are worth considering? ( I'm
    out of practice, but yes I have used fully manual cameras in the old
    days so maybe I should consider an older lens))
     
    manyBobs, Apr 14, 2009
    #11
  12. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Apr 12, 5:27 pm, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Apr 11, 4:47 pm, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >news:...

    >
    > > >I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > > > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > > > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > > > but still good?

    >
    > > > thanks

    >
    > > When I bought my DS many years ago the first lens I bought was a
    > > DA16-45mm
    > > F4, not overly fast but a brilliant lens, it is the main lens I use on
    > > my
    > > K10D. I am still using a good example of the 18-55 kit lens on my DS and
    > > getting good results, are you shooting to its strengths?

    >
    > > Pete

    >
    > <I like shooting available light, so I'm using the kit lense wide open
    > <at higher ISO, so no I'm not shooting to it's strengths ;-). The 1.4
    > <would be nice for the lowest light conditions but from the reviews
    > <I've looked at , the 2.0 is the better lens overall in most available
    > <light situations.
    >
    > I have an FA 50 1.4 and it is a seriously great lens, sharpens up nicely
    > from F2, the 35mm is sharp wide at f2. If you want to play around the
    > seriously most lovely lens for low like shooting I have is an old M42
    > Taukumar 55mm F1.8, tack sharp wide and the creamiest bokeh I have ever
    > seen, manual all the way though but worth it if you have the time.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Pete


    OK, lets open this up the manual focus. Are there older manual focus
    lens in the 35mm to 40/45 mm range that are worth considering? ( I'm
    out of practice, but yes I have used fully manual cameras in the old
    days so maybe I should consider an older lens))

    Good way to choose a nice lens cheaply is to find one on Ebay and then have
    a look at Stans site for some basic info from users about the lens.

    http://stans-photography.info/

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Apr 14, 2009
    #12
  13. manyBobs

    OG Guest

    "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > but still good?
    >
    > thanks


    If you're happy to go with manual focus and use Aperture priority, you
    shouldn't have any problem picking up an old K mount 50mm f/2 or f/1.8 for
    next to nothing on ebay.
     
    OG, Apr 15, 2009
    #13
  14. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "OG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    >> around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    >> but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    >> but still good?
    >>
    >> thanks

    >
    > If you're happy to go with manual focus and use Aperture priority, you
    > shouldn't have any problem picking up an old K mount 50mm f/2 or f/1.8
    > for next to nothing on ebay.
    >
    >


    Get the F1.7 if you can, seriously sharp, the F2's in the 50mm's are
    generally soft.
     
    Pete D, Apr 16, 2009
    #14
  15. manyBobs

    manyBobs Guest

    On Apr 16, 3:01 am, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    > "OG" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >>I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D.  Something
    > >> around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > >> but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > >> but still good?

    >
    > >> thanks

    >
    > > If you're happy to go with manual focus and use Aperture priority, you
    > > shouldn't have any problem picking up an old K mount 50mm f/2 or  f/1..8
    > > for next to nothing on ebay.

    >
    > Get the F1.7 if you can, seriously sharp, the F2's in the 50mm's are
    > generally soft.


    just a reminder - I'm looking for a 35 or 40mm lens not a 50

    thanks
     
    manyBobs, Apr 16, 2009
    #15
  16. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Apr 16, 3:01 am, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    > "OG" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > "manyBobs" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >>I looking to upgrade from my kit lens on my Pentax K100D. Something
    > >> around 35m -40m or so. The Pentax 43m 1.9 would probably do the trick,
    > >> but I'm on a budget. Are there alternatives that are less expensive
    > >> but still good?

    >
    > >> thanks

    >
    > > If you're happy to go with manual focus and use Aperture priority, you
    > > shouldn't have any problem picking up an old K mount 50mm f/2 or f/1.8
    > > for next to nothing on ebay.

    >
    > Get the F1.7 if you can, seriously sharp, the F2's in the 50mm's are
    > generally soft.


    >just a reminder - I'm looking for a 35 or 40mm lens not a 50


    >thanks


    Yes but the poster I was answering mentioned the 50mm F2 and I was answering
    him.

    For you, find the money and buy the 31mm, if you can't do that then just get
    the 35mm F2.

    Oh and please set your reader to indent your posts, that way I don't have to
    make them distinguishable from other people posts..

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Apr 16, 2009
    #16
  17. manyBobs

    OG Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >>"manyBobs" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>just a reminder - I'm looking for a 35 or 40mm lens not a 50

    >>
    >>>thanks

    >>
    >>Yes but the poster I was answering mentioned the 50mm F2 and I was
    >>answering
    >>him.
    >>
    >>For you, find the money and buy the 31mm, if you can't do that then just
    >>get
    >>the 35mm F2.
    >>
    >>Oh and please set your reader to indent your posts, that way I don't have
    >>to
    >>make them distinguishable from other people posts..

    >
    > Can you run that last paragraph by with different words?
    > I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean.
    > That is, I don't know what you mean my "indent your
    > posts", and I don't understand how or why you or that
    > would make the "distinguishable".
    >
    > Can you reword it, or expand a bit?
    >


    It's the old
    'Outlook-Express-/-Windows-Mail-doesn't-indent-/-quote-properly-when-responding-to-posts-made-via-google-groups-using-certain-browsers'
    problem.
     
    OG, Apr 17, 2009
    #17
  18. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "OG" <> wrote:
    >>"Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote:
    >>> "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >>>>"manyBobs" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>just a reminder - I'm looking for a 35 or 40mm lens not a 50
    >>>>
    >>>>>thanks
    >>>>
    >>>>Yes but the poster I was answering mentioned the 50mm F2 and I was
    >>>>answering
    >>>>him.
    >>>>
    >>>>For you, find the money and buy the 31mm, if you can't do that then just
    >>>>get
    >>>>the 35mm F2.
    >>>>
    >>>>Oh and please set your reader to indent your posts, that way I don't
    >>>>have
    >>>>to
    >>>>make them distinguishable from other people posts..
    >>>
    >>> Can you run that last paragraph by with different words?
    >>> I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean.
    >>> That is, I don't know what you mean my "indent your
    >>> posts", and I don't understand how or why you or that
    >>> would make the "distinguishable".
    >>>
    >>> Can you reword it, or expand a bit?
    >>>

    >>
    >>It's the old
    >>'Outlook-Express-/-Windows-Mail-doesn't-indent-/
    >>-quote-properly-when-responding-to-posts-made-via-google-groups-using-certain-browsers'
    >>problem.

    >
    > This is Usenet, not google-groups. *Nothing* is
    > dependant upon "indent" (other than continuation of a
    > header on the next line, but that is not in the body of
    > the message).
    >
    > The OP's messages were formatted, near as I can tell,
    > perfectly.
    >

    Actually I have no idea what you are talking about, whats a google group?
     
    Pete D, Apr 17, 2009
    #18
  19. manyBobs

    OG Guest

    "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    news:49e83ae0$0$29873$...
    >
    > "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "OG" <> wrote:
    >>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote:
    >>>> "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >>>>>"manyBobs" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>just a reminder - I'm looking for a 35 or 40mm lens not a 50
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>thanks
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Yes but the poster I was answering mentioned the 50mm F2 and I was
    >>>>>answering
    >>>>>him.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>For you, find the money and buy the 31mm, if you can't do that then
    >>>>>just
    >>>>>get
    >>>>>the 35mm F2.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Oh and please set your reader to indent your posts, that way I don't
    >>>>>have
    >>>>>to
    >>>>>make them distinguishable from other people posts..
    >>>>
    >>>> Can you run that last paragraph by with different words?
    >>>> I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean.
    >>>> That is, I don't know what you mean my "indent your
    >>>> posts", and I don't understand how or why you or that
    >>>> would make the "distinguishable".
    >>>>
    >>>> Can you reword it, or expand a bit?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>It's the old
    >>>'Outlook-Express-/-Windows-Mail-doesn't-indent-/
    >>>-quote-properly-when-responding-to-posts-made-via-google-groups-using-certain-browsers'
    >>>problem.

    >>
    >> This is Usenet, not google-groups. *Nothing* is
    >> dependant upon "indent" (other than continuation of a
    >> header on the next line, but that is not in the body of
    >> the message).
    >>
    >> The OP's messages were formatted, near as I can tell,
    >> perfectly.
    >>

    > Actually I have no idea what you are talking about, whats a google group?


    You initially complained about the lack of indents in manyBobs's post.

    That is because he replied to the newsgroup using the google groups web
    interface whilst using Firefox 3.
    This has the effect of setting the following parameter value.
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Setting the value to "quoted-printable" means that Outlook Express doesn't
    properly indent the response unless used with Quotefix. Other newsreaders
    seem to ignore the value and set the indent as expected.

    Opinion is divided as to whether the root cause of the problem is with OE or
    GG.

    Browser testing shows that the OE problem occurs on google groups responses
    made using IE, Chrome or Firefox 3, but not with Firefox 2.
     
    OG, Apr 17, 2009
    #19
  20. manyBobs

    Pete D Guest

    "OG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    > news:49e83ae0$0$29873$...
    >>
    >> "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> "OG" <> wrote:
    >>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote:
    >>>>> "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>"manyBobs" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>just a reminder - I'm looking for a 35 or 40mm lens not a 50
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>thanks
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Yes but the poster I was answering mentioned the 50mm F2 and I was
    >>>>>>answering
    >>>>>>him.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>For you, find the money and buy the 31mm, if you can't do that then
    >>>>>>just
    >>>>>>get
    >>>>>>the 35mm F2.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Oh and please set your reader to indent your posts, that way I don't
    >>>>>>have
    >>>>>>to
    >>>>>>make them distinguishable from other people posts..
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can you run that last paragraph by with different words?
    >>>>> I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean.
    >>>>> That is, I don't know what you mean my "indent your
    >>>>> posts", and I don't understand how or why you or that
    >>>>> would make the "distinguishable".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can you reword it, or expand a bit?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>It's the old
    >>>>'Outlook-Express-/-Windows-Mail-doesn't-indent-/
    >>>>-quote-properly-when-responding-to-posts-made-via-google-groups-using-certain-browsers'
    >>>>problem.
    >>>
    >>> This is Usenet, not google-groups. *Nothing* is
    >>> dependant upon "indent" (other than continuation of a
    >>> header on the next line, but that is not in the body of
    >>> the message).
    >>>
    >>> The OP's messages were formatted, near as I can tell,
    >>> perfectly.
    >>>

    >> Actually I have no idea what you are talking about, whats a google group?

    >
    > You initially complained about the lack of indents in manyBobs's post.
    >
    > That is because he replied to the newsgroup using the google groups web
    > interface whilst using Firefox 3.
    > This has the effect of setting the following parameter value.
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    >
    > Setting the value to "quoted-printable" means that Outlook Express doesn't
    > properly indent the response unless used with Quotefix. Other newsreaders
    > seem to ignore the value and set the indent as expected.
    >
    > Opinion is divided as to whether the root cause of the problem is with OE
    > or GG.
    >
    > Browser testing shows that the OE problem occurs on google groups
    > responses made using IE, Chrome or Firefox 3, but not with Firefox 2.
    >

    Ahhh, in that case it would be both GG and all other readers, those readers
    don't do as they are told it would seem but OE does.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Apr 17, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

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. Chris Stolpe
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    1,131
    Stacey
    Jan 22, 2005
  2. 223rem
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    1,274
    cjcampbell
    Nov 25, 2005
  3. phk

    Why so few prime lenses sold?

    phk, Nov 16, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    714
    Stacey
    Nov 20, 2005
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Primary (prime) lens for Canon 300D

    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 18, 2005, in forum: Canon
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    414
    ian lincoln
    Nov 21, 2005
  5. Paul Furman

    30mm F1.4 APS 45mm eq. 'normal' prime

    Paul Furman, Feb 26, 2006, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    940
    Alan Browne
    Mar 5, 2006
  6. fatboybrando

    prime lens for portrait photos recommendations

    fatboybrando, Mar 22, 2006, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    497
    Paul J Gans
    Mar 26, 2006
  7. Dick Derfy

    EOS prime lens choice

    Dick Derfy, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    496
    street shooter
    Aug 5, 2003
  8. Moe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,595
    Princess
    Jan 10, 2004
Loading...