Customer Discussions > photography discussion forum

lens help please

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 39 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Mar 2012 23:50:53 GMT
psn: tqfan says:
hey all, been a while since i lasted posted in here. i'd have thought that in that time, i would have understood what i'm about to ask, but alas, no...

i need help with lenses, in that, i'm not sure what a few things mean. i've looked online but it's all double dutch to me. i just want a simple sentence that says 'this is what *that* means'.

what is an aspherical lens? what does it do compared to a normal lens?

what focal length is considered 'wide-angle'?

i have a sony dslr, and am looking to add a wide angle lens to my kit, but i really don't know which 'mm' is best! i see some lenses with the same focal length, but one will say it's wide angle, the other will not, which is confusing me very much!!

i have more questions, but that will do for now. thanks =)

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 00:17:27 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Mar 2012 09:49:15 GMT
G. E. Hearn says:
Aspherical lenses contain an aspherical glass element in their design. Means basically nothing. Ignore it. Manufacturers put it on the box because it looks good, like in the old days when all cars had "Injection" written in chrome on the bootlid for the same reason.
What does it do? Allows lens makers to get better performance whilst using fewer pieces of glass, thus making the lens lighter and cheaper than it would have been in days of yore. It's a bit of design/manufacture bragging really on the part of the maker. It's of no consequence to the end user.

Wide angle? Hmm... I know nowt of Sony's system, so I'll let others answer that one, but basically the lower the number the wider it is. An 18mm lens will give a wider view than a 35mm for example. Obviously this isn't always a good thing, because you can run into "Fisheye" effects at the wider end (Known as barrel distortion, because it makes things have blown-out sides like a barrel). Then you can also get the opposite problem at the long end of a cheaper zoom, which is known as pincushion distortion (because the picture puffs up in the middle like a pillow).

As a very, very rough guide (Because it's late and I'm tired!) get yourself a reasonable wide zoom lens, but be prepared not to use it too much at the extremes of its range, more in the central 3/4's or so. The lower the aperture number the better too. The best you'll get will be a constant F/2.8 in zooms, but these will be horrifically expensive. I'd say something F/3.5-4.5 would be good, although most these days seem to be F/4-5.6 which is not as good in low light, although perfectly fine and dandy if sunny days are your bag:

My rule of thumb is that the more guff a lens maker has printed all over the barrel, the more amateur it is. The Japanese are the kings of this. They put all sorts of random rubbish on there "Professional Super Milkman Snowboard Hero Action" and such.
If you look at a real professional Nikon lens for example it'll just have a small brass plate which says "80-200" (The focal length range on a 35mm film frame or full-frame digital) "F/2.8" (The maximum aperture) then maybe "AF" (Auto Focus) and "S" (built-in focus motor, so it works on any Nikon SLR from the last twenty years or so). Sometimes it'll have "VR" (Vibration reduction) also. That's really all anyone needs to know.
I'm not sure what Sony will write on theirs as I only use Nikon personally as far as modern cameras go, but I'm sure someone on here will be happy to enlighten you.

You can quite honestly waste a lifetime studying optical science as it relates to lens design, but spend an hour or so on the Interweb and you'll get quite enough info to make a more informed selection than relying on the commission-driven opinions of clowns in chain stores:

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 07:46:32 GMT
G E Hearn puts it quite succinctly for us seasoned photographers. However if you are still mystified: 50 mm is a standard lens - it takes photographs of what your eyes would see if looking directly ahead (i.e. 1-2-1); as the numbers become smaller, the angle of view becomes wider - good for landscape photography; as the number gets above 50 mm, you are looking at lenses more suited to portraits and macro (going in close) photography.

Zoom lenses have a range such as 18-55 mm or 55-200 mm - these allow the photographer to stand in one place and zoom in (bringing the subject closer) or out (pushing the subject further away). Zoom lenses are very useful for travel photography as you can use one lens to get a good range (an 18-200 mm zoom would be a good choice).

As you get more specialised in your photography, you will hear about macro lenses (which allow you to take your camera closer to the subject); fisheye lenses (which distort the view into a circular image), extension tubes (which increase the length of the lens); close up lenses (which allow you to go in even closer than a macro lens and enlarge the subject accordingly); different types of flashguns and tripods/monopods - all essential pieces of kit as you become more proficient in your craft.

Have a look at some of the photographs submitted on If there is something you particularly like you can view the "exif data" where you can see what camera, lens and settings were used to take the shot. This should make it much clearer to you.

I hope this helps.

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 09:46:35 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Mar 2012 09:54:59 GMT
G. E. Hearn says:
Thanks to Mrs S.W. for the clarification.

That's a very good point she makes, with reference to a 50mm lens being the field of normal view for the human eye. Good way to explain it! I find the 50mm F/1.8 is my all time favourite glass, and the lens I try to use the most simply because the results look so good. But anyway, back to wide angle:

Just one minor point that I forgot to mention:
Make SURE you're comparing like with like. My Nikon wide zoom for my film cameras (to take a quick and familiar example) goes from 28mm to 85mm.
The wide zoom for my digital Nikon goes from 18-70mm, yet they have almost identical fields of view. How so? Because the digital is a "Cropped Sensor" camera. This means that the sensor is quite a bit smaller than a single frame of the old-fashioned 35mm film, so the lenses are also correspondingly different sizes, to focus the same field of view onto a smaller area.

This can be a real pain, because sensor sizes differ slightly between makes. How do you know what the width of the field is in reality?

Well, most lens makers (thankfully) will also list the focal length somewhere in the specs as a "35mm equivalent" number, so as long as you compare these figures between makers then you'll be using a sort of mental "level playing field". This will help you build up a far more accurate picture of how your results will look.

I really don't know how this half-baked system has come to be an accepted standard. What's wrong with listing the angle of view in degrees?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 14:49:55 GMT
I am a Sony owner - and I have several lenses.
I wouldn't disagree with any of the above.
Firstly, do you have the kit lens - 18-55mm? or 18 - 70mm?
Don't bother about VR - Nikon have it because their cameras don't have anti shake (SSS) like our Sonys do, in the body. That does mean Sony fit lenses are simpler.
"Standard lens" is a much debated term depending on whether you take field of view or perspective as the standard. I take field of view because that's what we have always done - thus the standard lens is about the same as the diagonal of the sensor (or negative in film cameras)
The standard focal length for a Sony with APS-C sensor (same as Nikon) would be 30mm. This is about mid range in a kit lens, unsurprisingly. I assume that you don't have a full frame Sony A850 or A900? If you do then please say soon - this does make a difference.
At 18mm your kit lens will be at quite a wide angle and you probably already notice some distortion if there is a straight line near the edge of the picture.
If you want to go wider you will want something like an 11mm to 18mm or 10mm to 20mm or whatever. You will not get a particularly wide aperture though.
Wide angles have greater depth of field than longer focal length lenses so you will get nearly everything in focus from quite near to distance.
A relatively wide aperture lets you focus selectively and you can throw the foreground or background out of focus. Also the wider aperture lets in more light.
I use a Tamron 17=50mm constant f2.8 lens which I bought off Ebay. Its very good even wide open
I also have a Tamron 11mm to 18mm wide angle zoom which is not bad but has a very moderate aperture between f4.5 and f5.6. Frankly, I don't find it all that useful. Remember that at 11mm its like a 35mm camera with a 16mm lens - which is very wide.
Aspherical lens elements are often moulded plastic by the way - not only are they much cheaper but they allow fewer elements and they save weight because the plastic is less dense than glass too. Other than that they have no real significance - just as others have said. Before and just after WW2 all lens boasted "anastigmat" on them. It did mean something but it didn't need to bother the photographer.
Remind us what camera and lens you have, what you hope to do with a wide angle lens and we can be a bit more specific.

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 15:43:26 GMT
X says:
Hi Doc! For me the crucial effect of lenses with various focal lengths is the impact on perspective. You can move to any distance from a subject, or crop the resulting shot, as much as you want, but the perspective, so a large element of the composition of a shot, will remain unchanged.

Take a shot down the middle of a continuously built-up street with a lens of 50mm focal length, then make a shot from the same spot with a lens of 100mm focal length. Go to your PC and crop the 50mm shot so that its width and height are half what they were, then expand the result so the finished article is the same size as the shot was at the beginning. Compare that with the unmodified shot with the 100mm focal length. Chalk and cheese. Understanding perspective effectively opens a third dimension for what is, of course, two dimensional work.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Mar 2012 16:12:49 GMT
Hi Ed,
You are right, of course, which is why I drew the distinction. However, just as a Bronica has a 75mm or 80mm lens as standard, a 35mm has a 50mm lens the 'standard' field of view would be with the 30mm lens (more or less).
With a compact this is even more so because the small sensor size dictates the use of a short focal length lens.
Its a bit of a bind really but tqfan is on the look out for a wide angle so I assume he is more concerned with field of view than perspective just now.

Posted on 16 Mar 2012 22:26:35 GMT
G. E. Hearn says:
This looks rather nice:

Apart from the price tag of course! But it does go to show how much money an ultrawide can cost if you want the best. I think I'll stick to my garden-variety Nikons thanks all the same.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 09:56:25 GMT
Hello GEH: As a Nikon user myself, I recently purchased the Nikon 10-24 mm lens (best ued with a tripod - although can be hand held too) which I took to Lapland with my D300s to photograph the Aurora Borealis. Fab lens and stood up to -42 degrees C better than me. I always read Ken's reviews and those in NPhoto magazine
which is dedicated to Nikon users. It really depends on what you are planning to shoot and what your budget is. The 18-55 mm kit lens I got with my D40X is great for travel photography and much lighter too. (Both lenses have Nikon's VR [vibration reduction].) Although the 18-55 can be used without a tripod as it is light enough, good landscape photographers swear by their tripods.

I hope this helps.

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 10:45:11 GMT
Rookie1 says:

I too am a rookie on Photography was recently bought the Sony NEX-5ND which I think is a fab camera, and lots smarter than it's user!!!! However, I am after some help with Lenses like others, I would like to be able to take really close up stuff (butterflies etc) and stuff far away(birds of prey). I got with my camera the "pancake" lense E16mm and the E18-55mm which I dont think really give me what I want (although could be corrected)! What I'd like to know like many, is what makes fit Sony NEX 5N's and also the best price with obviously quality, with what lense type I should buy!!!! If any of you experts can help a damson in distress that would be great. "Rookie"

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 11:09:05 GMT
Hi Rookie1: Your camera uses lenses with the Sony E mount. There are a few on Amazon.

A macro lens (one that shoots at 1-2-1) is what you should look for when shooting flowers and butterflies - also think about investing in a tripod for close up photographs if you are going to get serious. There are a lot of table top tripods out there that are not too expensive and will support a compact camera like yours.

For shooting Birds of Prey (BoP), depends whether they are wild or in captivity and what you want to capture: in flight or portrait. Your 18-55 mm lens would be a good choice for in-flight images as you would need a wide angle to capture their full wing span. The sky is the limit for shooting portraits so maybe it depends more on your budget. The SEL-55210 is a reasonable telephoto at 55-210 mm and would be a good addition to the lenses you currently own - it is also reasonably priced.

I hope this helps.

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 12:46:24 GMT
X says:
Rookie: Use, use and use again the kit you have, work with RAW-jpeg files so you can enlarge to your heart's ease and still have good Image Quality. That will show you where your kit cannot "carry" your ambitions and where your money will be best spent. You have a fantastic little camera, which even the most devoted doo-dah stirring reviewers struggle to put down. Give it time to show you what you can achieve with it. (It is already far more capable than the kit carried by some of the greatest photographers.) Post some of your work on Picasa or similar. Don't just give us the links, tell us what you wanted to achieve, what you think went well, what you think you could have improved.

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 13:08:12 GMT
G. E. Hearn says:
Mrs SW:

Yes, I always find "Uncle Ken's" reviews of equipment to be fairly honest. People complain that he's too much of a Nikon man, but I find he's extremely honest in this regard. If Nikon make some rubbish he'll say so.
I was in Gray's Of Westminster again two days ago buying myself some new toys for my film cameras, and they always push me to join their Nikon owner's club with its lovely magazines and great technical info.
I decline of course, because I can't afford things like a D4, so I have no need to read reviews or advice on them. My Nikon gear is mainly 35mm film. I don't envisage replacing my D90 for many, many years to come!

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 21:38:36 GMT
psn: tqfan says:
apologies for not getting back sooner =/

thank you for all the replies. i especially liked the ones that assumed i'm a beginner, lol!! i wouldn't say i was, but maybe a beginner to wide angle, as macro has been more my speciality.

Doc, i have the 18-70mm kit lens. i have just checked my sister's kit and she has the 18-55mm kit lens. i guess i've been a bit thick here, as they are wide angle, yes??

i have a sony alpha 200, but have been looking at upgrading to a better camera. i was looking at the a700 for a while, but it would be a dream to get the a850 or a900. i am led to believe sony are bringing out a new 'pro' camera soon, but again, i could be wrong!

i also have the sony 50mm 1.8 lens and the tamron 90mm 2.8 lens (which is the most awesome lens i have used!) and i also have a (half broken) sigma 70-300mm 4-5.6 lens. if i remember correctly, the gears have gone in it, i read somewhere the lens is too slow for the camera (but i could be wrong). sigma want at least 80 to fix it, but it cost me not much more than that, so i'm not bothering. my sister has the tamron 70-300mm which i borrow, and i can still use the sigma on manual focus (on auto focus is the problem, it makes a horrendous noise). it's my birthday next weekend, so i've asked for the lens to be replaced. either with the 70-300 or the 18-200, i'm not sure yet. any advice on that?

i have seen a Tamron AF 19-35mm 3.5-4.5 super wide angle lens online, but i believe it is discontinued, so may be hard to find. i'll have a look on ebay.

i have seen the tamron SP AF10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 @ 380 on here, and also the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR LD @ 260 on here. quite a few to choose from, since these are only the tamron lenses, lol!!

i get laughed at for using sony, and am basically told they are crap, by my lecturers at college, who use canon and nikon. i have said if i were ever to change, it would most likely be canon. but i still love my sony, and i don't believe them to be as crap as they think. they're set in their ways and won't change...
maybe this is why i haven't looked seriously at the higher end sony cameras for a while. i'd love to upgrade, but am not sure whether to change or not =/

sorry if i have missed replying with anything. i won't disappear this time!

Posted on 17 Mar 2012 22:34:41 GMT
X says:
psn:tqfan: If you have Sony and you like Sony, stick with Sony whatever the mafiosi of any other brand may wheel out. I'm an Olympus-nut myself, but we are gentle souls and prefer to be thought of as disciples, tifosi, even lovers of that great, infuriating, brilliant and erratic brand.

Watch Olympus screw-up the launch of the EM-5. After all, they've only got 50% more advance orders than they forecast, so they don't need to stop yakking, go home and get their shirt-sleeves rolled up, do they? Do they?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 22:36:35 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2012 22:40:08 GMT
Thanks for the info. Are you familiar with - it has all the gen on Sony fit lenses and all things Sony/Minolta. Sony cameras are very good in my opinion - the Nikon D90 uses the Sony snsor from the A700, for instance. But when choosing I would always go to a shop and try them. They need to fit your hands and the menus need to suit your needs.
I'm not impressed by the attitude of your college lecturers - I'd have hoped that they would teach photography not crude puerile fanboy prejudice. Why is your Sony crap? Look at the reviews - they hold their own against Canon and Nikon of equivalent price. Frankly all dSLRs are pretty good. However, Sony, Pentax and Olympus dSLRs have anti shake built into the body so you don't need expensive IS or VR lenses. You can see plenty of goods pics on Sony sites on Flickr. If I changed I'd go for Nikon. Canon have a history of making changes to their system which renders the old gear obsolete. Nikon do too, to some extent but most old lenses can fit many Nikon dSLRs - ask Graham Hearne. An ex weeding photograper I know used to use Canon for work - but when he retired he bought a Nikon 5100 because he said he prefered the handling.
It's true that the 18-70 is not as good as the 18-55 but someone on this site recently opined that the Canon kit lens was pretty poor too. I like my Tamron 17-50 which I use on a Sony a700. This replaced my much loved a200. Even at f2.8 the Tamron is very good - see this for proof: See also Flickr groups devoted to the 17-50mm Tamron.
The conventional wisdom about the Tamron 18-200 lens is that it is inferior to the 18-250 or 18-270. I had an 18-250 - its not bad but distortion is fairly noticeable and the maximum aperture is poor at the long end. It does save changing lens though - handy on a beach. I do like the Tamron 55-200 which I have good experiences of.
Have you considered the Sony SLTs? The EVFs are not quite my cup of tea but then my A700 has an excellent pentaprism viewfinder, I don't like video nor do I miss live view.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2012 23:51:47 GMT
psn: tqfan says:
thanks X (ed, yeah?) i love my camera. and maybe i am a sony nut, i am using a vaio laptop (my 2nd vaio), my tv is a bravia (there's another bravia in the house) and (as you might have got from my username), i am a playstation owner.
people like what they like, but i don't go telling canon/nikon users they're camera is crap =/ also, my first digital camera was an olympus mju and it was awesome, had super macro and is where my love for macro came from.

Doc, thanks also. i have heard of dyxum but didn't realise it was dedicated sony! i will take a look around there.
before i got my a200 i did look at reviews, and they said sony was the best for that level of camera. it's won awards. i'd have hoped my lecturers would be subjective, but they are also stuck in the 'mac's are best' mindset, too. having used those at college, i find them no better or worse than my windows machine.

your photo of the (95%) wolf is awesome! i'm on flickr (as tqfan), just been going through my pics. they're un-edited, and there's quite a few random ones i needed to do for college. might be time for a clearout and put up more recent ones.
i like your bird pictures, with the 55-200. i'm not fussed if i have to change lenses, that's why i got the 70-300 in the first place. not sure how often i would be at a beach, too, they're quite a drive from me!
one day i'd like to be photographing penguins and otters in their natural environment, that's a dream too.

as for the SLTs i have looked at them, but was not sure what the difference between SLT and SLR was. i assume my lenses can still be used on the SLTs? tbh, i have no interest in video, and same as you, i don't miss live view. i think i would much prefer the a850 or a900. but then, i'm not sure how my lenses would do with those bodies, so that may mean lens upgrades, too.

a few things to think about for me!! thank you for the replies, again!! i'm going to have a nosey around dyxum now!!

Posted on 18 Mar 2012 00:45:36 GMT
psn: tqfan says:
just looking for the tamron 55-200, it's the A15 model, yeah? i found it for 90 at currys/dixons, is that right?! it has good review scores on dyxum. better than the 70-300...

okay, so i have another question, and it will probably make me sound like a beginner, but i guess this is the technical stuff i don't know. i'm not doing a photography course, i'm doing visual communications, which is made up of all different modules, photography being one. i wish they had the dedicated photography course here, cos then i might know this...
anyways, the 55-200 info states - boasts an impressive close-focus distance of 95cm throughout its entire zoom range, and is therefore great for taking close-up details! - what does that mean? does that mean that if i am 95cm from the object i am taking a picture of, it will zoom right in, and still focus? so at the 55mm end i will get a full shot of the object, but at 200mm i will get a close up of say, the head??


In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 06:52:17 GMT
Hi tqfan,
I like the bit about the playstation - It tickled me because I'm from the age of steam engines and I don't do games consoles. The nearest I came to gaming was playing the original space invaders on the "Pet" back in the 70s. I do have a Sony tv that I'm pleased with though.
The difference between the SLTs and an SLR is the difference between old school optical and modern EVF viewing. The SLR has an optical viewfindervia a mirror through the lens, as you know, and this allows the use of phase detection auto focus - which is very fast. When using live view cameras use a different, generally slower, system called contrast detection. However, the operation of the mirror reduces the speed with which consecutive shots can be taken. Eliminating the mirror allows faster operation - but how to retain phase detection focussing? Unlike us many people like to use live view and so Sony have borrowed an old idea first used on the Canon Pellix, back in the days of film. Instead of a mirror which flips up out of the way they have installed a semi silvered mirror which only diverts a small amount of light to the phase detect focussing system whilst letting most of it pass to the sensor. Live view is then used for the EVF and you get live view on the rear screen. The advantage of a live view EVF is that you see the pic as it will appear - with vivid colour, B&W, normal or whatever style you have selected. It can keep focussing while taking pics continuously at great speed (10 fps). Some people like it but it isn't quite the same as an optical system and I prefer not to change the habits of the last 50 years. I'm sure it will improve though and I may succumb eventually. The system is explained in:
Jeff Keller is a bit of a Canon man so his liking of the Sony is fair.
Most entry level and enthusiast dslrs have a 17mm x 25mm (roughly) sensor, called APS-C (after the size used on the Advanced Photo System film camreas) but the A850 and A900 have full frame (24mm x 36mm - like 35mm neg) sensors like the professional models. The smaller sensor cameras can have lenses which don't need to cover such a wide angle and these are smaller and lighter than full frame lenses. If you use a full frame coverage lenses on a camera with a small sensor then the camera just uses the centre bit of the lens and the field of view is in proportion to the size of the sensor. Hence a standard 50mm lens would give the same field of view as a 75mm lens would on a 35mm camera. However, the perpective given by a 50mm lens will be the same whatever the size of sensor or film. This means that lenses designed for small sensors normally will not cover full frame and you will get vignetting. You could use them and crop the pictures - but that rather defeats the object of using full frame.
As to your question about the Tamron lens; you are correct - it should be able to focus down to 0.95m when set to any focal length. That is the case with the minimum focussing distance of my 17-50 lens. (I'd check the 55-200 but I haven't got it with me). Obviously it's not macro though its not bad.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 07:00:47 GMT
Oh, by the way, the canon Pellix bombed. Using only 33% of the light for viewfinding and manual focussing ensures a dark screen and with only 66% of the light going to the film the lenses had to be made of larger aperture to make sense of the F numbers. Even though the Pellix had no mirror it had to have a blind to cover the viewfinder when the shutter was open so that stray light from the viewfinder wouldn't fog the film. Therefore it had just as many moving parts as a normal Canon SLR and was crap. ( I remembered most of the above but had to check facts and figures on the net)

Posted on 18 Mar 2012 15:19:03 GMT
psn: tqfan says:
commodore?! aahhh, the commodore 16 was my first computer, and we stuck with them through to the amiga. great machines. the nintendo entertainment system (NES) was my first console back in the 80s.
i've had a read of that link, very interesting and informative. as was your post! sometimes you just need someone to explain it in better terms, lol!
okay, i'm off to hand in my birthday lens request, read over those links again and have another serious think about upgrading my camera body. i'm sure if i have any more questions i will be back!! thanks again for all your help =)

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2012 15:44:48 GMT
Good luck with it.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Mar 2012 15:48:03 GMT
Phantom says:
As Mrs Willoughby said, if your shooting at a falconry center then your 50mm plus lens will do.
Now shooting in the wild different kettle of fish I shoot Ospreys in Scotland at a distance of about 5-6
hundred yards, and you do need a big lens 600-1200mm with a x2 converter problem is shake I have
to use a tripod and bungee cords and tie it to a tree to stop the shake.
The thing is with wild life they don't come close so you got to no what your shooting and adapt.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Mar 2012 00:06:31 GMT
psn: tqfan says:
whereabouts in Scotland? just curious as i'm in scotland!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Mar 2012 14:25:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Mar 2012 14:50:53 GMT
Phantom says:
Hard to give directions. lochfleet and if you go up over the mounting there's a loch on the top where they hunt, but it's the wrong time of year they are only just coming back home have seen as many as
five at a time hunting there in june.
A good 100-400 lens is needed for the top loch Laoigh and loch buidhe.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the photography discussion forum (764 discussions)


This discussion

Participants:  10
Total posts:  39
Initial post:  15 Mar 2012
Latest post:  18 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions