View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
hacksawbob
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1293 Location: LANCS UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: The 50 1.4 shoot out |
|
|
hacksawbob wrote:
These are all at 1.4 surprise leader of the pack in terms of sharpness anyway, look for the loose red threads on the left edge of the blue tie for the true test!
in order from memory from worst to best
Revunon (I think tomioka)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2016/2286901380_b831aa490b_o.jpg
Super tak non smc
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2286908880_47ec31d833_o.jpg
Oly
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/2286893724_803f43e382_o.jpg
Contax Zeiss planar
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2350/2286099395_cd543a4e09_o.jpg
Yashica ML
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2287/2286879504_b6406796c0_o.jpg _________________ LENS LIST |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Bob, it seems to me that the Planar shot is front-focused.
I'm not a big fan of this kind of tests, but I think that you should remake it shooting an identical scene (the scenes here are different), and taking, for each lens, at least 5 photos with slight focus adjustments - in other words, focus-bracketing - and then pick for each lens the most focused one.
- _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hacksawbob
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1293 Location: LANCS UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hacksawbob wrote:
Yes I couldn't believe the tests my self, obviously at 1.4 the focus is critical so I redid the ML and Planar tests 3 times and this was the result I achieved. I still have the lenses so I could retest just these two. Certainly there is potential for copy variation to account fo the difference. _________________ LENS LIST |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
hacksawbob wrote: |
Yes I couldn't believe the tests my self, obviously at 1.4 the focus is critical so I redid the ML and Planar tests 3 times and this was the result I achieved. I still have the lenses so I could retest just these two. Certainly there is potential for copy variation to account fo the difference. |
If you are interested in going on, I think you should photograph something flat, like a newspaper page hanged on a wall. Line up the tripod with a bubble lever and this way you should remove all possible variation factors except your manual focusing - for which a 5 or better 7 takes braketing will do. I remember the last time I made such a test, I took 11 takes with just slightly different focusing adjustments - well you may not believe that but all 11 of them were distinguisheably different - a proof that even a very slight touch on the focusing ring can make a difference.
Oh I forgot to say - such test only tells about near range performance. Infinity performance can be different. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
So can middle distance, depending very crucially on the focal length of the lens and the intent of the designer. All lens design is basically a series of trade-offs and unhappily cost control often wins. On the other hand tests like this can get us looking critically and really making comparisons. Thanks Bob, and thanks to Orio for being our referee.
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
My own feeling is that the Planar is definitely front focused - if you look at the lettering in the bottom left corner it really seems to show. On the other hand I dont feel there is a bad one there.
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ingo
Joined: 15 Nov 2007 Posts: 71 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ingo wrote:
I have also shoot out all my 1.4/50 lenses against the Zeiss Planar ZS. To my surprise, the other lenses Supertak, Mamiya Sekor, Tomioka make darker images at f1.4 as the Planar.
I think, the real aperture is f1.8. The cause is probably the light yellow cast of this lenses.
The Zeiss Planar was optimized for middle and far distance. At this point shines this lens against all other 50s.
Ingo _________________ Sigma SD9, SD14; Flektogon 2.8/20, 2.4/35; CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135, 2.8/180 T; Meyer Optik Trioplan 2.8/100V, Orestor 2.8/100, Pentacon 4/300;
Mamiya Sekor 2.8/35, 1.4/55, 3.5/200; Pentax SMC Takumar 3.5/28, Supertakumar 1.4/50; Tomioka Auto-Tominon 1.4/55; Yashinon DS-M 1.7/50; Helios-40
http://www.pbase.com/inghar |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vilva
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 785 Location: Porvoo/Borgå, Finland
Expire: 2015-05-27
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
vilva wrote:
Ingo wrote: |
I have also shoot out all my 1.4/50 lenses against the Zeiss Planar ZS. To my surprise, the other lenses Supertak, Mamiya Sekor, Tomioka make darker images at f1.4 as the Planar.
I think, the real aperture is f1.8. The cause is probably the light yellow cast of this lenses. |
The aperture value is always 1.4, it is geometrically defined as the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the aperture irrespective of the light transmission capability of the lens. You'll need this real f-value for DOF calculations. Of course, for setting the exposure you'll need an adjusted "f-value" which takes into account all the various losses in the real, physical lens.
Veijo _________________ Mainly Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar (1938), VPK Meniscus Achromat (1915), TTH Cooke Anastigmat (1917), TTH Cooke Aviar (1937), Goerz Dopp-Anastigmat III Dagor (1912), Voigländer Heliar (1928) or Aldis Uno Series III (1903 design) mounted on EOS 5D or EOS 350D |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Perhaps I got you wrong, Veijo, but f1.4 is f1.4. That means that any lens that shows f1.4 can be compared with any other f1.4 lens (unless there is some kind of cheating by the manufacturers).
That is the reason why the f-stops have been invented in the first place, to be able to compare different lenses.
So not only the geometrical relation between aperture and barrel length has to be considered when a manufacturer "names" a lens, but also the character of the lenses inside.
Of course, you will always find some differences, because some manufacturers interpret f-stops more "tolertant" than others.
I have used an f1.8 lens that (at f1.8), in practical usage, was about as fast as f1.4 lenses normally are (at f1.4). And I have got 2.8/135 lenses that (at f2.8) do not make any difference to my Zeiss 4/135 at f4.
But this is not like it is supposed to be. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vilva
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 785 Location: Porvoo/Borgå, Finland
Expire: 2015-05-27
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
vilva wrote:
patrickh wrote: |
On the other hand I dont feel there is a bad one there. |
Given all the vagaries of MF focusing, the only lens which sticks out is the old Takumar with its slightly lower contrast and higher lens flare. Under the circumstances for which most people buy these fast lenses, i.e. for low light shots, even the Takumar might be well nigh impossible to tell apart from the rest, and the focus is likely to be off, anyway, as a 1.4/50 has an about 13 cm DOF at 2 m on a 5D and only about 8 cm on a crop body, that is, the traditional DOF, which is no good for pixel peeping. These days, I do rather use a slightly smaller aperture with correspondingly higher ISO in order to increase the DOF even at the expense of slighly increased noise or grain.
Veijo _________________ Mainly Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar (1938), VPK Meniscus Achromat (1915), TTH Cooke Anastigmat (1917), TTH Cooke Aviar (1937), Goerz Dopp-Anastigmat III Dagor (1912), Voigländer Heliar (1928) or Aldis Uno Series III (1903 design) mounted on EOS 5D or EOS 350D |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vilva
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 785 Location: Porvoo/Borgå, Finland
Expire: 2015-05-27
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
vilva wrote:
LucisPictor wrote: |
Perhaps I got you wrong, Veijo, but f1.4 is f1.4. That means that any lens that shows f1.4 can be compared with any other f1.4 lens (unless there is some kind of cheating by the manufacturers).
That is the reason why the f-stops have been invented in the first place, to be able to compare different lenses. |
Yes, you got it wrong. For really comparing lenses you'd need a T-number instead of an F-number. A T-number takes into account all the factors affecting exposure and is often indicated on cine lenses and even some "normal", especially zoom lenses. See e.g. http://www.photography-forums.com/t34962-tstops-.html
This is, for comparing the required exposures. Say, we have two geometrically equal Zeiss Tessars made of the same types of glass, one MC and the other uncoated. Due to the losses at the six uncoated glass-air surfaces, the uncoated Tessar will require about 0.6 stop more exposure at a given aperture setting. An uncoated Tessar made of some older types of glass may require even more compensation. However, at equal f-settings, equal FL lenses will have equal DOFs.
Veijo _________________ Mainly Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar (1938), VPK Meniscus Achromat (1915), TTH Cooke Anastigmat (1917), TTH Cooke Aviar (1937), Goerz Dopp-Anastigmat III Dagor (1912), Voigländer Heliar (1928) or Aldis Uno Series III (1903 design) mounted on EOS 5D or EOS 350D |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Ah, yes, of course, you're right. I forgot about the "t-stops" which I had read about some time ago, but failed to remember.
So, a t-stop of "1.4" is the same with any lens, since it indicates how much light really "comes out at the end", not an f-stop. If two lenses are said to have a t-stop of "2.0" then these two lenses will expose the same. With two lenses with "f2.0" there might be a difference.
Keeping that in mind (this time), my above mentioned experiences with the lenses make a lot more sense.
How could I forget that?! Sorry! _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
vilva wrote: |
... 1.4/50 has an about 13 cm DOF at 2 m on a 5D and only about 8 cm on a crop body... |
Why is that? I always thought that the DoF of one lens is the same, no matter which sensor size is used...
I thought that the different DoF of different sensors is a result of different focal lenghts that must be used to get the same FoV... _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
LucisPictor wrote: |
vilva wrote: |
... 1.4/50 has an about 13 cm DOF at 2 m on a 5D and only about 8 cm on a crop body... |
Why is that? I always thought that the DoF of one lens is the same, no matter which sensor size is used...
I thought that the different DoF of different sensors is a result of different focal lenghts that must be used to get the same FoV... |
OK, I have found that:
"The DOF changes because of the way we handle the recorded images. The CCD records a smaller portion of the projected image. Thus, that image must be enlarged more to produce the final photograph. This, by itself, would yield less DOF. But, we move further away from the subject so we can get identically framed photographs. The longer subject distance increases the DOF. Subject distance has a stronger influence on DOF than does image enlargement. Thus, the DOF is greater in the DSLR photograph."
Here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_dslr.html
(Sorry for the OT, Bob.) _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BobDodds
Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 87
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
BobDodds wrote:
Comparing the Revuenon to Yashica, the exposure looks different. Maybe that is the coatings. If you gave the Revuenon a little more light it might be the same as the Yashica. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
LucisPictor wrote: |
So, a t-stop of "1.4" is the same with any lens, since it indicates how much light really "comes out at the end", not an f-stop. If two lenses are said to have a t-stop of "2.0" then these two lenses will expose the same. With two lenses with "f2.0" there might be a difference.
|
Which also means two lenses with the same t-stop and different f-stop, while exposing the same, will have different DOF.
Thought experiment: an lens at f/1.4, a second lens at f/4 and a third lens at f/1.4 with a 4-stop ND filter on the front. One and three have the same DOF. Two and three need the same exposure. _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|