Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Voigtlander Color-Dynarex 135mm/F4 M42 (Singapore)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:12 am    Post subject: Voigtlander Color-Dynarex 135mm/F4 M42 (Singapore) Reply with quote
Although I haven't got my suitable M42 to Minolta AF adapter yet, I've done some first sample shots with my "new" Voigtländer 135mm lens all "wide" open at F4 as unable to stop down with my existing adapter.
This time all samples come from the Sony A850 24MP FF camera. All pictures resized for presentation except the last one which is a 100% crop to test CA's which are hardly visible.
Shot RAW; conversion with some adjustments in LR6.
All in all not a bad lens I would say.

Infinity:


Apprx. 10m:


MFD apprx. 1.5m:


Apprx. 15m (crop):


Last edited by tb_a on Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:08 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lens:




PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have this one in Tele-Tessar guise and I like it a lot, sadly mine is in QBM so can't use it on the a850.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have this one in Tele-Tessar guise and I like it a lot, sadly mine is in QBM so can't use it on the a850.


Well, that's the disadvantage of the A850 compared to the A7.

The Rollei twin is exactly the same lens just with other markings if produced in Singapore and even the few produced before in Germany (both versions) are identical but rather rare.

The QBM versions are offered cheaper and are more easy to get nowadays but I was looking for M42 for obvious reasons. I am still looking for some other Voigtländers either in DKL (would be adaptable to the A850) or in M42. Unfortunately the prices are constantly raising for those lenses nowadays. However, sometimes they still are popping up very cheap on fleamarkets and alike outside the evilbay. Mostly in combination with the respective cameras. I have already 2 VSL's which I don't need. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The DKL Voigtlanders are not easy to find and expensive.

However, the Schneider DKLs are common and quite cheap. I have the Xenon 1.9/50, Xenar 2.8/50, tele-Arton 4/85, Tele-Xenar 4/135 and Curtagon 2.8/35. All of them are superb, I use them on my a850. The Xenon is a particular favourite as it has a lot of character but is critically sharp.

The Rodenstock DKLs are very hard to find indeed, sadly.

QBM mount lenses can be a real bargain compared to their C/Y counterparts. I have the Planars 1.4/50 and 1.8/50, Tele-Tessars 4/135 and 3.5/200, Schneider Angulon 2.8/35 and Tele-Xenar 3.5/135. They cost me each about 20-25% of what the equivalent C/Y version would cost. Only downside is they won't fit the a850.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had one of this. Branded Carl zeiss tessar 4/135 in rollei srl Mount.

Excellent rendering as yours, but With haze. Can't be claned. It come and come.

Great 135 lens to me.

Should be diferent of the icarex/bessamatic/ultramatic's super dinarexes.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:

Should be diferent of the icarex/bessamatic/ultramatic's super dinarexes.


According what I've found out so far the lens design is always the same and came all from Voigtländer. There are some different Rollei versions, especially the F3.5 version which was later produced by Mamiya when Singapore was closed down. I studied the history of Voigtländer quite intense over the last time in order to have a clearer picture about the source of the different lenses which may also be marked as Zeiss or Rollei.
The main point is whether the lens was produced at Voigtländer/Braunschweig or later in Singapore, when Rollei closed the production unit in Braunschweig and moved it to Singapore around 1973/74. Obviously after 1977 the production was stopped also in Singapore and Rollei bought lenses from Mamiya and others afterwards. So between mid of 60's in Braunschweig until the end of production in Singapore the design of most of the lenses didn't really change and all of those Voigtländer lenses can be considered as very good to excellent irrespective of mount or brand name.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The DKL Voigtlanders are not easy to find and expensive.

However, the Schneider DKLs are common and quite cheap. I have the Xenon 1.9/50, Xenar 2.8/50, tele-Arton 4/85, Tele-Xenar 4/135 and Curtagon 2.8/35. All of them are superb, I use them on my a850. The Xenon is a particular favourite as it has a lot of character but is critically sharp.

The Rodenstock DKLs are very hard to find indeed, sadly.

QBM mount lenses can be a real bargain compared to their C/Y counterparts. I have the Planars 1.4/50 and 1.8/50, Tele-Tessars 4/135 and 3.5/200, Schneider Angulon 2.8/35 and Tele-Xenar 3.5/135. They cost me each about 20-25% of what the equivalent C/Y version would cost. Only downside is they won't fit the a850.


Did you know that the Schneider's Xenon was the predecessor of the Voigtländer Ultron? Mr. Tronnier used to work for Schneider when he developed the Xenon and moved to Voigtländer to enhance it as the Ultron.
So indeed Tronnier's designs are rather spectacular and very well regarded. The Ultron is most probably one of the best lenses ever built and the Xenon isn't far behind. When the Xenon was developed in the 1930's it was most probably the best lens ever at this time.

However, your list of Schneider DKL's isn't bad at all and most of them are very good to excellent.

I will keep an eye also on those in the future. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
papasito wrote:

Should be diferent of the icarex/bessamatic/ultramatic's super dinarexes.


According what I've found out so far the lens design is always the same and came all from Voigtländer. There are some different Rollei versions, especially the F3.5 version which was later produced by Mamiya when Singapore was closed down. I studied the history of Voigtländer quite intense over the last time in order to have a clearer picture about the source of the different lenses which may also be marked as Zeiss or Rollei.
The main point is whether the lens was produced at Voigtländer/Braunschweig or later in Singapore, when Rollei closed the production unit in Braunschweig and moved it to Singapore around 1973/74. Obviously after 1977 the production was stopped also in Singapore and Rollei bought lenses from Mamiya and others afterwards. So between mid of 60's in Braunschweig until the end of production in Singapore the design of most of the lenses didn't really change and all of those Voigtländer lenses can be considered as very good to excellent irrespective of mount or brand name.


In the past I had all the DKL voigtlander lenses. Filter. Shades. Etc.

Beleve me. The rollei Mount 135/4 and the voigtlander 135/4 have different rendering. Specialy from f/4 to f/8.

The rollei is the Best.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:

Beleve me. The rollei Mount 135/4 and the voigtlander 135/4 have different rendering. Specialy from f/4 to f/8.
The rollei is the Best.


I believe almost everything. I would never underestimate the psychological factor. From the hard facts both lenses are built totally identical even at the same factory. Only the label is different.
I have no experience with their tolerances, i.e. quality control. Somewhere I've read that at the very beginning at Singapore they had some issues concerning Q.C.
So maybe you had a bad copy.
Otherwise it would be purely imagination. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 5:52 pm    Post subject: disguised Tele Tessar Reply with quote
A M42 "Tele Tessar" in disguise from Singapore does exist.

Some were made as samples for Pignons to fit on their Alpas.

According to the leading authority on such matters, it was rejected due to quality concerns.

I believe that this was not due to the optics, but that the aperture pin was sluggish.


p.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
papasito wrote:

Beleve me. The rollei Mount 135/4 and the voigtlander 135/4 have different rendering. Specialy from f/4 to f/8.
The rollei is the Best.


I believe almost everything. I would never underestimate the psychological factor. From the hard facts both lenses are built totally identical even at the same factory. Only the label is different.
I have no experience with their tolerances, i.e. quality control. Somewhere I've read that at the very beginning at Singapore they had some issues concerning Q.C.
So maybe you had a bad copy.
Otherwise it would be purely imagination. Wink


Imagination? Bad copy?

Nice!!!! Very Happy

Both 135 are different lenses With diferent schemes.

Voigtlander's two first elements are glued. Zeiss not. And the last had origen in the contaflex 126 lenses design of 1967 as almost of us know.

From there the more common problema With the voigtlander 135 lens is the unglued first two elements. In the same way the more important problem to buy voigtlander DKL lenses the old glue.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: disguised Tele Tessar Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
A M42 "Tele Tessar" in disguise from Singapore does exist.

Some were made as samples for Pignons to fit on their Alpas.

According to the leading authority on such matters, it was rejected due to quality concerns.

I believe that this was not due to the optics, but that the aperture pin was sluggish.


p.


I'd be very interested to have a pointer to this source of information to fill out my presently sketchy knowledge.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:


Imagination? Bad copy?

Nice!!!! Very Happy

Both 135 are different lenses With diferent schemes.

Voigtlander's two first elements are glued. Zeiss not. And the last had origen in the contaflex 126 lenses design of 1967 as almost of us know.

From there the more common problema With the voigtlander 135 lens is the unglued first two elements. In the same way the more important problem to buy voigtlander DKL lenses the old glue.


I certainly will not argue about Rollei. I don't care about their bayonet lenses anyway. I am also not interested in the original Zeiss designs (before they have adapted some designs from Voigtländer). I never studied their differences.

However, I am coming from the Voigtländer side of the story and their lenses and constructions. Due to their unhappy history (taken over by Zeiss and then by Rollei) their lenses have been sold under different brand names and with different mounts (DKL, QBM and M42) for different 35mm SLR cameras, although they all have been designed and built by Voigtländer/Braunschweig and later in Singapore.

All I am saying is that their 135mm Dynarex was also available with Zeiss and Rollei branding. 100% identical. However there have been also other lenses with Zeiss and Rollei branding which have been somehow different; e.g. Rollei had for the SL35 different 135mm lenses in their program. There was also a Zeiss production in Oberkochen where they have made some other lenses, aside from the CZJ plant which is a totally different story after WW II until their reunion in the 90's.

You stated that you had my lens in Zeiss branding. If that is the case it was made by Voigtländer exactly the same way as the original Voigtländer lens. It may also be that you had another version but that I cannot know.

So if you had the same lens then the picture quality and the rendering must have been the same. So far so good.

Suddenly you claim that you had another lens. So what is your problem?

At the end of the day it's solely your problem. I am happy with my Voigtländer lenses and don't care what's written on the lenses as long as they are in an adaptable mount also for my Sony A850.

The story with Zeiss branded lenses is far more difficult and complicated anyway. Some of them like the Planar 50mm/F1.7 for the Contax is also at least based on the Voigtländer Ultron design as it turned out that this is the optimal design for such a lens. Both are therefore 7/6 lenses which was very unusual for this class of lenses in the 70's. Even the Summicron R was only 6/4.

At least there are besides the already mentioned Dynarex 135/4 and Ultron 50/1.8 some other original Voigtländer SLR lenses available in different brandings and mounts: 35/3.4 Skoparex, 50/2.8 Skopar, 90/3.4 Dynarex and 200/4 Dynarex.

Everything else from Zeiss and Rollei is logically anything different. Sometimes also a modified Voigtländer design, sometimes something totally different, even from Mamiya, Kiron, Kyocera, Cosina or some other factory. I don't really care.

That's the whole story about the last "original Voigtländer" SLR lenses until the Voigtländer lens production was finally killed by Rollei in the late 70's and the Voigtländer brand name went to Foto Ring Germany where they have sold some crappy lenses and cameras from Japan branded as Voigtländer. Since Cosina started at the end of last century with the Bessa and the RF lens production under the Voigtländer branding the quality raised considerably again.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Okay, let's see if I can make sense of this.

The last Voigtlander designed lenses sold were the ones for the Icarex. The Super-Dynarex 4/135 is a very sharp lens but like all the other Icarex lenses, is of quite low contrast due to the blue coloured single coating. These lenses come in both Icarex Bayonet and M42 as they changed the mount on the Icarex camera to M42 during it's production run. The bayonet ones only fit mirrorless cameras and adapters are expensive so the lenses are much cheaper than the M42 ones.

The Rollei/Voigtlander lenses in the QBM mount for the SL35 series and VSL series are Zeiss designs, the same lenses as sold under the Zeiss branding for the Contax SLRs. The Tele-Tessar 4/135 and Sonnar 2.8/135 are the same lens, whether in QBM or Contax mounts, the only difference being where they were made and what coating they have - the ones made by Zeiss themselves have T*, the ones made elsewhere have HFT.

There are also the Rolleinar/Voigtlander AR lenses in QBM, these were cheaper but still excellent. Mostly made by Mamiya and the same as their SX lenses in M42, just with a different mount and brand. Some of the zooms like the 4/80-200 are Tokinas.

The Planar 1.8/50 only comes in QBM mount, Zeiss themselves never produced it. Whether it counts as a Zeiss design or a Voigtlander design is open to debate. It is the final iterration of the Ultron family but was designed when Voigtlander has been absorbed into Zeiss Ikon.

Personally, I think the Zeiss T* Sonnar 2.8/135 is the best of the bunch but the Tele-Tessar 4/135 and Mamiya made 2.8/135 are very close in performance, so is the Schneider Tele-Xenar 3.5/135 in QBM and the Zeiss Jena Prakticar (Sonnar) 3.5/135 in Pentacon Bayonet mount. I have them all apart from the T* as it's three or four times the price of the others and I'm happy with the ones I have as I have a dozen more 135s.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:30 am    Post subject: Re: disguised Tele Tessar Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

I'd be very interested to have a pointer to this source of information to fill out my presently sketchy knowledge.


There are several books available about the whole Voigtländer story and there are also some very informative web-publications. However, everything is solely in German.
In some rather rare instances it's not bad to understand the German language as well, especially when the German (in case of Voigtländer also partly Austrian) camera history is the topic. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
...... ....... So what is your problem?..........


My problem?

Well. From now please try to avoid any commentary about mine.

I can say that was a placer, but was not.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 4:47 am    Post subject: Alpa info source Reply with quote
Further to the question above ad source of info on Alpas rejection of Rollei-Singapore products:

In Lothar Thewes book on Alpa (Lindemanns Verlag) on page 127 there is a very brief statement to that effect, but no details.

My Alpa\Rollei 135\4 has a slightly sluggish auto-aperture pin in the M42 mount.( This was at the time when Alpa had given up getting their own mounts and were comissioning optics with M42 mounts while adding their own very robust adapter.)

The aperture pin on the 35mm Alpa\Rollei (Distagon?) does not seem to behave in the same way.

p.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Okay, let's see if I can make sense of this.

The last Voigtlander designed lenses sold were the ones for the Icarex. The Super-Dynarex 4/135 is a very sharp lens but like all the other Icarex lenses, is of quite low contrast due to the blue coloured single coating. These lenses come in both Icarex Bayonet and M42 as they changed the mount on the Icarex camera to M42 during it's production run. The bayonet ones only fit mirrorless cameras and adapters are expensive so the lenses are much cheaper than the M42 ones.

The Rollei/Voigtlander lenses in the QBM mount for the SL35 series and VSL series are Zeiss designs, the same lenses as sold under the Zeiss branding for the Contax SLRs. The Tele-Tessar 4/135 and Sonnar 2.8/135 are the same lens, whether in QBM or Contax mounts, the only difference being where they were made and what coating they have - the ones made by Zeiss themselves have T*, the ones made elsewhere have HFT.

There are also the Rolleinar/Voigtlander AR lenses in QBM, these were cheaper but still excellent. Mostly made by Mamiya and the same as their SX lenses in M42, just with a different mount and brand. Some of the zooms like the 4/80-200 are Tokinas.

The Planar 1.8/50 only comes in QBM mount, Zeiss themselves never produced it. Whether it counts as a Zeiss design or a Voigtlander design is open to debate. It is the final iterration of the Ultron family but was designed when Voigtlander has been absorbed into Zeiss Ikon.

Personally, I think the Zeiss T* Sonnar 2.8/135 is the best of the bunch but the Tele-Tessar 4/135 and Mamiya made 2.8/135 are very close in performance, so is the Schneider Tele-Xenar 3.5/135 in QBM and the Zeiss Jena Prakticar (Sonnar) 3.5/135 in Pentacon Bayonet mount. I have them all apart from the T* as it's three or four times the price of the others and I'm happy with the ones I have as I have a dozen more 135s.


All in all we are not far away with our understandings. Wink
I think the only difference is what we consider as Zeiss or Voigtländer. Under Zeiss ownership Voigtländer still existed as a more or less separate and almost independent company in Braunschweig. Zeiss was more a group of companies than a single company. It also included e.g. Gauthier-Deckel for the apertures.
Therefore some people are considering everything which came from Voigtländer still as Voigtländer product, even when it carried the Zeiss or Zeiss Ikon brand name. This is specially the case with the Icarex.
Some lens designs came also still from the bureau of A.W. Tronnier. Maybe it was also a reason for their collective failure that Voigtländer and Zeiss coexisted more or less independently although they have been organized under the Zeiss Trust in Oberkochen. In the very end they had 5 different incompatible SLR systems within the trust!!! Most of them more than outdated compared to the Japanese competition.
I even go a step further and consider the successors of the original Voigtländer lens designs still as "original" Voigtländer if the lenses came from their premises in Braunschweig and even later on in Singapore under Rollei ownership. However, this maybe also a matter of taste or interpretation.
We can certainly agree that the whole story is more than difficult and it was even hard to understand for me although all those information has been available in German.
But I am also well aware that there are some English publications available which are considering the Icarex including the lenses as Zeiss product and don't even mention the name Voigtländer for it. Obviously that has also something to do with the very high reputation the Zeiss name still has all over the world. I personally would rate the Voigtländer developments from the 50's and 60's even higher. That certainly was one of the reasons why Zeiss was more than interested to incorporate Voigtländer into their trust in the late 50's. They considered Voigtländer as their strongest competitor which certainly had also the better lenses after the introduction of the Ultron concept from Tronnier which then was also adopted by Zeiss themselves which finally led to the "Zeiss Planar". In the 50's (before change of ownership) the game was rather Voigtländer vs. Leitz for the competition about the best camera lenses.
So finally (for me) the only open topic for discussion or interpretation is whether the Singapore versions from the already listed original Voigtländer designs of the different Skoparex/Dynarex/Ultron/Lanthar lenses are considered as Voigtländer rather than as Zeiss or even Rollei. For me those lenses are still Voigtländers for some other people they are considered as Zeiss or Rollei. As also already mentioned there are also some other lenses (already for the Icarex (e.g. the 25mm lens) and later on also for some Rollei 35 cameras or even Voigtländer branded ones which have nothing to do with the original Voigtländer designs. Here is still a lot of confusion and to be honest, I don't want to evaluate all those details further because that's really a chaotic scenery which is also related to the copyright ownership of Voigtländer designs by Zeiss and Rollei at the same time and also to the production of Zeiss lenses by Rollei and Kyocera at the same time.
Finally we can say that this whole story was somehow a prototype for the best way to destroy a whole camera industry of a country (Voigtländer/Zeiss/Rollei/etc.). Only Zeiss Oberkochen managed to survive mainly because they also had some other optical products outside the camera industry and they stopped to develop and produce cameras since the early 70's themselves. Zeiss GDR was a totally different story which is by no means comparable.
So the only real survivor out of the originally very strong and powerful German camera industry is Leitz (as a full producer and supplier of cameras and lenses) which was also near bankruptcy in the beginning of this century. Luckily an Austrian family trust helped them to survive and reorganize their business. I think Leitz camera business is still owned by them nowadays, but I'm not sure.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am in full agreement with you Thomas.

The reason why I say there can be a little debate as to whether the Panar 1.8/50 is Voigtlander or Zeiss is because Tronnier did the redesign from the Ultron after Zeiss bought Voigtlander, but as you say, it is really a part of the Voigtlander legacy of lens design.

Yes, Voigtlander lead the world in lens design for a brief period after ww2, probably up until the early 1960s when the Contarex lenses came from Zeiss and new designs came from Leica. A large part of why Zeiss bought Voigtlandder was to get their hands on Tronnier and his design team. Lenses like the Septon and Ultron 7 element 50mms and the 10 element Skopagon 40mm were the best of their time and rightfully command good prices today (hence I don't own them) quite a bit above what you an buy a contemporary Schneider Xenon 1.9/50 for, that said, the Contarex Planar 2/50 is also an expensive one and according to reports, is perhaps the best 50mm lens of that era, but it is uncommon and expensive so few of us have tried one to really know, certainly it's mtf charts are impressive.

One part of the Voigtlander philosophy, and they played on it in their advertising, was that the camera was really all about the lens and it was the high quality of their Color-Skopar and Ultron that sold so many Vitos and Vitomatics. This philosophy was copied with success later by other makers such as Olympus with their Trip which has a very good lens. If it was the 50s or first half of the 60s and you were an enthusiastic amateur, the Vito with a Color-Skopar was about the best you could do an a budget, from the late 60s through most of the 70s, an Olympus Trip with it's very good Zuiko was one of the most popular options. This illustrates how the Japanese took over from the Germans in the camera business.

I think most of the confusion stems from the renaming of things after Zeiss bought Voigtlander - a good example is how they called the Icarex 4/3 50mm lens design a Tessar rather than what it really was - a Color-Skopar. We can say with confidence that the Icarex lenses are Voigtlanders in both design and construction. It is with the following series that things get more mixed up where we get lenses that are Zeiss designs but labelled Voigtlander and made in at least 3 different factories - Zeiss in Oberkochen, Rollei in Braunschweig and Rollei in Singapore. Add to that the Voigtlander AR lenses which are Mamiyas or Tokinas and it's a headache.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
tb_a wrote:
...... ....... So what is your problem?..........


My problem?

Well. From now please try to avoid any commentary about mine.

I can say that was a placer, but was not.


Obviously we have a bi-directional communication problem. Sorry for that. I didn't intent to be offensive or impolite.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Neither of you are native English speakers but are using English to communicate.

That leaves open a vast array of possibilities for misunderstandings.Smile


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
papasito wrote:
tb_a wrote:
...... ....... So what is your problem?..........


My problem?

Well. From now please try to avoid any commentary about mine.

I can say that was a placer, but was not.


Obviously we have a bi-directional communication problem. Sorry for that. I didn't intent to be offensive or impolite.


Well. Nothing was happened for me.

Not sorry. We will continue voigty's lenses discussion later. I was a collector of them for more of 30 years
.
Love them

Regards


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rollei and Zeiss Tele-Tessar 4/135 (QBM) = Voigtländer Color Dynarex 4/135 (M42 or QBM)

The Voigtländer Super Dynarex 4/135 (DKL) is a older design and not the same.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
QBM mount lenses can be a real bargain ..... I have ....3.5/200, ....


I'm quite curious to see a pic of Your 3,5/200 in QBM mount, only 4/200 was commonly made.
Thanks for showing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2