| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3734
Location: Switzerland
|
 Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 8:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
stevemark wrote:
| Johan_G wrote: |
Minolta Rokkor-TC 100mm f/4
|
Interesting! That's a lens still missing in my Minolta collection - I do have the 4/100mm Macro Bellow which is a triplet, too. The 4/100mm Macro Bellows [3/3] is pretty poor at infinity, unllike the later [5/4] construction.
I do have the Minolta Rokkor-TC 4/135mm and the 4/135mm Macro Bellows, though - they both seem to have the same optics; at least they seem indistiguishable at infinity.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Johan_G
Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 9
Location: Orebro Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Johan_G wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| Johan_G wrote: |
Minolta Rokkor-TC 100mm f/4
|
Interesting! That's a lens still missing in my Minolta collection - I do have the 4/100mm Macro Bellow which is a triplet, too. The 4/100mm Macro Bellows [3/3] is pretty poor at infinity, unllike the later [5/4] construction.
I do have the Minolta Rokkor-TC 4/135mm and the 4/135mm Macro Bellows, though - they both seem to have the same optics; at least they seem indistiguishable at infinity.
S |
So far, I have only had time for a short walk, so I don't know how well it works for infinity but it seems to be a very nice lens with nice colours and sharpness.
I created a small album with some of the pictures I took yesterday.
https://knytpunkt.com/Album/mino_tc_100mm.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 1507
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
| vanylapep wrote: |
[
Can I ask you a question?
I love the rendering of the Meyer Oreston 50mm f1.8, and I've always heard the Meyer is a cheap version of the CZJ Pancolar 50mm f1.8. Is it true that both have similar bokeh rendering, but the CZJ is superior quality? I've never own both to compare, but looking at specs I see a difference; the Oreston has a minimal focusing distance of 30cm while the CZJ is 35mm.
Now that the Oreston goes for 150$+, which is the same price as the CZJ, if they have the same rendering, I might as well go for the CZJ. Do you or anyone can give some feedbacks?
(Also, is the Pancolar "auto" the same as "electric"?) |
I would not say that the Oreston is the cheap version of the Pancolar. But it's true that in the Praktica Bayonet system there was a Prakticar 50mm f/2.4 that was the cheapest option, then a Prakticar 50mm 1.8, a new incarnation of the Pentacon 50mm, that was a new incarnation of the Oreston 50mm. And finally the Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar was the high end 50mm 1.8, previously named Pancolar. So yes in that sense.
There are two optical versions of the Pancolar 50mm f/1.8. The first one has 6 elements in 4 groups. The second has 6 elements in 5 groups. These will behave similarly to a Oreston but not the same in my opinion.
I have also found that the Oreston with the early zebra style has the wildest bokeh (stronger bokeh edge highlights) compared later versions including Pentacon's.
For me I like both versions of the Pancolar and the early Oreston enough to keep all 3. It would be hard to choose one. With some patience you should be able to find a Oreston for much less than $150. For that price I'd take a Pancolar. Choose if you want the early version with yellow radioactive glass and 8 aperture blades or the later one without radioactive glass and 6 aperture blades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6006
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2021 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| blotafton wrote: |
| vanylapep wrote: |
[
Can I ask you a question?
I love the rendering of the Meyer Oreston 50mm f1.8, and I've always heard the Meyer is a cheap version of the CZJ Pancolar 50mm f1.8. Is it true that both have similar bokeh rendering, but the CZJ is superior quality? I've never own both to compare, but looking at specs I see a difference; the Oreston has a minimal focusing distance of 30cm while the CZJ is 35mm.
Now that the Oreston goes for 150$+, which is the same price as the CZJ, if they have the same rendering, I might as well go for the CZJ. Do you or anyone can give some feedbacks?
(Also, is the Pancolar "auto" the same as "electric"?) |
I would not say that the Oreston is the cheap version of the Pancolar. But it's true that in the Praktica Bayonet system there was a Prakticar 50mm f/2.4 that was the cheapest option, then a Prakticar 50mm 1.8, a new incarnation of the Pentacon 50mm, that was a new incarnation of the Oreston 50mm. And finally the Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar was the high end 50mm 1.8, previously named Pancolar. So yes in that sense.
There are two optical versions of the Pancolar 50mm f/1.8. The first one has 6 elements in 4 groups. The second has 6 elements in 5 groups. These will behave similarly to a Oreston but not the same in my opinion.
I have also found that the Oreston with the early zebra style has the wildest bokeh (stronger bokeh edge highlights) compared later versions including Pentacon's.
For me I like both versions of the Pancolar and the early Oreston enough to keep all 3. It would be hard to choose one. With some patience you should be able to find a Oreston for much less than $150. For that price I'd take a Pancolar. Choose if you want the early version with yellow radioactive glass and 8 aperture blades or the later one without radioactive glass and 6 aperture blades. |
A very good summary.
Thank you for that
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018
Posts: 835
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
Another Vivitar series 1. The 28-90mm 1:2.8-3.5 macro focus by Komine. Note the distance markings on the lens body instead of the focus/zoom ring.
|
Congrats. I received my copy last week with oily aperture blades. I have always been thinking of getting this blue VMC version, although I had the newer white VMC version long time ago.
Vivitar selected this Komine made 28-90, not Kiron made 28-85 as their Series 1, although the 28-85 is also a very good lens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6006
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| vivaldibow wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
Another Vivitar series 1. The 28-90mm 1:2.8-3.5 macro focus by Komine. Note the distance markings on the lens body instead of the focus/zoom ring.
|
Congrats. I received my copy last week with oily aperture blades. I have always been thinking of getting this blue VMC version, although I had the newer white VMC version long time ago.
Vivitar selected this Komine made 28-90, not Kiron made 28-85 as their Series 1, although the 28-85 is also a very good lens. |
The Vivitar S1 Komine made 28-90 has been a excellent performer for me for a long time.
Congratulations.
#1
#2
#3
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2476
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| vivaldibow wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
Another Vivitar series 1. The 28-90mm 1:2.8-3.5 macro focus by Komine. Note the distance markings on the lens body instead of the focus/zoom ring.
|
Congrats. I received my copy last week with oily aperture blades. I have always been thinking of getting this blue VMC version, although I had the newer white VMC version long time ago.
Vivitar selected this Komine made 28-90, not Kiron made 28-85 as their Series 1, although the 28-85 is also a very good lens. |
I have that Kiron, but with massive fungus and lens seperation once optimistically bought for cheap thinking I could fix that Must see whether I can at least put it together again. :p My aperture is OK thankfully. Unlike my series I 70-210 2.8-4 Komine which is really only usable wide open. (Unless I don't lock it in place).
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 802
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Congrats! Praised by many but some claim not so sharp on modern sensors. ... I passed many times on this one in my query for the ultimate transtandard because of weight. |
Well, maybe you'd better avoid those beasts then ...:
Varifocal as well, patented around 1968, fast (f2.8 troughout the entire range), wide-to-tele (35-100mm ... most difficult to construct), and heavy.
S |
Monstrous!
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 802
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Congrats! Praised by many but some claim not so sharp on modern sensors. Would be glad to hear your opinion. I passed many times on this one in my query for the ultimate transtandard because of weight. |
It looks sharp enough to me on first impression. Soft when used wide open at the long end, but that doesn't surprise much and is probably intentional for portraiture. Some of the Tamron Adaptall SP-2 glass may be sharper. But this range and brightness can't be found in AD2. The 27A 28-80mm 1:3.5-4.2 comes closest and that too needs to be stopped down in the long end. |
Thanks for the information. I do like the 27A for the combination of weight and sharpness plus a very flat focus plane that is good for landscapes making for a nice travel lens. But vibrancy should be added a bit to colors when compared to Minolta's and yes you need to stop once at the wide end and twice on the long end. Compromises...
Enjoy the Vivitar and the benefit of a wider aperture.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanylapep
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
vanylapep wrote:
| blotafton wrote: |
I would not say that the Oreston is the cheap version of the Pancolar. But it's true that in the Praktica Bayonet system there was a Prakticar 50mm f/2.4 that was the cheapest option, then a Prakticar 50mm 1.8, a new incarnation of the Pentacon 50mm, that was a new incarnation of the Oreston 50mm. And finally the Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar was the high end 50mm 1.8, previously named Pancolar. So yes in that sense.
There are two optical versions of the Pancolar 50mm f/1.8. The first one has 6 elements in 4 groups. The second has 6 elements in 5 groups. These will behave similarly to a Oreston but not the same in my opinion.
I have also found that the Oreston with the early zebra style has the wildest bokeh (stronger bokeh edge highlights) compared later versions including Pentacon's.
For me I like both versions of the Pancolar and the early Oreston enough to keep all 3. It would be hard to choose one. With some patience you should be able to find a Oreston for much less than $150. For that price I'd take a Pancolar. Choose if you want the early version with yellow radioactive glass and 8 aperture blades or the later one without radioactive glass and 6 aperture blades. |
Thank you for the great explanation. That helps.
I like the unique rendering of the Zebra Oreston, so I guess I'll try to be patient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3734
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| stevemark wrote: |
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Congrats! Praised by many but some claim not so sharp on modern sensors. ... I passed many times on this one in my query for the ultimate transtandard because of weight. |
Well, maybe you'd better avoid those beasts then ...:
Varifocal as well, patented around 1968, fast (f2.8 troughout the entire range), wide-to-tele (35-100mm ... most difficult to construct), and heavy.
S |
Monstrous! |
Yes, certainly. And if you ask why I have three sample of the Konica Hexanon AR 2.8/35-100mm ... well, the first one (an early EE version) was quite expensive at about CHF 200.--, the second one (an AE version) was much cheaper at CHF 80.--, so I couldn't pass it ... and the third one, in rather bad shape with missing rubber and fungus, was found on a flea market for a mere CHF 8.--. I know I should try to clean an repair it 
Performance is rather good as long as you stop down the lens to f5.6, quite comparable to contemporary primes such as the Hexanon AR 2.8/35mm (metal focusing grip). Wide open its rendering is soft and very much "1960s" style with lots of glow.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1036
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
| blotafton wrote: |
| vanylapep wrote: |
[
Can I ask you a question?
I love the rendering of the Meyer Oreston 50mm f1.8, and I've always heard the Meyer is a cheap version of the CZJ Pancolar 50mm f1.8. Is it true that both have similar bokeh rendering, but the CZJ is superior quality? I've never own both to compare, but looking at specs I see a difference; the Oreston has a minimal focusing distance of 30cm while the CZJ is 35mm.
Now that the Oreston goes for 150$+, which is the same price as the CZJ, if they have the same rendering, I might as well go for the CZJ. Do you or anyone can give some feedbacks?
(Also, is the Pancolar "auto" the same as "electric"?) |
I would not say that the Oreston is the cheap version of the Pancolar. But it's true that in the Praktica Bayonet system there was a Prakticar 50mm f/2.4 that was the cheapest option, then a Prakticar 50mm 1.8, a new incarnation of the Pentacon 50mm, that was a new incarnation of the Oreston 50mm. And finally the Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar was the high end 50mm 1.8, previously named Pancolar. So yes in that sense.
There are two optical versions of the Pancolar 50mm f/1.8. The first one has 6 elements in 4 groups. The second has 6 elements in 5 groups. These will behave similarly to a Oreston but not the same in my opinion.
I have also found that the Oreston with the early zebra style has the wildest bokeh (stronger bokeh edge highlights) compared later versions including Pentacon's.
For me I like both versions of the Pancolar and the early Oreston enough to keep all 3. It would be hard to choose one. With some patience you should be able to find a Oreston for much less than $150. For that price I'd take a Pancolar. Choose if you want the early version with yellow radioactive glass and 8 aperture blades or the later one without radioactive glass and 6 aperture blades. |
Do you know if Pentaflex auto-color 1.8 has anything to do with pancolar or oreston ? Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 3468
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
_________________
"I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2856
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2021 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| DigiChromeEd wrote: |
|
Congrats, I love the MD 35/2.8, it’s a killer lens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatorengineer64
Joined: 26 Oct 2017
Posts: 279
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gatorengineer64 wrote:
Any thoughts on the Contax 35 f2.8 versus the Minolta?
_________________
A7R4, GFX50R and a bucket of mflenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2476
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| kiddo wrote: |
Do you know if Pentaflex auto-color 1.8 has anything to do with pancolar or oreston ? Thanks |
The Pentaflex is a rebranded Oreston/Pentacon 50/1.8
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uddhava
Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Posts: 3070
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-06-21
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uddhava wrote:
| Oldhand wrote: |
The Vivitar S1 Komine made 28-90 has been a excellent performer for me for a long time.
Congratulations.
|
Nice samples!
Between the the Canon nFd 2.8-3.5 35-70mm and the Vivitar which do you like better? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KEO
Joined: 27 Sep 2018
Posts: 747
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KEO wrote:
| vanylapep wrote: |
| blotafton wrote: |
| For me I like both versions of the Pancolar and the early Oreston enough to keep all 3. It would be hard to choose one. With some patience you should be able to find a Oreston for much less than $150. For that price I'd take a Pancolar. Choose if you want the early version with yellow radioactive glass and 8 aperture blades or the later one without radioactive glass and 6 aperture blades. |
Thank you for the great explanation. That helps.
I like the unique rendering of the Zebra Oreston, so I guess I'll try to be patient. |
The bargain of the bunch is the plain old Pentacon 50 Auto. That lens is superb for shooting flowers and things wide open, and you can still find them for 30 USD on ebay - occasionally even less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldMark
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 185
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GoldMark wrote:
[quote="lumens pixel"][quote="stevemark"]
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Varifocal as well, patented around 1968, fast (f2.8 troughout the entire range), wide-to-tele (35-100mm ... most difficult to construct), and heavy. |
_________________
Best regards
Bernhard
https://deramateurphotograph.de/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6006
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| uddhava wrote: |
| Oldhand wrote: |
The Vivitar S1 Komine made 28-90 has been a excellent performer for me for a long time.
Congratulations.
|
Nice samples!
Between the the Canon nFd 2.8-3.5 35-70mm and the Vivitar which do you like better? |
Both give very nice results.
The Vivitar has more reach and range, and is still functioning perfectly.
The Canon nFD started to give trouble mechanically and so I sold it. Maybe the notorious plastic bearings were the problem - I am unsure.
The Canon FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 is still going strong.
It is a stellar lens
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018
Posts: 835
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
| Oldhand wrote: |
| uddhava wrote: |
| Oldhand wrote: |
The Vivitar S1 Komine made 28-90 has been a excellent performer for me for a long time.
Congratulations.
|
Nice samples!
Between the the Canon nFd 2.8-3.5 35-70mm and the Vivitar which do you like better? |
Both give very nice results.
The Vivitar has more reach and range, and is still functioning perfectly.
The Canon nFD started to give trouble mechanically and so I sold it. Maybe the notorious plastic bearings were the problem - I am unsure.
The Canon FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 is still going strong.
It is a stellar lens
Tom |
Tom, your sample images show excellent results from this lens. For the nFD 35-70, my copy had the mechanical issue too; mine is the gritty zoom/focus ring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uddhava
Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Posts: 3070
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-06-21
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
uddhava wrote:
| Oldhand wrote: |
| uddhava wrote: |
| Oldhand wrote: |
The Vivitar S1 Komine made 28-90 has been a excellent performer for me for a long time.
Congratulations.
|
Nice samples!
Between the the Canon nFd 2.8-3.5 35-70mm and the Vivitar which do you like better? |
Both give very nice results.
The Vivitar has more reach and range, and is still functioning perfectly.
The Canon nFD started to give trouble mechanically and so I sold it. Maybe the notorious plastic bearings were the problem - I am unsure.
The Canon FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 is still going strong.
It is a stellar lens
Tom |
Thank you. Actually I was thinking of the Canon FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 vs the Vivitar. I happen to see the Vivitar locally for a not so high price and the Canon can be found cheaply on ebay which is tempting because it was such an expensive and good lens when it came out. I already have a Minolta and Tamron SP that are 28-80 or 85 but they open only to 3.5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6006
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| uddhava wrote: |
| Oldhand wrote: |
| uddhava wrote: |
| Oldhand wrote: |
The Vivitar S1 Komine made 28-90 has been a excellent performer for me for a long time.
Congratulations.
|
Nice samples!
Between the the Canon nFd 2.8-3.5 35-70mm and the Vivitar which do you like better? |
Both give very nice results.
The Vivitar has more reach and range, and is still functioning perfectly.
The Canon nFD started to give trouble mechanically and so I sold it. Maybe the notorious plastic bearings were the problem - I am unsure.
The Canon FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 is still going strong.
It is a stellar lens
Tom |
Thank you. Actually I was thinking of the Canon FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 vs the Vivitar. I happen to see the Vivitar locally for a not so high price and the Canon can be found cheaply on ebay which is tempting because it was such an expensive and good lens when it came out. I already have a Minolta and Tamron SP that are 28-80 or 85 but they open only to 3.5. |
The Canon FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 is so superior to the nFD in construction and materials quality in my opinion.
There is a significant difference in size as well.
The FD is well worth getting if you can find one
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uddhava
Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Posts: 3070
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-06-21
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uddhava wrote:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
