Professional Web Applications Themes

Canon 17/40 f/4L - Photography

Again, Miro... All these things you tell me can be applied even better to yourself... Perhaps you should start offering yourself advice instead. " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ef70bc1$0$26638$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u... > > "Ubiquitous" <ubiquitousiinet.net.au> wrote in message > news:3ef6f152$0$31507$5a62ac22freenews.iinet.net. au... > > Some of the things you argue for defy logic and reasoning. No amount of > > 'experience' can explain blatant logically incorrect statements. > > > > I have plenty to offer other than ysis of you. However, this > particular > > part of the thread is all about you. > > Get a life. Or ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    Again, Miro... All these things you tell me can be applied even better to
    yourself...

    Perhaps you should start offering yourself advice instead.

    " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3ef70bc1$0$26638$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    >
    > "Ubiquitous" <ubiquitousiinet.net.au> wrote in message
    > news:3ef6f152$0$31507$5a62ac22freenews.iinet.net. au...
    > > Some of the things you argue for defy logic and reasoning. No amount of
    > > 'experience' can explain blatant logically incorrect statements.
    > >
    > > I have plenty to offer other than ysis of you. However, this
    > particular
    > > part of the thread is all about you.
    >
    > Get a life. Or lease one.
    >
    >

    Ubiquitous Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L


    "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
    news:bdctv1$1hp$1newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:3ef4846e$0$26633$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    > > "Danny Smith" <smithbcdspam.me.baby> wrote in message
    > > news:3ef43b3a.168662033news...
    > > > Of course! I'm so glad you posted this, I just realised I don't need
    > > > any of my current zooms!
    > > >
    > > > You genius, Miro, you've revolutionised photography forever. No
    > > > longer will anyone need anything more than a single prime lens!!!
    > >
    > > So you can actually tell me the difference between a 15mm and a 17mm
    lens
    >
    > Be happy to. If we're talking about these lenses: Canon 17-40 f4 and the
    > Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5, the former has a diagonal field of view of 74deg and
    > the latter 110.5deg. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be the Sigma 17-35
    > f/2.8-4 which has has a 103.7deg diagonal fov.
    >

    You mean to say that the Sigma 17mm has a FOV 103.7 degrees and the Canon
    17mm has a FOV of 74 degrees.

    Am I reading that correctly ?

    And that 7 degrees of arc, 103 degrees versus 110 degrees produces
    measurably large changes in composition at a distance of 2 feet (600mm) ?

    This I must see ?

    I think you should stick to what is possible.


    Miro Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    >
    > The Sigma 17mm gives an horizontal 38in fov - 11ins better than the Canon.
    >
    > Again the above is back of the envelope calcs - anyone feel free to
    correct
    > them, but it's good enough for government work in my book.
    >
    One minute you quote diagonal then you quote horizontal ....... lay off the
    shiraz hey.


    Miro Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3efa0551$0$26638$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    > "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
    > news:bdctv1$1hp$1newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3ef4846e$0$26633$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    > > > "Danny Smith" <smithbcdspam.me.baby> wrote in message
    > > > news:3ef43b3a.168662033news...
    > > > > Of course! I'm so glad you posted this, I just realised I don't
    need
    > > > > any of my current zooms!
    > > > >
    > > > > You genius, Miro, you've revolutionised photography forever. No
    > > > > longer will anyone need anything more than a single prime lens!!!
    > > >
    > > > So you can actually tell me the difference between a 15mm and a 17mm
    > lens
    > >
    > > Be happy to. If we're talking about these lenses: Canon 17-40 f4 and
    the
    > > Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5, the former has a diagonal field of view of 74deg
    and
    > > the latter 110.5deg. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be the Sigma
    17-35
    > > f/2.8-4 which has has a 103.7deg diagonal fov.
    >
    > You mean to say that the Sigma 17mm has a FOV 103.7 degrees and the Canon
    > 17mm has a FOV of 74 degrees.
    >
    > Am I reading that correctly ?
    Yes, unless I, of course did not. Source:
    [url]http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/lenschart.htm[/url]
    [url]http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/ultrawide_zoom_l[/url]
    enses/ef%2017-40mm_specs.html
    >
    > And that 7 degrees of arc, 103 degrees versus 110 degrees produces
    and 74deg for the Canon, who actually quote the horizontal fov as 84deg
    > measurably large changes in composition at a distance of 2 feet (600mm) ?
    My simple trig calcs were based on a 3ft separation from the focal point and
    the wall.
    > This I must see ?
    >
    > I think you should stick to what is possible.
    As I invited in my other post - feel free to correct my simple trig calcs,
    it is entirely possible that I hav misapplied the notion of angle of fov to
    calculate the linear fov coverage 3ft away from the focal point. But I'd
    hazard that my errors are +/- 1in well within a suitable "rule of thumb"
    reckoning for this discussion.

    What do you calculate as the physical dimensions captured/viewable by these
    lenses at 3ft from the photographer?

    --
    Eric Hocking
    "A closed mouth gathers no feet"
    "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
    REPLACE ".com" with ".co.uk" to reply
    http//www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk


    Eric Hocking Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
    news:bdd4bv$7b2$1newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:3efa05aa$0$26639$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    > > > The Sigma 17mm gives an horizontal 38in fov - 11ins better than the
    > Canon.
    > > >
    > > > Again the above is back of the envelope calcs - anyone feel free to
    > > correct
    > > > them, but it's good enough for government work in my book.
    > >
    > > One minute you quote diagonal then you quote horizontal ....... lay off
    > the
    > > shiraz hey.
    >
    > It's called simple trigonometry - do the math for yourself.
    Oh, and you should know me by now, Miro. I'm an engineer and like ing
    with numbers.

    P.S. Why the ad hominem? I responded in what I felt was quite a reasonable
    manner to your request "So you can actually tell me the difference between a
    15mm and a 17mm lens"
    P.P.S. The last person on usenet to call me a drunk was a kook that invaded
    sci.skeptic a few years back. Not the sort of company you want to keep
    shirley?

    --
    Eric Hocking
    "A closed mouth gathers no feet"
    "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
    REPLACE ".com" with ".co.uk" to reply
    http//www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk



    Eric Hocking Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
    news:bdctv1$1hp$1newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    <snip>
    > Well, in that 4x4ft box the original poster was talking about, my back of
    a
    > cigarette packet calculations gives the Canon 17mm an horizontal fov of
    27in
    > and the Sigma 15mm an horizontal fov of 43in at a distance of 3ft (I'm
    > allowing 1ft for a "fathead" and the camera). So, it would appear that in
    > the situation described, the Sigma will capture 16in more of the scene in
    > the horizontal - that's potentially the difference only capturing a son
    and
    > daughter and chopping out another son/daughter from the photo.
    >
    > The Sigma 17mm gives an horizontal 38in fov - 11ins better than the Canon.
    >
    > Again the above is back of the envelope calcs - anyone feel free to
    correct
    > them, but it's good enough for government work in my book.
    Let me be the first to correct. The above is based on 1/2 of the chord, so
    I believe the dimensions of the view are closer to:

    Canon 17mm: 54x36in
    Sigma 15mm: 86x57in
    Sigma 17mm: 76x51in

    So perhaps the measurement is only signficant in this case in the *vertical*

    And then again, my maths could *still* be wrong!
    >
    > --
    > Eric Hocking
    > "A closed mouth gathers no feet"
    > "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
    > REPLACE ".com" with ".co.uk" to reply
    > http//www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk

    Eric Hocking Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    In article <3ef4f849$0$59953$c30e37c6lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, "Gavin
    says...
    >
    >
    >" Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:3ef4846e$0$26633$afc38c87news.optusnet.com. au...
    >
    >> So you can actually tell me the difference between a 15mm and a 17mm lens
    >> and know the two situations where 15mm would work 17mm wouldnt.
    >
    >I've got a 17mm lens (plus the 1.5x crop factor though) and theres been
    >plenty of situations I've wanted extra wideness in indoor shots but had my
    >back to a wall.
    >
    >Miro strikes again!
    >
    I tend to have problems with cliffs outdoors, or things being in the way (trees
    typically have that habit).

    Andrew Mc Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    > P.S. Why the ad hominem? I responded in what I felt was quite a
    reasonable
    > manner to your request "So you can actually tell me the difference between
    a
    > 15mm and a 17mm lens"
    Well time and space bends in your hands. Two 17mm lenses have alternate
    angles of view.

    Maybe sigma quotes diagonal and Canon quotes horizontal angles. Im afraid
    this is where engineering is no substitute for common sense.

    I will stick with the kook. At least his calculations are plausible.


    Miro Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    Bruce Murphy <pack-newsrattus.net> wrote in message news:<m2d6h1snnl.fsffuscipes.rattus.net>...
    > "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> writes:
    > > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3ef4846e$0$26633$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    <snip>
    > > > So you can actually tell me the difference between a 15mm and a 17mm lens
    > >
    > > Be happy to. If we're talking about these lenses: Canon 17-40 f4 and the
    > > Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5, the former has a diagonal field of view of 74deg and
    > > the latter 110.5deg. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be the Sigma 17-35
    > > f/2.8-4 which has has a 103.7deg diagonal fov.
    >
    > By what mechanism do you believe these (presumably all rectilinear) lenses
    > have different fields of view at 17mm?
    The spec sheets supplied by the manufacturers.
    [url]http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/ultrawide_zoom_lenses/ef%2017-40mm_specs.html[/url]
    and
    [url]http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/lenschart.htm[/url]

    It is entirely probable that I am misinterpreting or misapplying the
    information in an attempt to determine what the linear dimensions of
    the "view" is at a distance of 3ft from the focal point. As I said,
    they were back of the cigarette packet figgerin's using very basic
    trigonometry and an even more basic understanding of the terminology.

    Out of curiosity's sake I'd be interested in the methodology that I
    should apply.

    --
    Eric Hocking
    Eric Hocking Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    >
    > Out of curiosity's sake I'd be interested in the methodology that I
    > should apply.
    >
    If we are talking about a 10D then let's start with the focal length
    multiplier.

    Then maybe the actual diagonal OR horizontal angle of view for that focal
    length. And we know that doesnt vary.

    Then I suppose we can look at the angle of arc for 17mm and 15mm lenses.

    After all that is done we can all go back to ignoring this.


    Miro Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3efac2f8$0$26638$afc38c87news.optusnet.com. au>...
    > > P.S. Why the ad hominem? I responded in what I felt was quite a
    > reasonable
    > > manner to your request "So you can actually tell me the difference between
    > a
    > > 15mm and a 17mm lens"
    >
    > Well time and space bends in your hands. Two 17mm lenses have alternate
    > angles of view.
    You *did* read the spec sheets then?
    > Maybe sigma quotes diagonal and Canon quotes horizontal angles. Im afraid
    > this is where engineering is no substitute for common sense.
    Sigma quotes diagonal, and Canon both. You *did* read the spec
    sheets, before you made this comment, didn't you.
    > I will stick with the kook. At least his calculations are plausible.
    I'm always ready to be enlightened and had already admitted that the
    calc'ns could be in error. So how *does* one determine physical area
    covered by angle of view from these numbers?

    --
    Eric Hocking
    Eric Hocking Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    [email]ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.co.uk[/email] (Eric Hocking) writes:
    > Bruce Murphy <pack-newsrattus.net> wrote in message news:<m2d6h1snnl.fsffuscipes.rattus.net>...
    > > "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> writes:
    > > > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:3ef4846e$0$26633$afc38c87news.optusnet.com.a u...
    > <snip>
    > > > > So you can actually tell me the difference between a 15mm and a 17mm lens
    > > >
    > > > Be happy to. If we're talking about these lenses: Canon 17-40 f4 and the
    > > > Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5, the former has a diagonal field of view of 74deg and
    > > > the latter 110.5deg. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be the Sigma 17-35
    > > > f/2.8-4 which has has a 103.7deg diagonal fov.
    > >
    > > By what mechanism do you believe these (presumably all rectilinear) lenses
    > > have different fields of view at 17mm?
    >
    > The spec sheets supplied by the manufacturers.
    > [url]http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/ultrawide_zoom_lenses/ef%2017-40mm_specs.html[/url]
    > and
    > [url]http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/lenschart.htm[/url]
    Elementary trigometry combined with the magnification law shows us that
    the figure on the Sigma website is correct, the Canon one is wrong. Or,
    more accurately, mislabelled.

    The fields of view for the Canon lens are given for a reduced sensor ala
    the D30 et al, whereas the numbers /next/ to them are the dimensions of
    a 35mm film frame.

    You can check this by looking at the page

    [url]http://www.maxwell.com.au/photo/nikon/nikkor/zoom/afs_1735_spec.html[/url]

    Which, becuase Nikon are a much better manufacturer than nasty old
    Canon, give the fields of view for both the 35mm frame and for the
    reduced sensor size on a D1 series camera.

    You might find the numbers are the wide end somewhat familiar.
    >
    > It is entirely probable that I am misinterpreting or misapplying the
    > information in an attempt to determine what the linear dimensions of
    > the "view" is at a distance of 3ft from the focal point. As I said,
    > they were back of the cigarette packet figgerin's using very basic
    > trigonometry and an even more basic understanding of the terminology.
    Naivete that manufacturers bother to check their website seems to be about
    all you're guilty of in this instance, and a misconception over what
    cauuses field of view :)
    > Out of curiosity's sake I'd be interested in the methodology that I
    > should apply.
    Read the above, and then see how you feel about it.

    B>
    Bruce Murphy Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L


    "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1e644e4e.0306260744.62db98aaposting.google.c om...
    > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:<3efac385$0$26637$afc38c87news.optusnet.com. au>...
    > > By the way, not all people who enjoy wine are drunks. I simply think one
    > > should attempt these calculations before a large meal.
    >
    > I'd be interested to see how I *should* have calculated this - there
    > was certainly enough handwaving in my posts to indicate that they were
    > done on-the-fly with the most cursory overview of the concept.
    Think about it Eric, 7 degrees of arc and maybe 2 or 3 feet in it. Even I
    think that is bordering on not being different.

    Maybe the lesson from all this is that focal length determines angle of view
    by definition. Just what is the focal length is the question.


    Miro Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L


    "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1e644e4e.0306260741.754c69c4posting.google.c om...
    > " Miro" <miro01hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:<3efac2f8$0$26638$afc38c87news.optusnet.com. au>...
    > > > P.S. Why the ad hominem? I responded in what I felt was quite a
    > > reasonable
    > > > manner to your request "So you can actually tell me the difference
    between
    > > a
    > > > 15mm and a 17mm lens"
    > >
    > > Well time and space bends in your hands. Two 17mm lenses have alternate
    > > angles of view.
    >
    > You *did* read the spec sheets then?
    >
    > > Maybe sigma quotes diagonal and Canon quotes horizontal angles. Im
    afraid
    > > this is where engineering is no substitute for common sense.
    >
    > Sigma quotes diagonal, and Canon both. You *did* read the spec
    > sheets, before you made this comment, didn't you.
    >
    > > I will stick with the kook. At least his calculations are plausible.
    >
    > I'm always ready to be enlightened and had already admitted that the
    > calc'ns could be in error. So how *does* one determine physical area
    > covered by angle of view from these numbers?
    >
    > --
    > Eric Hocking

    I must agree with Miro that common sense must prevail and that possibly
    Canon have misquoted or we are misunderstanding something.

    The horizontal field of view (by very simple trigonometry) of
    84 - 34 (36mm) "canon"

    cannot *ever *be greater than the diagonal FOV of
    74 - 29 (43.2mm) "canon"

    in a rectangle (no matter how much it is distorted by the optics).

    What are those lengths given in mm for?

    I, too, studied engineering but my recollection of studying optics etc fails
    me. But by simple trigonometry as you quote, the diagonal should be the
    longest line (is that the 43.2mm as opposed to 36mm bit..dunno).

    The angle from a given point in the centre should be greater in the
    direction of the longest line from that point to the extremities of that
    line.

    I am not an expert in neither photography nor optics, but without sitting
    down to work out the angles using *simple* trig as you did, a 17mm lens is a
    about ~17mm lens it doesn't matter who has made it. I think canon has
    misquoted as there should not be a 29+ difference in the FOV.

    As Miro said, I think its only common sense, but I stand to be corrected
    also, as I really do not know the numbers of photography and optics.

    BillP


    BillP Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    > Let me be the first to correct. The above is based on 1/2 of the chord,
    so
    > I believe the dimensions of the view are closer to:
    >
    > Canon 17mm: 54x36in
    > Sigma 15mm: 86x57in
    > Sigma 17mm: 76x51in
    >
    > So perhaps the measurement is only signficant in this case in the
    *vertical*
    >
    > And then again, my maths could *still* be wrong!
    >

    Your math my be correct, but your input data is more than likely wrong on
    the canon 17-40 lens. It should probably be about 104degrees and not
    74degrees. I'm not gonna do the math, but you could try it again.

    The difference between the two sigmas sounds correct but the canon is (I am
    99% sure ) is incorrect.

    BillP


    BillP Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    > As Miro said, I think its only common sense, but I stand to be corrected
    > also, as I really do not know the numbers of photography and optics.
    >
    > BillP
    >
    >
    Now that you have agreed with me you are an outcast. Now quickly disagree
    with me before anyone thinks you are in a Miro consipiracy.


    Miro Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    [url]http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/ultrawide_zoom_lenses/ef%2017-40mm_specs.html[/url]

    The spec sheet on this canon web site are WRONG... it is a trying error.
    A clear case of don't believe everything that you read.... use your
    common sense.

    The 17-40 Diagonal angle of view quoted is using a 1.6x conversion for a
    DSLR body with a 1.6 x crop.

    (17 mm x 1.6= 27.2mm) if you look at the spec sheets (I have a canon
    EOS system manual in front of me now) you will see that a 28 mm lens has
    a diagonal angle of view of 75 Degrees diagonal... hence the misquote in
    the above web site.

    And then the site quotes the correct horizontal angel of view for a 17
    mm lens based on a full frame SLR (84 degrees)

    Clearly the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle (diagonal distance
    across the screen through the middle) MUST be longer that any of the two
    subtending side (horizontal and vertical).. this is year 7 maths (or for
    Miro... MATH) A^2= B^2 + C^2 where a is the hypotenuse b and c are the
    subtending sides.

    This is a clear case of someone at canon's web page office stuffing up
    and not realising it yet.
    Basically a 17 mm lens has the same 35 mm FOV as any other 17 mm lens...
    regardless of brand.

    Brenton

    PS Of course.. this ridiculous argument can continue... bit at least get
    the facts right.
    Brenton Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    Eric...
    You are asking too much of this group to actually be able to 'prove' one of
    the lurkers therories - and that's all most of them are. Every so often
    someone will toss in a grain of logical evidence like Brenton did a few
    replies back but on the whole... It's all just good fun!
    JT

    "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >
    > Out of curiosity's sake I'd be interested in the methodology that I
    > should apply.
    >
    > --
    > Eric Hocking

    Auspics Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L

    How do you get 4 kids and a fat headed photographer into a 4ft square area?
    JT

    "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
    news:bdddgv$5so$1newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > "Eric Hocking" <ehockingtwofromoz.freeserve.com> wrote in message
    > news:bdctv1$1hp$1newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > <snip>
    > > Well, in that 4x4ft box the original poster was talking about, my back
    of
    > > a cigarette packet calculations gives the Canon 17mm an horizontal fov
    of 27in
    > > and the Sigma 15mm an horizontal fov of 43in at a distance of 3ft (I'm
    > > allowing 1ft for a "fathead" and the camera). So, it would appear that
    in
    > > the situation described, the Sigma will capture 16in more of the scene
    in
    > > the horizontal - that's potentially the difference only capturing a son
    > > and daughter and chopping out another son/daughter from the photo.
    > >


    Auspics Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Canon 17/40 f/4L


    "Auspics" <justthe.groups> wrote in message
    news:rrbLa.550$l83.8075news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > How do you get 4 kids and a fat headed photographer into a 4ft square
    area?
    > JT
    Give a 400mm lens to Eric and he will make it a fisheye. It's all in the
    math.


    Miro Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FS: Canon 50e with 28-80 USM and Canon EF 50mm F1.4
    By itsoesup in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 15th, 12:49 PM
  2. Canon 50e with 28-80 USM and Canon EF 50mm F1.4
    By David in Perth in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 9th, 11:44 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 01:56 PM
  4. Canon 10D - Canon i850 mismatch?
    By Stephen C. Smith in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 10th, 02:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139