Old 05-26-2014   #41
Volver
Registered User
 
Volver is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
I've used summaron on M3 and cant say that it's hard to focus, but the patch becomes less contrasty and it's harder to focus in low light. But it's quit ok to use with googles in daylight.
I gave mine back (i already had good 28mm lens), because i found it too contrasty for my taste (low details in shadows, or maybe i didnt get used to 35mm) and added some to buy Contax T3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #42
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 926
bumping this again as I've been lusting for a 35mm lens on my M3 again.
currently only have 25/50/90 for the M3 but I feel like I'm needing a 35mm.

is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #43
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 601
Just get a 35mm FLE...and call it a day...lol..
The 3.5 flares a lot and is fiddly but nice resolution in controlled conditions....I heard the 2.8 is better for general useage..
I like the v4 late German "bokeh king" for B&W and the pre f1.4 titanium except for close focus...
And the pre FLE asph f1.4 for color..
If I had to get 1..it would be ver 4 or titanium pre..
I have the pre FLE asph for color and its nice...but for B&W..hate it..
No lens is perfect..the photo content is where the weight should be..not the glass these days..
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #44
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 309
The goggled version on an M3 got me back into film photography. I love it and the images it produces. Enough so that when a freshly CLA'ed non-goggled M mount (1957) came into the local shop I bought it to use on my M4. And every image is flared/hazed badly. Hmmmm....

I always presume operator error so will shoot more film (FP4) with a yellow 2x multicoated filter and a lens hood before passing any judgement.


I like the ergos better than my 35 Summicron ASPH-1, Voigtlander 1.4/35 Nokton Classic, and Voightlander 2.5/35 Color Skopar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #45
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
bumping this again as I've been lusting for a 35mm lens on my M3 again.
currently only have 25/50/90 for the M3 but I feel like I'm needing a 35mm.

is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?
I recently acquired a 35 Summaron goggled. I already have a cv 35 1.2, Summicron Asph 35 2, Zm 35 1.4.
And the Summaron is great! It flares more than the ZM and CV, bit honestly pretty much the same as the Summicron Asph. But as you know it can flare, you use that in the image.
I'm actually disappointed as to how much modern Leica lenses flare. My Summilux 50 Asph is terrible. Cron is terrible. 28mm Elmarit Asph actually is good.

Also, the Summaron that I bought off this site was advertised as perfect condition, recent CLA. I got it with serious 'cleaning marks'. So much for buying off this site.. I still kept it because the price was good and I tested it with my M240 to see if those marks did anything. I could not see any difference between its flare resistance and that of my perfect glass Cron..
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #46
creenus
Registered User
 
creenus is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 45
I have a 3.5 LTM with a slew of A36 filters. I keep intending to sell the little guy and then I read threads such as this one. They're rather sharp for their age, aren't they? I have used mine in Europe in 2015 on a iiic with good results. So I will probably keep it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #47
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,008
Yes, keep it.

Leica M5, Summaron 35mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #48
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
Just get a 35mm FLE...and call it a day...lol..
The 3.5 flares a lot and is fiddly but nice resolution in controlled conditions....I heard the 2.8 is better for general useage..
I like the v4 late German "bokeh king" for B&W and the pre f1.4 titanium except for close focus...
And the pre FLE asph f1.4 for color..
If I had to get 1..it would be ver 4 or titanium pre..
I have the pre FLE asph for color and its nice...but for B&W..hate it..
No lens is perfect..the photo content is where the weight should be..not the glass these days..
TBH the FLE or f/1.4 lenses doesnt do anything for me, i just want a fun 35mm to play with on the M3 and the goggled version entices me as I wouldn't need an aux finder mounted.
other 35mm that i would like to play with is a jupiter-12 or canon 35mm f2 ltm.
note (i owned a 35mm cron iv in the past) but no longer own a 0.72 body
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #49
Carey M
Registered User
 
Carey M is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?
I had both, sold the 2.8 and kept the 3.5. It is sharp enough and I prefer the looks/feel. Mine is a 1955 M mount version and it really is like a little jewel.

I wouldn't waste time on the J-12. I've tried a couple and found them inferior to the Summarons. Optically and especially haptically.
__________________
Analogue at heart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #50
ale_f
Registered User
 
ale_f is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Milan
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey M View Post
I had both, sold the 2.8 and kept the 3.5. It is sharp enough and I prefer the looks/feel. Mine is a 1955 M mount version and it really is like a little jewel.
Agreed! Love my ltm 3.5


Senza titolo by del Rey., su Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #51
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,304
I have the tiny LTM version of this lens. I love it, and shoot it mainly on my IIIc:

Morning walk by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #52
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,304
Another example:

Scallions and Leeks by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #53
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 309
Elaborating on the above issue with mine:

I just lit it up with a bright LED flashlight from multiple angles. It is beautifully clear. The Leitz UVa filter on it, however, is covered in cleaning marks and one deep scratch. Is that filter a cause for photograph haze?

Thanks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #54
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 601
My 3.5 Summaron I basically got for free in mint/LN cond..with a lot of other free screwmount stuff..LTM Leica cams and lenses..
In the right conditions..it is actually astonishing..but..I don't have a lens hood for it...so it flares..

Huss..I always wanted to get that lil 28mm 2.8 asph..but was wary because people actually said it was too contrasty..but so tiny..maybe I'll splurge someday..
I really should get a digital M body someday too..to try these L lenses on..
Back to my tunafish sandwich....lol..
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #55
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 51
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
bumping this again as I've been lusting for a 35mm lens on my M3 again.
currently only have 25/50/90 for the M3 but I feel like I'm needing a 35mm.

is everyone happy with the 3.5 or wished they went with the 2.8 instead?
I used M3 version on M4-2 and it was handy. On M3 it will be as great as 50mm lens. But goggles needs to be clean and clear. I used M2 version on M4-2 as well. To me it is Leitz lens with less Leica character in it. Best by the build, so-so by the rendering. Colors are ... retro.

After reading Puts book where 3.5 was compared to 2.8 and conclusion was it is same at 5.6 I posted 3.5 images on 2.8 thread. I was told to get lost because 2.8 is very different from 3.5. I revisited this 2.8 thread just few days ago. Nice pictures, but is it worth of paying 800-1000$ as on eBay now for 2.8 M2 version? Not for me.

But#2, goggled 3.5 and 2.8 are still the reasonable and cool option on M3 if you hate external VF as I do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #56
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post

Huss..I always wanted to get that lil 28mm 2.8 asph..but was wary because people actually said it was too contrasty..but so tiny..maybe I'll splurge someday..
I really should get a digital M body someday too..to try these L lenses on..
Back to my tunafish sandwich....lol..
Emile, I've never had issues with the 28. I think people like to repeat what they hear. It has always given me fantastic images.
Tiny, crazy sharp, does not flare.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #57
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post

But#2, goggled 3.5 and 2.8 are still the reasonable and cool option on M3 if you hate external VF as I do.
I agree. I already had the external finders for the M3 before I got the goggled Summaron, and it is so much better to use the goggles than the finder. It adjusts for parallax and allows you to focus and shoot seamlessly w/o having to reframe.
I now keep those finders for use on my MD-A and 1f.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #58
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 601
Huss..I want that 28 2.8 asph...no distortion to be seen.. what a great travel lens..
What do you use for a lenshood on the Summaron f3.5?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2017   #59
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 51
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
...
What do you use for a lenshood on the Summaron f3.5?
My M2 3.5 35 was with Leica original (very) hood. My 3.5 35 M3 was with MiC ebay 39mm conical hood I purchased to kill the flare on CS CV 35 2.5 PII. IMO, it was much more awesome than Leica very original hood.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-26-2017   #60
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 926
thanks everyone for your input.
I'm on the hunt for a goggled 5mm 3.5 summaron now
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-26-2017   #61
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
Huss..I want that 28 2.8 asph...no distortion to be seen.. what a great travel lens..
What do you use for a lenshood on the Summaron f3.5?
It's the metal lens hood from Leica that is marked Summicron 50, Summaron 3.5 (or something to that effect). I already had one for my Summicron v1 so it worked out nicely.

I have to say I am really surprised by the Summaron 35. I pixel peeped with my M240 and the lens looks really freakin' good. Bottom line, Leica does not, and never did, make weak lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-26-2017   #62
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 601
Thx you guys for the hood suggestions..!
I gotta get one and start using my Summaron 3.5 more..its build quality and resolution is outstanding.
Maybe I have something that fits..in my old Leica lens hood collection..
The 3.5 is also great on a micro 4/3's cam..works as a 70mm and just uses the best center part of the glass..
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2017   #63
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 926
I received my Goggled 35mm 3.5 Summaron and ran a test roll of HP5 @1600 over the weekend
Fantastic result, matches well on my M3 DS and50mm collapsible summicron and ITDOO hood.
Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr

Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr

Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-24-2017   #64
flagellum
Registered User
 
flagellum is offline
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 13
I've got one of these lenses and very much look forward to using it on an M4. However, the lens and goggles are both hazy. I've been told the goggles are hard to open up and harder to calibrate once they're cleaned, and there's a significant cost jump for the repair. Would it be worth having them serviced when I send the lens in for a CLA?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-24-2017   #65
Montag006
Registered User
 
Montag006 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Across the bay from Tampa
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
I received my Goggled 35mm 3.5 Summaron and ran a test roll of HP5 @1600 over the weekend
Fantastic result, matches well on my M3 DS and50mm collapsible summicron and ITDOO hood.
Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
Leica M3 + 35mm Summaron + HP5+ @ 1600 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr
Taemo,

I love the information on the sides of negatives, i.e.; coupons, I believe.
I'd like to know what type of scanner did you use?

David
__________________
Leica M2 - '62
Nikon F-2 & F-3
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-24-2017   #66
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montag006 View Post
Taemo,

I love the information on the sides of negatives, i.e.; coupons, I believe.
I'd like to know what type of scanner did you use?

David
hi david, i no longer own a scanner and instead been using a light table and my digital camera to scan my negatives.
this was 'scanned' with a fuji apsc sensor and 50mm with extension tube, i cant get a full 1:1 scan hence i end up shooting including the sprockets and cropping.
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-25-2017   #67
Montag006
Registered User
 
Montag006 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Across the bay from Tampa
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
hi david, i no longer own a scanner and instead been using a light table and my digital camera to scan my negatives.
this was 'scanned' with a fuji apsc sensor and 50mm with extension tube, i cant get a full 1:1 scan hence i end up shooting including the sprockets and cropping.

Very interesting and thanks for the response/information....

I also have a 35mm f3.5 Summaron and love that little lens...
__________________
Leica M2 - '62
Nikon F-2 & F-3
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-25-2017   #68
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,008
The f/3.5 version is better than the f/2.8 version, wich is a superb lens already.

Leica M5, Summaron-M 35mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.





  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #69
flagellum
Registered User
 
flagellum is offline
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 13
I'd love to see more color shots with this lens - currently deciding whether to have a hazy copy repaired or just sell it for something else. Does haze affect color/tonality at all on these lenses, or should I expect similar color results after having it cleaned?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #70
Carey M
Registered User
 
Carey M is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
I'd love to see more color shots with this lens - currently deciding whether to have a hazy copy repaired or just sell it for something else. Does haze affect color/tonality at all on these lenses, or should I expect similar color results after having it cleaned?
Here's one color shot on Kodak Ektar:


Mine was pretty hazy when I got it. Definitely affected color and contrast.
__________________
Analogue at heart.
  Reply With Quote

Summaron 35/3.5
Old 08-03-2017   #71
Gerry M
Gerry
 
Gerry M's Avatar
 
Gerry M is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Medford, Oregon, U. S.
Posts: 770
Summaron 35/3.5

This was in an M3 kit I recently got. What version is this? M mount. I have had the goggled M3 version, but this is not set up for goggles. It does work correctly on my M3 & M4-2.
Click on image for larger view.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg _DSC0620 Summaron 35 f3dot5.jpg (36.4 KB, 10 views)
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #72
Carey M
Registered User
 
Carey M is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 36
Looks like a LTM version with M-adapter to me.
__________________
Analogue at heart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #73
Gerry M
Gerry
 
Gerry M's Avatar
 
Gerry M is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Medford, Oregon, U. S.
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey M View Post
Looks like a LTM version with M-adapter to me.
You are right. How to feel 10 kinds of stupid! It fits so tight that I didn't look for the adapter to lens joint.
Thanks for your input.

Gerry
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #74
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 240
just picked up this beauty.

serial dates it at 1954, it's an 'M3 without specs' version. glass is hazy, sending out to clear that up and have flange milled to bring up 35mm lines.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_2823.jpg (156.3 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_2825.jpg (172.2 KB, 7 views)
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #75
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
I'd love to see more color shots with this lens - currently deciding whether to have a hazy copy repaired or just sell it for something else. Does haze affect color/tonality at all on these lenses, or should I expect similar color results after having it cleaned?
Taken w/ the f3.5 LTM version on Kodak 400 Max:

Red by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #76
Carey M
Registered User
 
Carey M is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry M View Post
You are right. How to feel 10 kinds of stupid! It fits so tight that I didn't look for the adapter to lens joint.
Thanks for your input.

Gerry
I had a similar incident with a 5cm Summarit
__________________
Analogue at heart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #77
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,109
The worst thing about the early non-goggled bayonet version of the Summaron 35mm f3.5 is that it does not bring up the 35mm framelines (it was built early on, at a time when the only Leica bayonet camera was the M3, which of course did not have 35mm framelines). I have one which has been CLA'd and like its rendering very much. It is identical so far as I can tell to the LTM version which however has a different external appearance being smaller physically (as unlikely as this sounds as the bayonet one is pretty small itself) and taking the slip on filters not the 39mm screw in ones.

Back to the frameline issue - this can be corrected by a technician who will file the bayonet lug to bring up the right framelines. I asked the guy who CLA'd my lens to do this while it was in the shop, but he forgot so I have just persisted and now instead use the manual frameline switch on the front of the camera instead. I understand I can do it myself but have never been game to try.

I will see if I can find some shots to post here.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #78
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
I'd love to see more color shots with this lens - currently deciding whether to have a hazy copy repaired or just sell it for something else. Does haze affect color/tonality at all on these lenses, or should I expect similar color results after having it cleaned?


It is worth having the lens CLA'd. Mine looked clear enough till I shined a bright light through it. It is as you know it is hard to see clearly into the lens as the glass is pretty small on these tiny lenses. I found a lot of flare from the haze and the cleaning improved things markedly. It now performs nicely. Of course it was especially bad when shot against a bright light but I found the contrast to have been lowered considerably in all circumstances (I guess that, because the elements are so small, they are especially sensitive to haze build up - it does not take much).

Even after cleaning, a lens hood is advisable with this lens as the lens is still a bit flare prone due to its early single coating (and it is sometimes hard to clean all of the internal haze without affecting the soft internal coating) . If you cannot find the right Leica one you can use an aftermarket one from eBay - which I do in any event as although I have correct Leica ones they are too expensive for every day use. I use one similar to the following but somewhat deeper. It is a 43mm diameter one so you will need a 39mm to 43mm stepping ring which is what I did as I could not find the hood I wanted in 39mm at that time. You may be luckier. In either event it really does not matter as the cost is a couple of bucks all in. Also this arrangement allows me to use the same hood on various lenses with different barrel sizes by swapping out the stepping ring. So I am happy with that arrangement.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/43mm-Metal-W...YAAOSwrhBZAtuf
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #79
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
The worst thing about the early non-goggled bayonet version of the Summaron 35mm f3.5 is that it does not bring up the 35mm framelines (it was built early on, at a time when the only Leica bayonet camera was the M3, which of course did not have 35mm framelines). I have one which has been CLA'd and like its rendering very much. It is identical so far as I can tell to the LTM version which however has a different external appearance being smaller physically (as unlikely as this sounds as the bayonet one is pretty small itself) and taking the slip on filters not the 39mm screw in ones.

Back to the frameline issue - this can be corrected by a technician who will file the bayonet lug to bring up the right framelines. I asked the guy who CLA'd my lens to do this while it was in the shop, but he forgot so I have just persisted and now instead use the manual frameline switch on the front of the camera instead. I understand I can do it myself but have never been game to try.

I will see if I can find some shots to post here.
have it professionally milled. i've had two m-rokkor 40mm lenses milled by DAG and they are fantastic.
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:54.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.