Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: Which 35 for my R-D1?
Zeiss 35/2 Biogon 63 35.59%
VC 35/1.2 Nokton 36 20.34%
Leica 35/2 Summicron Pre-Asph 50 28.25%
or VC 35 1.7 Ultron for $350! 28 15.82%
Voters: 177. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??
Old 10-13-2006   #1
anaanda
Registered User
 
anaanda's Avatar
 
anaanda is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Age: 51
Posts: 205
800$ -35 Cron Pre-Asph or Zeiss 35 Biogon or VC 35 1.2??

Looking for a 35 for my R-D1?
__________________
My Gallery

All my work is now on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #2
Crasis
Registered User
 
Crasis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 323
I can't even vote as I haven't tried 3 of those 4 lenses, which would bias my vote greatly
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #3
anaanda
Registered User
 
anaanda's Avatar
 
anaanda is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Age: 51
Posts: 205
just looking for pros and cons of the ones RFF members have used
__________________
My Gallery

All my work is now on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #4
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,113
i've seen great pics from each lens.

if you could handle each one and decide on ergonomics, price, availability etc.

joe
__________________
heart soul & a camera
xe3...14/16/16/18/23/23/27/35/50/56/60/15-45/16-55/55-200
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #5
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
 
Stephanie Brim's Avatar
 
Stephanie Brim is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 2,854
In my humble opinion, it all depends on what you plan to shoot. The only advantage of having the Nokton is that you can shoot in very low light. If you don't plan to do that you'd be happier with one of the others, I think.
__________________

I had a baby girl on December 6, 2007. Yay motherhood!


One camera. Two lenses. Three shots per week.

2008 Street Photography Project
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #6
jtm
not a moose
 
jtm's Avatar
 
jtm is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 98
400$ Cv 35 1.7?
__________________
- John Morris
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #7
Nick R.
Still here
 
Nick R.'s Avatar
 
Nick R. is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Carlstadt, NJ
Posts: 1,070
Cheaper lenses usually don't perform as well in the corners as their Leica equivalents wide open. However, since your RD-1 has a cropped sensor, you might get Leica performance for half the price. It's worth doing some research.
__________________
I'll come running to tie your shoe
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #8
matt fury
Registered User
 
matt fury is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 284
I'm biased, since I have a Ultron for sale in the classifieds...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #9
anaanda
Registered User
 
anaanda's Avatar
 
anaanda is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Age: 51
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt fury
I'm biased, since I have a Ultron for sale in the classifieds...
Hi Matt,

I would snap it up... but unfortunately I was looking for black one...to match the body..
__________________
My Gallery

All my work is now on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #10
anaanda
Registered User
 
anaanda's Avatar
 
anaanda is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Age: 51
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick R.
Cheaper lenses usually don't perform as well in the corners as their Leica equivalents wide open. However, since your RD-1 has a cropped sensor, you might get Leica performance for half the price. It's worth doing some research.

Nick,
Thanks for the advice, in the end I probably will go with the Ultron based on price...I already have a lot into it with the body and my 50 summicron..
Fortunately I live in San Diego, but the only unfortunate thing is there are no good camera stores here to try rangefinder lenses. Everything is either Nikon or Canon SLR and digicams..I have to order a lense try and then if I don't like it send it back..Its a lot of trouble. I took a chance on the R-D1 from BH photo and everything seems to be working out..
__________________
My Gallery

All my work is now on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #11
matt fury
Registered User
 
matt fury is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by anaanda
Hi Matt,

I would snap it up... but unfortunately I was looking for black one...to match the body..

That's cool. I hope you enjoy it once you find one!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #12
Todd.Hanz
Registered User
 
Todd.Hanz's Avatar
 
Todd.Hanz is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Texas
Age: 54
Posts: 4,185
I had a Nokton 35/1.2, and it's a great lens but it's pretty big and heavy (not sure if it matters). Performance is excellent, very sharp and great OOF when shot at larger apetures, it's also the only thing faster than a Summilux in 35mm. The lens is very flare resistant, out of the three you mentioned I'd say it's the most versatile lens you could possibly get to cover all your shooting situations.
On my M6 it weighed the camera down quite a bit, I don't wear my M's around my neck so it wasn't a big deal, but if you do it won't balance well.

I've been interested in the Biogon 35/2 as well, looks really sharp stopped down and the bokeh is pretty nice but I have not fondled one . they seem to perform very well based on the samples I've seen posted.

The pre-asph Leicas...come on man, it's a Leica, a virtual penis-extender! (oops did I just say that, probably, it's Friday) Very compact and sharp with outstanding OOF, but at 800 bucks you can buy the others new and the pre-asph gently fondled.

good luck,
Todd
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2006   #13
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by anaanda
Looking for a 35 for my R-D1?
I'm not. Are you?
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #14
JohnL
Very confused
 
JohnL's Avatar
 
JohnL is offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 720
I have the Nokton and voted for it. I don't know the others, so I guess I'm biased! It has only one drawback, which is the size: it can be seen in the viewfinder (M7 0.72x) and invades the 35mm framelines to a significant degree. For me, it's tolerable. Others may find this more of an issue. IQ is very good even wide open - in real life photography. I never "tested" it. *IF* you want a low-light lens you can't beat this at the price.
__________________
John
Canon 50D, 5D2, 7D, S95, G1X; Fuji XP1 + several film cameras, now retired. Visit jlloydphoto.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #15
Bromo33333
Registered User
 
Bromo33333's Avatar
 
Bromo33333 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 65
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by anaanda
Looking for a 35 for my R-D1?
Won't go wrong with Zeiss - though I doubt you will lose with any of em. I have found really fast lenses can have a little more distortion that slightly slower ones - for 35mm, f2 seems to be about ideal unless you really need super low light.

Also consider that the lenses can get big and heavy with wider aperture - this may be a pain in the keester if you want to remain small and discrete (though if that is a big consideration, there are a ton of smaller P&S digicams)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #16
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 73
Posts: 6,206
Thumbs up

I agonized, analized and comparisized getting a 35mm for the last few months. In the end, I realized that I already had several very good 35mm 2.8 to 3.5 lenses. So, the Nokton made the most sense in terms of giving me a lens with additional capabilites. A lens that would expand my photography. I didn't need one those things Todd mentioned!

I ended up not buying another 35mm lens. I have enough already. Blasphemy, I know. I did, however, buy 14 pounds of MF SLR & lenses. Is that ok? GAS works in mysterious ways.
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #17
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,113
you buy gear by the pound?

__________________
heart soul & a camera
xe3...14/16/16/18/23/23/27/35/50/56/60/15-45/16-55/55-200
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #18
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,838
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?

If you need to stick to at 35, I agree with Steph, if you think you want the speed, go with the 35/1.2. It is a big lens, FAST and sharp.

I have some great shots with the 35/1.7, but have loaned it to my son and gone with a 40/1.4. I love the 35/2 'cron, used it for years and it is smaller than the 35/1.7. The 40/1.4 feels as small and miine is smooth as 'cron.

You might want to check how the 'cron works (light fall off) with the RD-1. I think the 35/1.2 will do fine as should the ZI. Not sure about the 40 either,

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #19
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 73
Posts: 6,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley
you buy gear by the pound?

Grinning. Not really, but MF gear can get portly in a hurry. I had no idea what it weighed until I saw the tracking information.
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #20
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 73
Posts: 6,206
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBingham2
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?


B2 (;->
That notion crept into my brain too. Except I had too many 50s & too many 35s. OK,OK, I had NO 40s.

Seriously, it's worth a look. Probably the smallest 1.4 lens around. Certainly one of the least expensive.
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #21
jano
Evil Bokeh
 
jano is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBingham2
Just to mess with your mind, what about the 40/1.4?
What lens is this?
__________________

O meu bumbum era flácido
mas esse assunto é tão místico
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2006   #22
Todd.Hanz
Registered User
 
Todd.Hanz's Avatar
 
Todd.Hanz is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Texas
Age: 54
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jano
What lens is this?

I think he's refering to the Voigtlander 40/1.4 Nokton
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2006   #23
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,838
Sorry, Todd is right, the CV 40/1.4. Only thing I do not like about the lens is that it brings up a 50mm frame line on a Leica. This is easy to fix either your self or sending it to DAG. It is a great lens at a very good price.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-18-2006   #24
anaanda
Registered User
 
anaanda's Avatar
 
anaanda is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Age: 51
Posts: 205
I am considering the 40 1.4 as well but that's a 61.2 Focal length on the R-D1. I am also considering the 28 1.9 Ultron to go with my 50 summicron. The 28 is a 43 on the R-D1? any thoughts..
__________________
My Gallery

All my work is now on Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-18-2006   #25
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,987
The 40mm Summicron C is an absolute bargain, and fits the 35mm framelines on thje R-D1 much more accurately than the (overpriced, and I have one) 35mm Summicron. You should be able to pick one up for $300 and have enough left for the $450 VC 28/1.9, which I note Sean Reid rates highly on the R-D1.
  Reply With Quote

VC 1.2 35mm
Old 04-03-2007   #26
arbib
Registered User
 
arbib's Avatar
 
arbib is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Indiana - USA
Age: 65
Posts: 510
VC 1.2 35mm

It has a great reputation, and there FAST !!!!!!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-05-2007   #27
Simon Larbalestier
Registered User
 
Simon Larbalestier's Avatar
 
Simon Larbalestier is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Age: 56
Posts: 1,124
just to confuse things a bit - i recently sold off my 35/1.4 pre ASPH to raise cash to purchase the V4 35/2 and the Nokton 35/1.2. I think both are unique in their own right hence the reason i own both - the V4 i find easier to handle than the 35/1.4 pre ASPH in that it's rectangular hood doesn't rotate when you need the change the aperture. The Nokton is heavy but balances well with the Photoequip ML grip.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2007   #28
Huck Finn
Registered User
 
Huck Finn is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,943
It's surprising how poorly this "legendary" Summicron is doing in this poll with almost 75 people responding at this point.
__________________
Zeiss Ikon
Zeiss 35/2 Biogon, Zeiss 50/1.5 C-Sonnar, Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar, Voigtlander 28/3.5 Skopar, Voigtlander 75/2.5 Heliar


<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=352'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2007   #29
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
 
Pherdinand's Avatar
 
Pherdinand is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: by the river called the Gender
Age: 42
Posts: 7,765
this is a strange question.
Do you need f/1.2 vs f/2? pretty big difference i would say!
AND do you mind a triple size?

If Yes/No then go for CV 35/1.2
__________________
Happy New Year, Happy New Continent!
eye contact eye
My RFF Foolery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2007   #30
jamriman
Registered User
 
jamriman's Avatar
 
jamriman is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 153
Practicality: 40 Rokkor, Investment: 35 pre cron.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2007   #31
Simon Larbalestier
Registered User
 
Simon Larbalestier's Avatar
 
Simon Larbalestier is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Age: 56
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikFive
Could you tell a little more about the performance of the two lenses. I was planing on getting the 35 1.2, but I got an great offer on a 35 2 v4.
Like i said i purchased them for their own unique qualities - there are some projects i'm working on which require F1.2 or 1.4 and nothing else. So that rules out the v4 35/2

However the 35/1.2 with the vented hood mounted is large (not unlike the Noctilux although i no longer have the latter to compare side by side). For me this means it's a lens for specific needs not a carry round every day lens - so for me the v4 35/2 scores well because of its diminutive size (very much like the 35/1.4 pre ASPH lux i had) including the rectangular hood. I prefer this at apertures F4-8.



Both very different. For me. And not always used on the same projects.

When i've more time and my projects are more complete i will post some of the images and note the lens used to make them.
i do not view them competitively in terms of performance. Both deliver the goods it's more a question of the amount of available light when i shoot and their size when used alongside other lens when i travel. I simply can't take every lens and camera to every destination where my projects are.

I'm not sure if this answers your original question or not but these are my user views.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-13-2007   #32
Simon Larbalestier
Registered User
 
Simon Larbalestier's Avatar
 
Simon Larbalestier is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Age: 56
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikFive
I was thinking more of sharpness and contrast. I like taking pics in dim light and at night and thats why im thinking about the 1.2. I also hear great things about the v4 and its bokeh. I cant afford both. That is the problem.
You might want to check this thread out amongst others as this topic comes up here quite often.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=32974


also RFF member x-ray has a great deal of experience with both these lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2007   #33
Richie
Registered User
 
Richie's Avatar
 
Richie is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicagoland, USA
Posts: 45
I own the VC 35mm f1.2 and Leica 35mm f2s (pre-Asph and Asph). Given your choices, I can strongly recommend the VC f1.2 lens. Its optical signature is very similar to the Leica pre-Asph 35mm lenses, but you get f1.2 and f1.4 apertures which are very very useful in low light situations. The size of the lens does not bother me, although it is an issue with some Leica M users.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2007   #34
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
 
fgianni's Avatar
 
fgianni is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birmingham (UK)
Age: 55
Posts: 1,410
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?
__________________
There are only 10 kinds of people:
-Those who understand binary
-Those who don't

Francesco (Ian) Gianni
E-MAIL:[email protected]

My Gallery (sort of)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2007   #35
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,254
All three great lenses. The Summicron is by far the smallest, and the Nokton is the biggest.

I recommend not to buy the Nokton for the "low light" capabilities. On a digital camera,
the additional half stop you get, say over a Nokton 40/1.4 is practically irrelevant.
If you buy it, buy it for the shallow DOF - it has an excellent signature.

Check out the M-mount forum on flckr, you can see sample shots of the three lenses and
also of the Ultron.

Best,

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2007   #36
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by fgianni
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?
Psst. Wanna trade for a practically-new black ZM 35mm Biogon?
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2007   #37
photorat
Registered Abuser
 
photorat's Avatar
 
photorat is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 172
Leica's pre-ASPH lux is a an absolute dog of a lens. There are numerous posts and tests linked to this forum which reveal its significant defects compared to later lenses, not least of which the nokton. You get far more lens for your money with the 35 summicron (in any version, don't listen to people who swear by the 4th as it's the same optical formula as the rest but with inferior build quality). But then, the summicron is way overpriced at the moment IMHO. Better value seems to be the Zeiss biogon. If speed is your concern, definitely go for the Nokton (or save up for a user ASPH summilux).

Quote:
Originally Posted by fgianni
Hmm I own the 35 2 4th, and I think the lens is a bit overrated, now since I'd like to get a faster lens, I could either get the VC 1.2 (big and bulky) and keep the 35 2 4th as a normal walk around lens, or sell the 35 4th and get a pre-asph 35 lux (can't afford the ASPH one), which is pretty compact anyway.
is the performance of the VC 1.2 so much better than a pre-asph 35 lux?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2007   #38
thomasw_
Registered User
 
thomasw_'s Avatar
 
thomasw_ is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fort Langley, BC
Age: 53
Posts: 1,628
get both the VC 35/1.2 for the late afternoon/evenings and the biogon 28/2.8 for the street. you won't be unhappy with the results!
__________________
f l i c k r
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2007   #39
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,987
I agree with all your points, photorat, but for the statement that the 4th version Summicron is optically identical to its predecessors.It has 7 elements, I believe, compared to the 6 element versions 2 and 3. But I doubt that there's a huge difference in optical performance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-03-2007   #40
BillBlackwell
Registered User
 
BillBlackwell's Avatar
 
BillBlackwell is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Age: 61
Posts: 821
Quote:
Originally Posted by photorat
Leica's pre-ASPH lux is a an absolute dog of a lens...
I have to agree. I have had two 35mm pre-asph Summilux' and both were worthless below about f/5.6.

I also agree that the choices you have listed here are all good. You can't go wrong with any of them. Value for the dollar should steer you to the Zeiss. But, while the Leica would be the best investment of the three, I have the Nokton f/1.2 and have been very impressed (and surprised) by it. Its size is no distraction for me, the color saturation has a Leica signature, and it is plenty sharp.

Close your eyes and point! And buy the one your finger lands on.
  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 Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
35 cron asph 1...and 2? Avotius Leica M Film Cameras 6 10-01-2006 03:39
New Zeiss Ikon Rangefinder SolaresLarrave Rangefinder Photography Discussion 93 11-01-2004 16:31



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:25.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.