D600; Help me decide which lenses

treyhoff · October 22, 2012

Hi all,

I'm currently shooting a D200; Tokina 11-16, Nikon 18-200. I've decided to move up to the D600 but after all the googling about lenses, my eyes are fatigued reading all the reviews. My main emphasis is Landscape Photography so I'd like to get some good glass to take advantage of the FX, but I have some restrictions. Since I prefer landscapes, I'll be shooting at f/5.6 to 11, so I don't mind reports of softness at wide apertures. Also, weight is important for backpacking, so the fast zooms are out. Here are a few options I've come with based on my research:

1. Get Nikon Primes for best IQ: 24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.8, 85mm/1.8

All these lenses have great reviews. The 24 may be soft at 2.8, but I generally won't shoot wider than 5.6. Total cost of lenses $1074; Total weight 1.79lbs

2. Get the "Kit" lens. I hate saying "Kit" because it sounds so cheap.... But it also has good reviews except at 24mm being soft at the smallest aperture. Again I'll be shooting at 5.6 to 11. Also add a Nikon 20mm/2.8 (shoot at 5.6-11). But I wonder since the zoom covers 28mm, maybe the 24 is not much different and I need a wider fixed lens to compliment the zoom. Total cost $1165; Total weight 1.64lbs

3. Get the "all-in-one" 28-300. Not sure of the quality here since it's a super zoom and heavy, but again I'll shoot at 5.6-11.

4. Your option based on my needs for Landscapes and backpacking.

I'm also concerned that the 24mm isn't wide enough since I've been used to the Tokina 11-16 and have shot many landscapes at 11.

Thanks for your comments!

Thanks

chris_letts · October 22, 2012

I've just moved from a D200 to a D600 myself after much anguished deliberation.

Much to my surprise, I found my existing extra lenses (105 macro sigma and 200-500 Tamron) work absolutely fine with very little (if any) vignetting or other problems.

Unless your existing lenses are specifically DX, then you may find the same.

I heard pretty good reports of the 24-85 kit lens, so I got that too, and with only a small amount of test shots to go on, indeed it looks just fine. I never had a 'proper' wide angle for the D200, so 24mm seems OK for me - it's only slightly less than 11mm on a DX - not sure if it will make that much difference to you.

I look forward to hearing other peoples recommendations, although I've blown all my cash on the camera now so may be a while until I can afford more lenses !

dan_brown4 · October 22, 2012

Nikkor 24-85 VR.

ShunCheung · October 22, 2012

The one lens I would recommend for landscape photography on the D600 or D800 is the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E lens. That lens is expensive and is slow to use, though.

However, if you are more into super zooms such as the 28-300 and have been using the 18-200 DX, I wonder whether you need to go all the way to the D600. It is a fine camera, but you need some excellent lenses to get the most out of it.

andylynn · October 22, 2012

What focal lengths and apertures do you usually shoot landscapes at on your D200? You could translate those to FX and decide what your lens needs would be. If the 24-85, used at medium to small apertures, would do, that's a fine lens. If you want an ultrawide you'd be looking at more money and it might make more sense to go with a D7000 and keep using the 11-16. When you're on a tripod in good light and at moderate f-stops it's not like there's that much difference between those cameras.

jose_angel · October 22, 2012

You mention different lenses; from primes to superzooms including normal and wide angle range ones. Shun have included a T/S one, so we have all types in question... :)

First, it`d be interesting to know if the images you plan to get are for printing, for screen viewing, etc. and if you`re so picky with sharpness.

Usually, at shorter settings kit zoom lenses perform quite correctly, specially at the center and a couple stops from max. aperture. Some are even comparable to primes. The longer the range the lower performance, specially at such longer settings. Superzooms are expensive and heavy.

Primes use to have better corner performance and faster speeds.

I use to spend half of my weekends in a National Park near home. My lightweight digital pack is a camera plus a prime, usually a 50/1.4. If I want a bit more versatility, the camera and a 24-120/4 zoom. I also have a smaller 24-85 (older version) but prefer the f4 zoom even at the cost of a higher weight.

I don`t like superzooms for several reasons; one, performance from 100mm-on drop quite fast, being quite soft at 200/300. I like to work on the images, and to keep a reasonable image quality at full size. Two, I hate that long telescopic barrels. Three, they use to be almost f5.6 at 100mm, but... if I were printing small of viewing at TV screens, I think I`d get a superzoom. Maybe not the 28-300 but the smaller 28-200.

If I want a longer lens, I accept the load of a tripod and a longer prime. Usually for distant views, not so often.

If were buying again, I`d have a look at the new 24-85VR. After that, I`d check if I want lighter, or a wider angle, or longer... if I were seriously into landscapes, I`d take the 24T/S. If portraits or views, maybe a longer prime.

I`m currently into b&w LF views (4x5" camera), "environmental" b&w portraiture (Mamiya 6 & RZ), and kids (D700).

jose_angel · October 22, 2012

"... Maybe not the 28-300 but the smaller 28-200".

No, I don`t know. Wrote it too fast, I was thinking on the 18-200 instead of the 28-200.

eric_arnold · October 22, 2012

IMO, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to put the bulk of your budget into a $2000 camera and then have to scrimp on lenses.

if you're trying to shave costs and maintain both optical quality and range coverage while completely changing formats, you might have a tough time meeting expectations, realistically. in general, full frame is more expensive than DX, especially considering that new lenses often have to be purchased, in addition to camera body. So, you could easily end up with less capability than you currently have, unless you can stretch your budget considerably. that's the reality.

both your lenses are DX lenses, and the tokina 11-16 is widely acknowledged as the best DX UWA. to get the equivalent of the tokina's 11-16 range on FX, you're looking at the 16-35 VR or the 14-24--neither of which are as light or compact. they're also fairly expensive. you could also consider the tokina 16-28, which is the FX equivalent of the 11-16, except it doesn't take filters, or the tokina 17-35/4 which is nearly as wide as the 11-16 on DX. you would also have to replace the 18-200 with something, which is an additional cost. the 24-120/4 would probably the the best option IQ-wise in an FX superzoom, but that costs about the same as the 16-35, around $1300. to get the 16-35 and the 24-120, along with the d600 would cost almost $5000. OTOH, the d600 kit with the 24-85 VR is about $2600 at Adorama. the Tokina 17-35/4 is $600 with a rebate at B&H, so you could get both for around $3200+applicable tax. that might actually be your best, most cost-efficient, option with a d600.

if i were in your shoes, i'm not so sure i wouldn't get a d7000+16-85, and sell the 18-200. instead of $3000+, you'd upgrade in just about every area from a d200 but spend far less, assuming you can get $600 or so for the superzoom. you might be able to get about $500 for the d200, so factor that in too. with the money you save, you could buy a couple of primes for when you want to shave even more weight. also, seems to me that if you need more resolution than 16mp DX, a d3200 would actually be a pretty good option for landscape for a base-ISO shooter when paired with the 11-16, and would also be lighter than anything else.

i think you have to decide for yourself whether the d600 is really worth it for you, for what you want to do. i'll be the first to admit NAS can be pretty obsessive, but when you look at it from a practical, pragmatic standpoint, if you can achieve pretty much the same results while spending thousands less, it becomes a lot harder to justify that level of expenditure.

treyhoff · October 22, 2012

Thanks for the feedback! I am looking to increase the quality of my landscape shots and would like to print at 16x24 and 18x30; maybe an occasional 24x36! I did consider the D7000 so I could keep my lenses, but from what I've read, I'll need the help of a full frame sensor (D600) along with good glass to achieve larger prints. Maybe I can achieve that with the D7000? It would save me money :)

Ah, the T/S. I would LOVE this lens, but $2,000! Maybe if the D7000 fits the bill for larger prints, I could save the extra $1000 of the D600 + cost of new lenses and just get the D7000 and 24mm T/S. The D600+lenses or the D7000 with T/S would be roughly the same cost.....hmmmmm....the more I think about it.....

What do you think then for larger prints? BTW, I've always wanted to get into large format, but I'm and impatient photographer and like to run all over the place!

dan_brown4 · October 22, 2012

f8 and put it on a tripod, you'll get very good large prints.

Pretty much any contemporary Nikkor will get you that.

Landrum Kelly · October 22, 2012

Nikon PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED Lens Now there is a reality check on what moving to full-frame really entails--good glass, and it ain't cheap.

Unless one is willing to bite the bullet, there is little point in moving to full-frame.

That said, I got pretty good results from the 24mm f/2.8 years back when shooting the Kodak 14n with Nikon lenses, and I certainly could not afford the best then, either:

Even the cheap Nikon zooms came through pretty good, but it is well to remember that these were shot on a camera whose full-frame sensor had only 14 mp, not 24 mp. The 24 mp camera gets about 30% more resolution than a 14 mp sensor. Even so, here is one more sample from my Kodak 14n era using a cheap Nikon zoom:

I am not trying to discourage anyone from moving to full-frame. It is a great experience. Nonetheless, to get the very best out of these big sensors, one really has to buy expensive glass or find some pretty good work-arounds by stopping down, using a tripod, etc.

It CAN be done, but it is work. I always thought that it was worth it. That said, I am still in awe as to what the 18-105 could do on a crop sensor camera.,

--Lannie (struggling myself to find some way to get the glass, short of knocking over convenience stores)

ShunCheung · October 22, 2012

No offense, Trey, but I always find it very strange that plenty of people have $3000 for a D800 or $2100 for a D600. However, after the DSLR body, they tend to complain that lenses are expensive and try to skim on them.

I think a D7000 will serve you well for a while. I wouldn't put the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E on it, though. I have that combination and it looks me like 10 minutes to even mount the lens, and most PC movements are not possible on the D7000.

oskar_ojala · October 22, 2012

It's a bit hard to assess how much someone values portability, ease of use, quality and how large the budget is (and also in what timespan are the lenses to be acquired). As background, I shoot with a D800, have upgraded some lenses recently, currently shoot only primes but am planning to get a zoom at some point in the not too distant future. That said, I offer the following opinions;

<ul>

<li>Going for a big print, a bigger sensor and more pixels will be better, provided you have decent glass. The quality of the D800 is silky smooth and DX doesn't compete. Based on reports, the D600 seems to be able to produce excellent images. So with the goal of producing large prints, the D600 is a solid choice.</li>

<li>Nikon currently offers their series of f1.8 primes, namely the 28/1.8G, the 50/1.8G and the 85/1.8G. I haven't used the 50, but the other too are excellent and the 50 should be too. Currently, I see those as the budget option for the highest quality level. Don't let the large apertures fool you; these lenses are excellent when stopped down.</li>

<li>Many older Nikkors, especially the wideangles, are not at the level of more modern lenses. Just yesterday I was reviewing some pictures taken 10 years with a 24/2.8 AF-D and the quality was a far cry from what I get now with a Zeiss 25/2. If you need a small lens for occassional use or are really budget constrained then the AF-D primes are an option, but if you want something to use on a constant basis, look for more modern options.</li>

<li>I've only briefly handled the new 24-85 VR, but it left me with a positive impression. One option might be to get it (or seriously look into it) and then complement it with a couple of other lenses.</li>

<li>In terms of top class wide angles wider than 28 mm, the interesting ones are the Nikkor 14-24 and 16-35 and what Zeiss makes. Tokina probably has something good, I used to shoot a 11-16 like you, I don't anymore and I'm not interested in their offers until their warranty service and QC improves. YMMV.</li>

<li>To give some sort of guideline, I would recommend that you focus your resources on the lens you're going to use most, or then splurge and buy all the focal lengths to be top class. Sometimes we need to make unexpected compromises; as an example, I ended up buying a Voigtländer 90 mm to complement my Nikkor 85/1.8G, since the latter is so fat with hood on that it doesn't fit comfortably in one of my bags and it can get a very nasty flare in certain situations. The Voigtländer 90 has comparable high image quality, is tiny, but is obviously limited in terms of aperture and has no autofocus. However, for landscapes it works great. So think out of the box too, it may help.</li>

</ul>

To throw around some crazy ideas, how about a 16-35 (disclaimer: I haven't handled it, but reportedly it's good when stopped down), 50/1.8 and Voigtländer 90/3.5? Or save money and get a slightly used 85/1.8 AF-D (it's just as good in practice as the new G version when stopped down). Or splurge and get a Zeiss 21/2.8 for the wide end. Or start out with the 24-85 VR and expand later when you know what focal length you use a lot. Or if you get tired of the weight and cost, consider mirrorless: quality wouldn't be as high, but a clear upgrade over the D200 and a lot lighter to carry around. These are just some ideas to make you think about the options.

eric_arnold · October 22, 2012

I am looking to increase the quality of my landscape shots and would like to print at 16x24 and 18x30; maybe an occasional 24x36! I did consider the D7000 so I could keep my lenses, but from what I've read, I'll need the help of a full frame sensor (D600) along with good glass to achieve larger prints.

</blockquote>

the sensible investment is almost always in lenses, since digital bodies come and go... i've gotten pretty decent 16x20s and even 20x30s from 12mp (both DX and FX); a d7000 or a d3200--which despite being an entry-level camera, has serious resolution--should be good enough to print at 24x36, although a high-MP FX camera would be better, obviously. if you are going to print that big, you really want good glass, with good corner performance. by all accounts, the tokina 11-16 is as good as it gets on DX, so the main limitation there is the D200's 10mp sensor, which i wouldn't trust past 16x20. you would also get much better quality simply by swapping out the 18-200 for a 16-85, which has better sharpness and less distortion. the 24 PC-E would be the best option for glass, however. it's hard to imagine you wouldn't get amazing results with that and a d7k, with the caveat that 24mm on DX isn't really wide-angle. moot point since you probably can't afford both a d600 and a 24PC-E right now. but a d7k+11-16+16-85+24PC-E sounds like a pretty stellar DX kit to me. you could always upgrade to an FX body down the line, if you're so inclined.

Landrum Kelly · October 22, 2012

but a d7k+11-16+16-85+24PC-E sounds like a pretty stellar DX kit to me. you could always upgrade to an FX body down the line, if you're so inclined.

</blockquote>

I agree with Eric, Trey, but with the caveat that, if you are moving to FX right away, you might want to buy only lenses from now on that could be used on both formats--since there will be a period of transition, which might last indefinitely, in which you are going to be using both bodies.

When I shot Canon FF, I never bought any EF-S lenses. When I finally did get around to buying the 50D (a crop sensor Canon), I could use the same lenses on both--and did.

The only problem is typically at the wide end. If you are going to be shooting landscapes on FX, then you are going to need a wide lens that will be wide on FX. It will not be all that wide on DX.

Therefore it does matter, I think, that you go ahead and make the decision whether or not to go with FX, since the format size is going to determine the larger part of your lens purchases from here on out.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · October 22, 2012

As for the D3200, I shot that camera all summer and enjoyed it immensely. I would not personally want to have to use it as my primary body. If I were going to stay with DX, I would continue to use the D7000 instead. The D3200 , awesome as it was under perfect lighting conditions and low ISO, could not handle contrasts very well, and it is not known as a good low light camera.

That brings me around to why I keep coming back to FF/FX, having now shot Kodak, Canon, and Nikon FF/FX: I like shooting in low light, and that is one area where pixel density is really going to matter. I personally have not found the DX cameras up to the task when it comes to low light precisely because of the high pixel density. Others disagree. Yet others emphasize wide angle performance of FX.

I wouldn't get rid of the D7000, in any case. If you get the D600, you can get some decent results without breaking the bank--you simply will not be tapping into the full potential of FX. It is a leap, to be sure, but it is a leap for the long haul. The D600 will always be a good camera, no matter which new models are introduced.

--Lannie

treyhoff · October 22, 2012

Some very good points...thanks everyone. The D7000 may very well suit me for now to get large quality

prints, however, I don't mind paying for good glass for the D600....maybe I just need to start with one

quality lens (prime or zoom?) and keep using the D200 setup for other focal lengths.

I was under the impression the primes I listed were all highly rated (especially stopped down for landscapes,) no? I also read reviews that the 24mm/1.8 is as clear as the 14-24 (at 24) when stopped down to 5.6.

I really appreciate your comments and insight.

eric_arnold · October 22, 2012

if you are moving to FX right away, you might want to buy only lenses from now on that could be used on both formats--since there will be a period of transition, which might last indefinitely, in which you are going to be using both bodies.

</blockquote>

this is where it gets tricky. Looking at trey's current kit, if he were to stay with DX, keep the 11-16, and add the 24mm PC, he would be very limited as far as focal length options. there is no 18-85 FX-compatible lens out there. if we follow landrum's suggestion of only getting FX lenses from here on out, the 16-35 or tokina 17-35/4 could work with those two lenses, but then you still have a void past 35mm. other relatively inexpensive options might include either of the nikon 24-85s or perhaps the tamron 28-75, maybe even the 35-70 or 28-105 AF-D, but those only really work if you have an FX UWA -- which on DX would be merely WA. i suppose, for the same price as the 16-35, you could get the 17-35/4 and the 28-75--or save more with a used varible-aperture nikkor zoom--but that's a lot of wheeling and dealing just to ensure future compatibility with a body you don't even own yet. which is why i suggested the 16-85, which would work well with the tokina 11-16 and be an improvement on the 18-200 optically. it also holds value very well, so down the line, you could sell it along with the rest of the DX kit without too much hassle. since you'd have to sell the 11-16 anyway if you went FX, this maybe isn't such a big deal. so while i wouldn't go all DX-crazy if you forsee a possible migration to FX in your future, having two DX lenses isn't excessive, if they are the right ones you need to get the kind of images you want, right now.

maybe I just need to start with one quality lens (prime or zoom?) and keep using the D200 setup for other focal lengths.

</blockquote>

i would let the d200 go sooner than later. it will never be worth more than $500 at this point, and the more wear and tear you put on it, the more it will depreciate. i would also lose the 18-200 if you want better quality pics. as i said earlier, investing in lenses is a good idea, but since you've said you want to print larger than your current camera will allow you to do, i don't see how keeping the d200 and adding one quality prime or zoom will change this situation.

Two23 · October 22, 2012

I am getting excellent prints from my D5100, including a fine 16x20. The D5100 uses same sensor as D7000. I think the first priority for sharpness is a SOLID tripod head. I mean, really really solid. Next is a full blown pro triopod. My tripod is worth more than my camera (but then I go cheap on cameras and put real money into tripods.) I really doubt you'll see much difference shooting landscapes with a D7000 vs. D600, especially if you cheap out on lenses and tripod. I'll take you in a different direction. The D5100 is very light & small and uses same sensor as D7000. My strategy with it is to continue to use the D5100 and just SIT TIGHT a few more months until mid January. There's a good chance that around then we'll be hearing about an upgraded D5100, D7000, or D300 around then. It will likely match the D600 for half the cost. That money would be better spent on first class (I mean really FIRST class) tripod head and a superior tripod.

For back packing with light & compact in mind, my thinking runs to D5100, Gitzo 200-series CF tripod, AcraTech ballhead, Lenses Tokina 11-16mm AFS (new,) Nikon 16-85mm VR, Nikon 55-200mm VR. The last one is a kit lens but it's very good optically and quite light. Alternately, the Nikon 10-24mm and Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, Nikon 55-200mm VR. Single focal lenses are seductive but the fact you tend to need several kind of cancels out the light & compact angle. A lens on a solid tripod will almost always outperform a more expensive lens being hand held, in my experience. Finally, I'll add another thought. You spend two days hiking way back in there. The weather is perfect! Shots are jumping out at you left & right. Suddenly, you slip on a rock and fall on your butt. Your $2,000 D600 hits a rock and flies into a hundred pieces. (You are now out $2,000.) You have no other camera with you and you are now done. It's a two day walk back to the car, and then a three hour drive to the nearest city with a camera store. My plan for the past two years has been it's better to have two $1,000 cameras than just one $2,000 camera. Having two D5100 bodies doesn't take up much weight, cost is about <$850. Having a back up body like that can be worth a fortune.

Kent in SD

oskar_ojala · October 22, 2012

I was under the impression the primes I listed were all highly rated (especially stopped down for landscapes,) no? I also read reviews that the 24mm/1.8 is as clear as the 14-24 (at 24) when stopped down to 5.6.

</blockquote>

Can you be a bit more specific about the exact models of the primes you refer to? The 24/1.4 AF-S is great, but probably what you have in mind. The 28/1.8 G AF-S is excellent when stopped down. The 24/3.5 PC-E is a great lens. The rest of the sub-30 mm primes are older technology; even when stopped down to f8, there are big differences between lenses.

I could add that sticking to DX for a while with the aim of moving to FX and buying lenses accordingly can be worthwhile; it all depends on your budget and priorities. I went from a D300 to a D800, having known for a while that my next camera is FX and bought lenses accordingly. There was no transition; there's not a single thing I miss in the D300 and I haven't shot with it since. The way I see it is that for landscapes, the desirable options are either FX for high quality, or mirrorless for low weight, with DX being just a transition phase to either one. Last month I hiked up mountain with a minimal mirrorless setup and it was very convenient -- not FX quality, but entirely decent stuff and some 28 megapixel images done with stitching.

Two23 · October 22, 2012

Those new mirrorless cameras have really caught my eye, too. I like the compactness, the image quality, and the fact I can adapt a lot of lenses, including some from my collection of pre-Civil War lenses. I could also use my three Leica LTM lenses on one. Lots of options here! Being so small & light, I could also get away with a much lighter tripod too. Kent in SD

dan_south · October 22, 2012

If the budget is tight, get the D600 and the new 24-85 VR lens now. Shoot like mad with that combination for a while. Later pick up a 70-

300 VR. Save to buy a 14-24 f/2.8 someday. Piece by piece you'll assemble a very powerful kit, and you're building it around a great

sensor.

treyhoff · October 22, 2012

Oskar: The primes I was considering were all Nikon: 24mm AF f/2.8, 50mm AF-S f/1.8G, 85mm AF-S f/1.8G

Is the 24-85 that some have commented on a "high quality" lens then for the D600

BTY, I looked at many of my landscape shots with the D200. 80% range between 11 and 14 (shot with the Tokina 11-16); 15% between 18 and 35 (shot with the Nikon 18-200;) and 5% above 35. Converting that to FX, I would need an 18mm for my UWA, which means the new 16-35 or the 17-35 or other? Although I wanted lightweight lenses for backpacking, I concede that for the best lmage quality, I'm just going to have to pack the weight :)

lisa_b4 · October 22, 2012

I shoot 80% landscapes, and have been doing so the last 5 years or so primarily with my D200, so I kind of know where you're at. I also am not rolling in dough, I like to live simply, and travel extensively so small, light, well-built, and affordable are my main criteria when looking for quality photo gear.

I'm currently shooting a D7000, and I love it. I'm tempted by the D600, but will wait for the inevitable bugs to be worked out and for the price to come down. In a year or two, one will no doubt be able to buy a new or slightly used D600 below $1,400. I suspect that you'd be quite happy with a D7000 for several years--especially as a landscape shooter who has time to set up shots and nail the focus properly. Using the live view feature on the D7000 on a good tripod to compose and focus has noticeably increased my keep rate.

That said, a D600 would be great too, and don't forget that there are a TON of used AI and AIS manual focus Nikkors out there that are still as good (and sometimes better) than their modern AF versions, and they can be easily found in mint-exc condition for very reasonable prices. If you're mostly a landscape shooter, then using liveview (like on the D7000 of D600) to compose and focus is the way to go IMHO and you really don't need AF lenses to do that. Both the 20mm and 24mm Nikkor AI(S) are great lenses that perform very well on modern DSLRs especially when stopped down like you will for landscapes. You can buy those two wide primes for around $100-$200 ea in mint condition. The Nikkor 28mm f/2 and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 are also legendary MF lenses that still perform exceedingly well on DSLRs.

I just upgraded from the D200 myself, and, I really think that a D7000, some quality MF primes, and a good (i.e. Gitzo) carbon fiber tripod with a good (i.e. Markins, Kirk, etc) ball head would keep you busy for many years to come and give you some really great images!

Two23 · October 22, 2012

Lisa--

Just as cameras have changed over the past 30 years, so have lenses. Trey--if you mostly are using the tokina 11-16mm now, the logical equivalent for D600 would be the Nikon 14-24. Not sure how close the 16-24mm will come to that, but it would likely be second. The price of lens switch is one of the three things that has kept me from buying FX. (Number one factor is how quickly camera bodies lose value.)

Kent in SD

Sign In

D600; Help me decide which lenses

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in