A subset of lens history

david_smith110 · November 28, 2012

Its no surprise that I am a big fan of Minolta products, both cameras and lenses. I have a nice, small collection of Minolta glass that I currently use on my Minolta film bodies and my NEX 7. I have done a lot of personal research lately on Minolta lenses and the innovations they pioneered. Frankly it is impressive what this company, Mechanisms, INstruments, Optics and Lenses by TAshima, came up with and developed during its long (but albeit to brief) history.

I have recently become rather enamored of a small subset of Minolta lenses and plan to slowly amass as many of them as I can. I believe these particular lenses to sit a crossroads of design and capability that is very appealing to any user of legacy lenses. I speak of the Minolta MC Rokkors, specifically the second versions that were made between 1969 and early 1972. As far as I can tell the main difference between the second series MC's and the first is the enlarging of the metal focusing ring. The older lenses had a very flat focusing ring while the second series has a much more pronounced 'mountain and valley' arrangement similar to the old M42 SMC Takumars. And since Minolta was constantly changing and bettering their optical coatings irregardless of any lens changes (meaning they would apply new coatings as soon as they developed them, even in mid production runs) these second series MC's have a much better chance of having improved formulas coated on them. Some of the last MC Rokkors made will have the same coatings as the newer MC Rokkor-X's that came along in late 72 with completely redesigned bodies, including the loss of the huge alloy metal focusing ring and using a rubber one instead.

These all metal lenses are simply a pleasure to use and I believe them to be the most well made and artfully crafted manual focus lenses ever made. I would even put them up against Leica glass, especially when you consider the price difference between the two. From the unpainted aperture ring to the elegant green and white paint on the distance scale these lenses exude an industrial elegance that is timeless. The fact that they are some of the greatest examples of the lens makers art and powerful photographic tools is just icing on the cake.

I currently only have the 55/1.7 and 58/1.4 of this particular series of Minolta lenses, but there are many more on my radar. Here is a photo of the MC Rokkor PF 55/1.7 on my NEX 7.

I will follow this up with some photo examples from both lenses. Hope you enjoy.

david_smith110 · November 28, 2012

Examples from the 55/1.7

with Minolta Close Up lens No.2 how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8066/8223120122_5a15d21a56_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /> with close up lens keeper of the lines <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8348/8223118884_5c6d2b5636_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /> with close up lens the halo underneath <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8483/8223121928_c7ccda0d67_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /> with close up lens watching the world burn <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8065/8222044003_22ee4dd544_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /> my daughter exploring her world <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8199/8209772178_4c003f517c_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /> dandelion with tree <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8487/8223121178_35b1caf457_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" />

with close up lens

kalimar sr200

david_smith110 · November 28, 2012

And now a few from the 58/1.4

bokeh me

fungal dreaming

fence

after the fall

the essence of a tree in fall

daugter mine

Matthew Currie · November 28, 2012

I have the second generation MC Rokkor 135/2.8, bought for nearly nothing. Very sharp lens, and beautifully made. It includes its own sunshade. My only complaint is that it does not focus close. You can't have mine, of course, but I can definitely recommend you put it on your list if it is not there already.

rick_drawbridge · November 28, 2012

Superb, as usual, David. Hard to pick a favourite, though I especially like the two "daughter" pics, "Fence" and "Keeper of the Lines". You've provided a fine résumé of the MC history, as well. These lenses, along with the Yashinons of the same era, remain firmly in my "Favourites" list, and it's great to see you using them on the digital platform to produce such fine images. Thanks for posting: just as an aside, here's a little collection of mine.<div>

00b4gM-506277584.jpg.704700ee23542115df077a2f24f08cc7.jpg

</div>

ann_overland · November 28, 2012

David, I am just a bit curious as to why you would prefer the MC lenses over the MD lenses?

JDMvW · November 28, 2012

This is not making it easier for those of us in Cameras Anonymous.

Nice work.

I'm pretty sure that Annie Leibovitz started with Minoltas.

vince-p · November 29, 2012

re: Annie Liebovitz I've read that she started with an SRT, don't know which model. Gene Smith also became a Minolta spokesman or face on their advertising in this era -- during and after his Minimata project which made him something of a national hero in Japan -- and used the SRTs. By the late 60s these would have been their lenses.

dan_fromm2 · November 29, 2012

David, do you have lens tests to back up your assertion of Minolta superiority?

donnie_strickland · November 29, 2012

Dan, no doubt David will answer for himself, but as I understand his post, he's not necessarily speaking of lens performance; rather, he refers to his impression of the details of construction quality of the lenses, which is a subjective thing.

david_smith110 · November 29, 2012

Matthew- A 135 is indeed on my list. Odd about the minimum focusing distance though. Minolta usually has pretty decent numbers in this regard. Oh well, you cant have everything. As Steven Wright once said, even if you did have everything where would you put it?

Rick- Thanks for the compliment. And those Tomioka Yashinons are right up there on my list as well. Beautiful lenses with great OOF effects. Simply love them. Thats an enviable little Rokkor collection by the way. Jealous :)

Ann- It really is a matter of construction. Believe me when I say that I love all Rokkors and most of what I own are some variant of MD. I would even go out on a limb and say my favorite is my little MD 35/2.8. But when it comes to the actual feel of the lens in your hand and using it to capture photographs the later MD Rokkor-X's and MD's just dont generate the same level of tactile enjoyment I receive when I mount up one of these old MC's. Its very subjective to be sure but it must be the same feeling that has allowed Leica gear to reach such hallowed status. These old MC's just strike a chord with me. On top of that is that they usually have the same optical formula as later lenses and as I said the coatings are in some cases the same (not the same as the pure MD lenses but still very good). Plus, they just turn out some lovely photographs. Hard to explain but there it is.

JDM- High, my name is David, and I use Minolta lenses. Thanks for the compliment. :)

Vince- I was aware of Annie but not of Gene, thanks for pointing him out. Good to know I am following in the footsteps of giants.

Dan- At no point did I make an assertion of Minolta superiority. And I dont need any lens tests to back up such a claim as I am not trying to convince anybody in that way. I said that I would put Minolta lenses up against any in the world, including Leica, as being some of the most well made and artfully crafted lenses ever made. Lens tests are overrated anyway. If you want to test a lens, go out and use it in the real world. But if you want to speak of optical superiority then Minolta lenses will still go toe to toe with any other maker in the world. Especially when you figure in the price of elitist glass. Minolta lenses are some of the best ever made. If you have two photographers, one with Minolta and one with Leica (or any other brand), it will come down to the better photographer as to who will make the more compelling photograph. That is simply my opinion which you in no way have to share.

Donnie- Thanks for that, and you are exactly right. I was referring to construction/quality and that is incredibly subjective.

dan_fromm2 · November 29, 2012

David, you wrote:

I believe them to be the most well made and artfully crafted manual focus lenses ever made. I would even put them up against Leica glass, especially when you consider the price difference between the two.

</blockquote>

To an ignorant barbarian insensitive to the fine points -- that's me -- this seems like an assertion of superiority. But if all you meant is that late MC Rokkors are well made, I'm agnostic on that and on how well they compare in any respect to most of their competitors including lenses from Leitz and Zeiss. I do wonder, though, which lenses from which makers you've compared.

I also wonder which elements of construction you can perceive. This because of a remark the late Steve Grimes is reported to have made about Apo-Nikkors. "They are centered by God." Steve was a photographer's machinist and was well equipped to check how well lens elements are centered; few of us can do what he did.

Ignorant barbarian that I am, I value lenses for what they do, not how they feel. Many people who've posted in this forum have reported that for them the experience of taking a shot -- this includes how the gear used feels in the hands and against the face -- is as important as how good the results are. They say that the journey is as important as the destination. I don't get this at all, at least with respect to photography but as I admit freely I'm not sensitive to the fine points.

Cheers,

Dan

Oh, yeah, re the competitors' lenses and "any aspect" of their performance, in 1970 I had a 200/4 Nikkor-Q and a friend had a 200/4 Canon for his FTQL. The Canon lens seemed much flimsier than the Nikkor and its stop down linkage seemed much less well protected from dirt and damage. The two lenses shot equally well, though. On the basis of this comparison I rate Canon SLR lenses of that era as less-well made than Nikkors even though extending it to other lenses in the Canon line as it was then is wrong.

andylynn · November 29, 2012

David: Some lovely stuff here. "Fungal dreaming" shows a lot of what I really love about that lens.

Dan: I didn't read this thread as any sort of competitive statement or attempt to get an argument going. Both Minolta and Nikon have made excellent lenses over the years. I own a number of both, and some others, all of which can get used in different situations, and it's getting to be a problem with space in my home. But I think the classic cameras board isn't really a venue for brand-vs-brand stuff - largely because the time for things like "XD7 vs. FE Shootout!" passed 30 years ago. Anybody who reads this regularly will tell you that great classic gear was made by any number of companies, including some I've never heard of.

tony_lockerbie · November 29, 2012

Two lens makers that may not have the kudos of the premium makes (think Nikon, Leica etc.) but have nonetheless made optics that really shine, both in image quality and mechanical feel...these are Minolta and Pentax.

No surprise then when Minolta made a few lenses that Leitz put their name on. Your close ups are quite lovely, as is the last B&W portrait...keep up the good work.

dan_fromm2 · November 29, 2012

I quite agree that Minolta and Pentax gear of the early '70s was overshadowed, not entirely justly, by Nikon. So were Leica SLRs, except in the eyes of the few Leicanuts. This is not to say that Minolta and Pentax didn't make gear that was as capable as Nikon's -- lenses perhaps a little more than bodies -- , rather that Nikon and Leica got better press.

I can't address issues of build quality, but the major makers' better lenses all shot better than well enough. I say better lenses because, for example, in Nikon's range not all lenses of the same focal length were equally well corrected; surprisingly, faster ones were usually better.

There were two reasons why Nikon was then seen in the US as the professional 35 mm camera. Nikon had far and away the most complete 35 mm SLR system. Nikon's US distributor Joe Ehrenreich succeeded brilliantly in placing Nikon gear with press photographers. I understand that back then Pentax was the UK press photographer's 35 mm camera of choice even though Geoffrey Crawley, then editor of the BJP, was a strong partisan of the Nikon system for reasons he explained in his book on it.

I'm aware of one complaint about Minolta bodies -- all Nikkormat, not Nikon F, equivalents -- back then. One of my colleagues in the data center I then worked in was a fine photographer, better than me. She had an SRT and cursed it often. Minolta's on-board exposure meter used a weighting system called CRC. I found it easy to tell when my Nikkormat's center weighting would give bad advice on exposure and had no trouble learning what to do in those situations. Mary couldn't predict when her SRT's CRC would lead her astray or in which direction so couldn't override it sensibly. She still took better pictures than I did.

vince-p · November 29, 2012

If you use and love Minolta lenses you tend to make large claims for them because, a. they deserve it and, more significantly, b. they are underappreciated. There is no qualitative reason (there is only demand, which is, in the end, all) for an AIS Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 to cost $200 used in great shape and the equivalent MD Rokkor X 50mm f/1.4 to cost a third of that, insofar as the Minolta is optically superior (yeah, my opinion, but I've not seen an informed critic knowing both who would contradict it). There are a number of Rokkors that are similarly extraordinary (20mm and 24mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/2 come immediately to mind).

On the other hand the last Minolta manual focus lenses were made in the 1980s and lens making technology is such that many modern lenses would, if tested, prove superior (sharper, higher contrast, etc). But the great older lenses have such amazing character.

vince-p · November 29, 2012

PS Dan refers knowledgeably to the issue of Minolta and Pentax "bodies" -- Pentax not til the LX and MX and ME cameras, and Minolta basically not until the leap to auto focus -- designed cameras that compared to similar-niche Nikons. This has been a permanent hindrance to their reputations. I love my XD-11 and X-700/X-570 cameras but they are not nearly as reliable and satisfying to use as Nikon's FE and FA. Similarly the SRTs were not the F, by a mile; and the XK was a fiasco.

rdm · November 29, 2012

I too love Minolta lenses. I believe they are the best manual lenses ever made , and i will fight anyone to the death who tries to convince me otherwise. I really cant explain my Love for Minolta, it might have something to do with my first SLR when i was 12 was a Minolta, but who knows.

So yes David I understand how you feel about these lenses. Someday I will afford to purchase a Canon 5d so that I can use all my Minolta glass on it, but until then I will use them on my µ4/3 camera.

User_502260 · November 30, 2012

I have lenses in a number of different mounts and vintages for my many SLR cameras. When it comes to mechanical integrity one of my favorite lens lines is the Canon FL series. For this discussion I will not include the 35/3.5, 135/3.5 and 200/4.5 FLs. Their aperture rings turn and engage very smoothly. For this reason alone I sometimes enjoy using them in stop-down mode on FD bodies. The original Canon F-1 with the Servo EE finder was quite a contraption. You can see by the changes to the mechanical build of the FD lens aperture rings and the O and later A settings that Canon was already thinking about the time when photographers would leave the aperture ring in one position and shoot using an automatic exposure mode. If you were to take a take model 50/1.4 Canon FL (II) and compare it to an early chrome front 50/1.4 FD you would see that the optical design is about the same. The coatings are not that different. What's really different is that if you simply turned the aperture ring on each lens back and forth until you ran into a problem, the FD lens would have the problem first. With an FL lens on an FL body you are turning the aperture ring back and forth when metering for each shot. This is why the aperture ring has to be so sturdy. I started out with Konica equipment. With Autoreflex cameras you would normally set the lens aperture to EE (later AE). If you wanted to set the aperture manually you could but the click stops were very positive and obviously not meant for constant use. The Honeywell Strobonar 100 I had in 9th Grade was a manual flash so I used the calculator dial and did a lot of f/stop changing when changing camera to subject distance. All of the popular lens lines became more cheaply built at least on the outside over time. After the MC Rokkor-X lenses Minolta made lenses with some plastic on the outside. All later MD lenses had plastic aperture rings. I never had one wear out but they are plastic. Once into the AI era Nikkors were made more cheaply on the outside. It was much easier to wear off markings on the lenses and the rubber on the focusing rings, while good, was not as strong as the surface of the earlier all metal ones. The last Hexanon lenses made for Konica by Tokina were also not as well made on the outside as earlier Konica-made Hexanons.

Where the 200mm lenses are concerned, I have a number of Canon and Nikon models. I have an early (2nd version) on the Canon 200/4 FD. This one has older coating and handles flare very poorly. If you are not in a flare situation it is quite good. The 200/4 FD SSC is an excellent lens even if its aperture mechanism is not as strdy as that of the comparable Nikkor from that time. The 200/3.5 Canon FL is a decent lens if found in good condition but not as good as the 200/4 FD SSC. The 200/4 New FD has handy close focusing but otherwise does not seem as good to me as the 200/4 FD SSC. My fastest Canon 200 is the f/2.8 New FD (1st version). I find it excellent and I have had good resullts using it with some teleconverters too. I know some people say they prefer the 200/2.8 New FD IF model. I have heard that some IF and/or rear focusing lenses do not work well with teleconverters so I have not looked to get this model yet. If I did not have the 200/2.8 New FD I could use a Vivitar 200/3 Series 1. I consider that lens to be very good. It has close focusing and is nice and bright to focus through. My 200mm Nikkors include one of the two 20cm f/4 versions, two 200/4 Nikkor Qs, a 200/4 Nikkor QC and a 200/4 AI Nikkor. The cm version only focuses to about 13 feet and has early coating. It is not good in flare situations or when you need to get close. The Q is better coated, is sharp and has closer focusing. The QC has improved coating and is very sharp. All are built to a high mechanical standard. The AI is somewhat more compact, less robust mechanically and also very sharp. Of all of these the QC is my favorite. It's longer than the AI but not too heavy and it balances well on all of the Nikon and Nikkormat bodies I have.

Some other favorite 200s include: 200/3.5 Konica Hexanon (all EE/AE versions), 200/3.5 Rokkor (2nd MC Rokkor and MC Rokkor-X), Vivitar 200/3 Series 1, 200/4 Super Takumar. The Konica and Minolta 200/4 lenses and the Minolta 200/4.5 all get honorable mention. They are perfecty good if you have enough light but I prefer the faster models.

What about the "feel" of certain cameras or lenses, leaving absolute optical quality aside? This comes back to the old "high tech vs. high touch" concept from Megatrends. You might see someone with a new electronc camera which is covered in leather. Does the leather improve the images made with the camera? Probably not. I have many f/1.4 standard Minolta lenses. In absolute terms the last model, the 50/1.4 MD is probably the best. It is also more compact. I prefer the 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X. The older lens is larger and heavier (more metal) and has coating nearly as good as that of the newer lens. The out of focus rendition is different between the two lenses and many prefer the older lens for that reason. The older 58/1.4 is thought to have even better out of focus rendition. At that point it's a matter of taste. From my own experience the 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X is at least as good as the MD when stopped down but not quite as good at or near wide open. I see this same comparison between a 50/1.4 'K' Nikkor (1st version) and a 50/1.4 AIS Nikkor. In practical terms the newer lens is often better but the older lenses have their charms too. This is especially true for a user/collector. I like to mix and match when it comes to cameras and lenses but I also sometimes like to use a body with lenses from the same time period just for fun.

User_502260 · November 30, 2012

I have lenses in a number of different mounts and vintages for my many SLR cameras. When it comes to mechanical integrity one of my favorite lens lines is the Canon FL series. For this discussion I will not include the 35/3.5, 135/3.5 and 200/4.5 FLs. Their aperture rings turn and engage very smoothly. For this reason alone I sometimes enjoy using them in stop-down mode on FD bodies. The original Canon F-1 with the Servo EE finder was quite a contraption. You can see by the changes to the mechanical build of the FD lens aperture rings and the O and later A settings that Canon was already thinking about the time when photographers would leave the aperture ring in one position and shoot using an automatic exposure mode. If you were to take a take model 50/1.4 Canon FL (II) and compare it to an early chrome front 50/1.4 FD you would see that the optical design is about the same. The coatings are not that different. What's really different is that if you simply turned the aperture ring on each lens back and forth until you ran into a problem, the FD lens would have the problem first. With an FL lens on an FL body you are turning the aperture ring back and forth when metering for each shot. This is why the aperture ring has to be so sturdy. I started out with Konica equipment. With Autoreflex cameras you would normally set the lens aperture to EE (later AE). If you wanted to set the aperture manually you could but the click stops were very positive and obviously not meant for constant use. The Honeywell Strobonar 100 I had in 9th Grade was a manual flash so I used the calculator dial and did a lot of f/stop changing when changing camera to subject distance. All of the popular lens lines became more cheaply built at least on the outside over time. After the MC Rokkor-X lenses Minolta made lenses with some plastic on the outside. All later MD lenses had plastic aperture rings. I never had one wear out but they are plastic. Once into the AI era Nikkors were made more cheaply on the outside. It was much easier to wear off markings on the lenses and the rubber on the focusing rings, while good, was not as strong as the surface of the earlier all metal ones. The last Hexanon lenses made for Konica by Tokina were also not as well made on the outside as earlier Konica-made Hexanons.

Where the 200mm lenses are concerned, I have a number of Canon and Nikon models. I have an early (2nd version) on the Canon 200/4 FD. This one has older coating and handles flare very poorly. If you are not in a flare situation it is quite good. The 200/4 FD SSC is an excellent lens even if its aperture mechanism is not as strdy as that of the comparable Nikkor from that time. The 200/3.5 Canon FL is a decent lens if found in good condition but not as good as the 200/4 FD SSC. The 200/4 New FD has handy close focusing but otherwise does not seem as good to me as the 200/4 FD SSC. My fastest Canon 200 is the f/2.8 New FD (1st version). I find it excellent and I have had good resullts using it with some teleconverters too. I know some people say they prefer the 200/2.8 New FD IF model. I have heard that some IF and/or rear focusing lenses do not work well with teleconverters so I have not looked to get this model yet. If I did not have the 200/2.8 New FD I could use a Vivitar 200/3 Series 1. I consider that lens to be very good. It has close focusing and is nice and bright to focus through. My 200mm Nikkors include one of the two 20cm f/4 versions, two 200/4 Nikkor Qs, a 200/4 Nikkor QC and a 200/4 AI Nikkor. The cm version only focuses to about 13 feet and has early coating. It is not good in flare situations or when you need to get close. The Q is better coated, is sharp and has closer focusing. The QC has improved coating and is very sharp. All are built to a high mechanical standard. The AI is somewhat more compact, less robust mechanically and also very sharp. Of all of these the QC is my favorite. It's longer than the AI but not too heavy and it balances well on all of the Nikon and Nikkormat bodies I have.

Some other favorite 200s include: 200/3.5 Konica Hexanon (all EE/AE versions), 200/3.5 Rokkor (2nd MC Rokkor and MC Rokkor-X), Vivitar 200/3 Series 1, 200/4 Super Takumar. The Konica and Minolta 200/4 lenses and the Minolta 200/4.5 all get honorable mention. They are perfecty good if you have enough light but I prefer the faster models.

What about the "feel" of certain cameras or lenses, leaving absolute optical quality aside? This comes back to the old "high tech vs. high touch" concept from Megatrends. You might see someone with a new electronc camera which is covered in leather. Does the leather improve the images made with the camera? Probably not. I have many f/1.4 standard Minolta lenses. In absolute terms the last model, the 50/1.4 MD is probably the best. It is also more compact. I prefer the 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X. The older lens is larger and heavier (more metal) and has coating nearly as good as that of the newer lens. The out of focus rendition is different between the two lenses and many prefer the older lens for that reason. The older 58/1.4 is thought to have even better out of focus rendition. At that point it's a matter of taste. From my own experience the 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X is at least as good as the MD when stopped down but not quite as good at or near wide open. I see this same comparison between a 50/1.4 'K' Nikkor (1st version) and a 50/1.4 AIS Nikkor. In practical terms the newer lens is often better but the older lenses have their charms too. This is especially true for a user/collector. I like to mix and match when it comes to cameras and lenses but I also sometimes like to use a body with lenses from the same time period just for fun.

Robin Smith · November 30, 2012

Surely everything on this forum is a "classic" by definition? This has been commented on before.

Online it seems that every old lens is a "classic" and many are "undiscovered gems". I think these claims should all be considered with a great chunk of NaCl. In a moment the Zuiko crowd will chip in with their astronomical claims and so it goes on! It's OK, I don't mind, but it is rather amusing to see it. I certainly agree they do not make them like they used to...

dan_fromm2 · November 30, 2012

Robin, local custom is "whatever I have is as good, relative to what I don't have, as I say it is."

This is closely related to the standard answer to the frequently asked question "What should I use?" Viz., and to wit, "you should use exactly what I do."

As for salt, well, on doctors' orders very little of it is consumed by people who post in this forum. We're forbidden pretzels, saltines, unwashed salt cod and skepticism.

When they were new Zuiko lenses made for M42 Olympus cameras weren't that highly regarded. And when they were new, OM mount Zuiko lenses also weren't all that highly regarded. One of my pickier friends drank the OM koolaid, unloaded his Nikon kit and replaced it with OM equivalents. Not long after he went back to Nikon, told all who would pretend to listen that Nikon lenses produced visibly better results. I report what he said, have no idea whether he was right, didn't and don't take sides.

Robin Smith · November 30, 2012

Dan - completely agree with you. Don't know about Nikon vs Olympus optics, except would agree the M42 Olympi never really took off.

Matthew Currie · November 30, 2012

Everyone may be right here, and maybe they're nothing special anyway, but second generation MC lenses are certainly the sort of thing that any classic camera buff can pick up and feel at home with. They're beautifully put together and made of metal and comfortable to handle and they fit your Minolta camera. A cheap four stars even if you spend the next month arguing about the fifth.

ann_overland · November 30, 2012

David, I like your answer. Thanks.

Sign In

A subset of lens history

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in