VR vs non VR

daniel_smithson · November 14, 2015

I like k.e.n.r.o.c.k.w.e.l.l.s explanation of the fact that VR is useless for all high speed wildlife and kids photography. "IS and VR work great for subjects that hold still, which is most of what I photograph. VR doesn't do anything for subjects that are moving, like sports and kids." Google (VR vs non VR) to find out what real people who have tested every Nikon lens say.

I could post the link, but the truth is forbidden here for some reason.

Peter_in_PA · November 14, 2015

I could post the link, but the truth is forbidden here for some reason.

</blockquote>

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Daniel. KR posts some of the most useless information on the internet, and amid that, of course, there's an occasional nugget of gold. His advice is always contradictory and even he admits his site is for entertainment only.

ilkka_nissila · November 14, 2015

KR says in his About page on his site: "It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination." Also, later on he adds "I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax."

Nick D. · November 14, 2015

"but it seems to do everything that it should, except for rendering crisp clear photos.",- try 300/2.8 VR, bet you will get crisp clear photos.

Peter_in_PA · November 14, 2015

"but it seems to do everything that it should, except for rendering crisp clear photos.",- try 300/2.8 VR, bet you will get crisp clear photos.

</blockquote>

Unless of course you misuse VR or use it for something that it doesn't help with, like fast moving action subjects at slow shutter speeds.

Andrew Garrard · November 14, 2015

I like k.e.n.r.o.c.k.w.e.l.l.s explanation of the fact that VR is useless for all high speed wildlife and kids photography. "IS and VR work great for subjects that hold still, which is most of what I photograph. VR doesn't do anything for subjects that are moving, like sports and kids."

</blockquote>

Irrespective of Hypnoken's tendency to oversimplify issues and treat opinions as fact, you're misquoting him. VR does not affect subject movement (although it can help with tracking subject movement). It does help with subject framing and placing your AF. If I'm wandering around and see a hummingbird feeding, I'll absolutely use a high shutter speed if I want to freeze the wings, but I'd use VR to frame it. Yes, VR can slightly impact sharpness; so can hand tremor. For a static shot, being clamped to a good tripod (potentially with a better lens foot than Nikon give you on the 80-400) is better than VR. How much depends on several factors, Can you hide a lot of hand tremor just by shooting at a high shutter speed? Yes, that works too, if you don't mind ISO noise. I'd absolutely use VR for most sports. Ken, incidentally, has not "tested every Nikon lens". Sadly, I can only report experience with about twenty lenses in the Nikon mount. The four that were stabilised include three of the sharpest lenses I own. The other was the 150-500 Sigma, whose behaviour was comparable to the 80-400 AF-D.

I could so test with the 80-400 and the 200 both at aperture 5.6, and set the 80-400 to a 200 zoom to make them equal, then redo the test, which will still show the 80-400 to be blurry and inferior.

</blockquote>

So the 80-400 AF-D, which is known to be a bit soft at the long end, is softer wide open than the 80-200mm professional zoom is when stopped down by two stops? I don't think we're arguing. We're just not blaming the VR. (VR does introduce some more optical surfaces and might reduce contrast slightly. That should be the main negative effect. If it were so bad, Nikon would have more current telephotos without it.)

Dan, if you are so sure that every Nikon lens is great, I will sell you a $1500.00 dollar lens, that now sells for $2500.00 for a bargain $1000.00.................. Then you can prove me wrong.

</blockquote>

I'm very confused. Dan specifically said the 70-200 VR 2 is pretty good. I don't recall him claiming wonders for, for example, the variable aperture 24-120. Nikon make mistakes. Putting VR in the 70-200 wasn't one of them. By all means play with a mk1 Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS if you want to see VR making a 70-200 worse - but the Nikkor, like the mk2 Canon, is not representative of that. And I assume your "$1500 lens that now sells for $2500" is the 80-400? It doesn't - the $2500 version is a completely new, and better, lens. It's not like the Noct-Nikkors that are collectors' items. Good luck getting $1000 for the AF-D. KEH suggest $729 for a good one.

as my 80-200 can be computer cropped to the same 400 image that the 80-400 produces and be clearer every time

</blockquote>

Didn't you say you also own an 18-200? By this argument, why? Yes, we get you're not happy with your old, discontinued, relatively-budget telephoto zoom. If only Nikon would discontinue it and come up with a better one! Oh, they did. But if only they would come up with a cheaper option for birders with good telephoto performance for less money than you paid for your 80-400. Oh, they did. But you hate Nikon, and need a good third-party option. Oh, there are some. And if only your imagined performance concerns based on a completely different lens were irrelevant to a comparison between two professional photojournalism lenses from different vintages. Oh, they are.

Seriously, use more than one VR lens, in a shop if you need to, before making wild claims. You're sounding like someone who shoots film because they tried a D1 once and are convinced that all DSLRs are unusably noisy at ISO 800.

daniel_smithson · November 14, 2015

I did not misquote Rockwell, the quote was and still is, "IS and VR work great for subjects that hold still, which is most of what I photograph. VR doesn't do anything for subjects that are moving, like sports and kids."

That is the quote, and it is correct, so if one is going to photograph Eagles and Ospreys diving for fish, VR is useless and will result in a missed shot.

It's just that simple, these types of shots begin at 1/1000 and go as high as color saturation will allow. So if VR can not be used at over 1/500, then leave it at home, or photograph non moving telephone pole mounted transformers, as if that is exciting.

Sheesh, there is no argument here, VR is useless, as it can not be used when needed.

The end.......................

Matthew Currie · November 15, 2015

I still don't understand here why you say VR will result in a missed shot. You can turn it off.

raczoliver · November 15, 2015

It's just that simple, these types of shots begin at 1/1000 and go as high as color saturation will allow.

</blockquote>

This is slightly off topic, but I don't understand the relationship between shutter speed and color saturation, although I am definitely not very knowledgeable about certain technical aspects of photography, so I may learn something new today.

You are basically saying that a heating system (VR) in the house (lens) is useless, because it is only for use in the winter (at slow shutter speeds), and does not do any good once the outside temperature goes above 70F (shutter speed goes above 1/500s), so why have it in the first place? Just like the heating system in the house, the VR function on your lens can be turned off. It's optional to use it even on the lenses that have it. Nobody, not even Nikon, claims that it is good to have it on at all times, just like you turn the heating off in the summer. If you live in the tropics (always use fast shutter speeds), then indeed a heating system (VR) is completely useless for you.

VR will very rarely result in a missed shot, though. If you missed the shot, you probably would have missed it without VR as well. Maybe not because of your technique, it may be possible that the lens is just plain bad, but that's unrelated to VR.

Peter_in_PA · November 15, 2015

Daniel, I suggest you read less of Rockwell. That said, again, for what VR works well for, it's a wonderful development.

daniel_smithson · November 15, 2015

My technique produces stunning shots, none of which has ever been taken with the 80-400 lemon. This lens works just good enough to pass as working, like Rockwell says if you shoot sports or wildlife, it's useless and it is. As for my technique, here is some of it, remembering that none of these photos was taken with a handheld 80-400 VR dud.............. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/</a>

Andrew Garrard · November 15, 2015

I did not misquote Rockwell,

</blockquote>

Let me try that again. I completely believe, and (in moderation, in that it largely ignores VR modes that are designed to support tracking) agree with him when he says:

"IS and VR work great for subjects that hold still, which is most of what I photograph. VR doesn't do anything for subjects that are moving, like sports and kids."

</blockquote>

He did not say, and should not have said:

VR is useless for all high speed wildlife and kids photography.

</blockquote>

"VR does not stop subject movement" is not same thing as "VR's benefits in framing a subject with a long lens suddenly stop being relevant because the subject is moving". Nor is is the case that kids or sportspeople never hold still, but that's another issue. It is, however, the case that the blur you get from hand-holding a long lens may be as significant as the subject motion, and that VR can still allow you to get away with a longer shutter speed than you'd otherwise need, even if you still need to choose the shutter speed high enough to compensate for some subject motion.

It's common on this site to dismiss things that Ken says. It's not because he's wrong (although he sometimes is) - it's often because he tends to make sweeping statements out of context, which then get quoted back at those of us who have to try to explain the context. I do, sometimes, read his stuff; I've pointed out corrections and even donated. He does, sometimes, make perfectly good points - he just also attempts to be controversial in order to promote his site through online discussion, makes claims about equipment that he has not used or has used only in specific ways without qualifying those statements, and is bad (maybe deliberately) at providing meaningful context for his advice. He's also particularly prone to assuming his way of shooting is the only valid way. Reading his site, we should all be using a Mamiya 7, Canon have a perfect user interface, the A/M markers on AF-S lenses are "incorrect", it's useless to have auto-ISO in manual mode, the most important feature in choosing a camera is how high the saturation settings go on the in-camera JPEG processing, tripods are irrelevant and - frequently stated - "sharpness doesn't matter". He's also taken follow-up ideas that I've emailed him about topics he's discussed and posted them on his web site with a "patent disclosure" header in his name and no mention of me (although since I told him I'd already sent them to Canon and Nikon, I'm not clear that would do him any good) and I find the casual racism and jingoism (which may be more obvious to me as a non-American) make it hard to read. So I'm not as devoted a reader as I used to be. YMMV.

Let me make another analogy for the VR debate: people sometimes say that there's no point in owning, say, a McLaren sports car in the UK, because there are no roads in the UK where you can legally drive at 200mph. This is true, but completely ignores the fact that the acceleration and handling of a sports car can still be useful in normal driving (for example, by reducing exposure to danger when overtaking or when avoiding an accident). Sure, there's a trade-off in fuel consumption and suitability for the school run, but we each choose our priorities (I have a diesel Skoda from the Volkswagen group - see how much good my priorities did me!) Arguing that one aspect of a design does not address one specific problem does not mean that it is generally useless. Nobody is disagreeing with the statements you made about the relative performance of the 80-200 AF-D and the 80-400 AF-D, or that VR does not freeze subject motion. We just disagree with the extrapolation of those statements to the performance of other VR lenses or to the general usefulness of VR.

If you would like to try renting a 70-200 VR or an 80-400 AF-S (or even a 400 f/2.8 VR FL) and report back on how they behave, I'm sure we would be interested to know whether they have changed your mind. In the meantime, those of us with direct experience with the 70-200 VR 2, which, being a pretty common lens to be used by photo professionals and enthusiasts, I suspect is quite a lot of us, may have reason to believe that your concerns are misplaced. The lens isn't perfect (it's not bad, but the Coastal Optics 60mm behaves better in some ways, for example - assuming you wanted an f/4 macro; the 85mm Otus will give you sharper images at f/2.8 and 85mm compared with the zoom, and the 200mm f/2 is indubitably better at 200mm than the 70-200), but I don't believe the VR performance or fundamental usefulness is one of its biggest issues.

Sorry to sound like I'm getting at you Daniel, but people search the internet and find these threads, and if we don't challenge the assertion that "VR is useless", this misinformation will propagate. Much like the lack of context in the statements on Ken's web site.

Nick D. · November 15, 2015

If you search Flickr for 80-400 shots, you will find lots of stunning pictures taken by photographers who knows how to use those lens.

Andrew Garrard · November 15, 2015

none of which has ever been taken with the 80-400 lemon.

</blockquote>

Ok. We get that you're not happy with the performance of your old, discontinued 80-400, which is a lens that many of us were asking to be replaced before Nikon actually did it. I'm sorry for you that you have a lens with poor performance, especially since it was competitive with the only available alternatives at the time (Sigma 120-400, 150-500, 50-500 and Tokina 200-500). All of these have now been replaced, since technology has moved on; newer equivalent lenses are appreciably better, and other VR lenses have also had good performance, especially when we're talking about premium professional lenses like the 70-200 and the big superteles. Would you like to blame VR for the performance of your 18-200 while you're at it?

If you'd started this thread with the premise "did you know the 80-400 AF-D isn't very sharp at the long end, and its VR was a bit of a first attempt?" then you'd have had rapid agreement, sympathy, and encouragement to upgrade - to another VR lens. There's no point in being angry at Nikon that they should replace a lens that they've already replaced (with both the new, expensive, 80-400 and the cheaper 200-500, depending on your needs). That's like complaining that the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D isn't very sharp wide open: there are a lot of ways to solve that kind of problem, but Nikon can't magically make your old lens work better, and if you bought it with unrealistic expectations, maybe you should check multiple review sites (and not just KR, who claims that the 150-500 is optically excellent and that the 135 f/2 DC can be used wide open all the time; the former is plain gibberish and the latter needs significant caveats). Nikon didn't deliberately make it behave badly - you're not going to get a class action suit out of this one, so I'd take it on the chin and see how you can solve your problem. Blaming VR and asserting that it is detrimental to all telephoto lens designs or some kind of meaningless marketing feature (I realise I'm putting words in your mouth) to make people upgrade unnecessarily is not doing anyone a service, especially when the 70-200 VR is better in more ways than just the VR.

For what it's worth, I have the 300mm f/4 AF-S non-VR lens. Now there's a 300mm f/4 VR. So far, I've had better things to spend money on than the upgrade, especially since I have mild concerns about the bokeh and flare of the new one (although any LoCA improvements tempt me). I do have other ways to get to, and beyond, 300mm, and I'd kind of rather save for a 400 f/2.8 as a "mid life crisis" lens (instead of, say, a Porsche). If you find the lack of VR is not limiting you, especially on the 80-200, good - I'm glad you're happy with your lens, even if we assert that the replacement is, in some ways, objectively better. If you find the performance of the 80-400 is bothering you, replace it. But don't be scared of doing so just because a lens you don't like has VR in it, even if you find VR doesn't help you much. (If you always shoot the 80-400 on a gimbal, I completely believe VR won't do much for you, by the way.)

To paraphrase the British Prime Minister: "Terrorists use encryption, so we should ban encryption." After we decided whether we should be laughing or crying (and how we feel about the Home Secretary knowing our browsing history), the rational response is "terrorists use electricity; should we ban that?" Just because you have a badly-behaving VR lens doesn't mean VR is the problem.

daniel_smithson · November 15, 2015

Competitors lenses are not a viable option, as they can not keep up with changes made to new Nikon cameras. Sure they may operate well at first use, but Nikon will deliberately make modifications to new cameras that favor their own lenses. The fact that you say and I quote

" Ok. We get that you're not happy with the performance of your old, discontinued 80-400, which is a lens that many of us were asking to be replaced before Nikon actually did it."

Is actually your saying that you agree with me that the lens is krappola, and should have been marketed as fertilizer for tomatoes. So you are agreeing with me, for which I actually thank you.

Andrew Garrard · November 15, 2015

Competitors lenses are not a viable option, as they can not keep up with changes made to new Nikon cameras. Sure they may operate well at first use, but Nikon will deliberately make modifications to new cameras that favor their own lenses.

</blockquote>

I don't deny that this has happened in the past, but frankly, the lens communication protocol is only so complex. It's unusual for it to be a problem these days. When it is, I'd also point out that Sigma have a dock which is mostly for AF tuning, but which can also upgrade the firmware in a lens without needing it to be returned to the manufacturer (unlike, apparently, the 200-500 Nikkor, which had what appears to have been a firmware issue recently). To the best of my knowledge, all the third-party manufacturers will update any recent lens that has compatibility issues if you send it to them. So I don't deny the possibility of a problem, but I do think it's not an issue for most people. It's up to you whether you think the risk is still significant. I'm not particularly concerned about the possibility of Sigma folding as a company, for example. I'd understand if you were looking at a 1990s Tokina lens and expecting twenty years of support, however (I've no idea how Tokina are doing these days, but my impression is that they're a much smaller manufacturer and therefore have some increased risk).

Is actually your saying that you agree with me that the lens is krappola, and should have been marketed as fertilizer for tomatoes. So you are agreeing with me, for which I actually thank you.

</blockquote>

Believe it or not, Daniel, I actually want you to be happy! (Incidentally, this is just my being a human being - I don't work for Nikon technical support.) I would say that it's a little harsh to suggest that Nikon should have made poor claims for the 80-400 AF-D at launch, since the competition at the time were not any better. I assume they did publish the MTF curves, but I appreciate that may not have been what most people call "marketing". It's probably true that a lot of superzooms should be more explicitly associated with fertilizer, but I believe the marketing approach is normally just to avoid trying to tell you they'd be sharp. Unfortunately, in marketing, you have to live with taking the positive points of the message and inserting your own negatives - otherwise Nikon would have to insert a lot of text about not having 4K video yet, for example! Please bear in mind that the "crop the digital image from an 80-200 and you'll get more detail" argument may not have been quite so valid in 2001 when this was launched, since DSLRs really didn't have many pixels then (this was D1x vintage), so the lens may have made more sense then than it does on a modern body. I'd make the same argument about an 18-200.

Anyway, by modern standards, yes, I believe your lens could be limiting you, and that you could be finding its limitations frustrating. My sympathy, and I suggest you try out a 200-500 f/5.6 AF-S VR when you get the chance. I hear mostly good things about it, especially for the money. Good luck.

daniel_smithson · November 15, 2015

The 200-500 has the same VR system as my 80-400 lens, it does not even boast the new VR11 as my 18-200 has. So the 200-500 is just another $1500 flushed and you actually say that it is having problems that require it being sent back to the manufacturer for repairs. Sanity alert. I can take my 80-200 and computer zoom to 500mm and probably have better clarity, though I have to spend the $1500.00 to find out.

Been there done that.

Matthew Currie · November 15, 2015

Daniel, a couple of things:

First of all, the manufacturer's designation of VR is not relevant. The terms VRI and VRII are loosely applied, and usually by others, not Nikon. The VR in the 200-500 lens is a much later generation than that very first try you're using, said to be good for four or more stops, and it is very effective. I did not get to take a picture of birds in flight as you would wish, but I tried one in the store, and found it very easy to get sharp exposures at low shutter speeds hand holding. Your mileage may vary, but compared to the original 80-400 that lens seemed a good deal better. Apart from the VR, the focusing was much much better.

Second, though it's certainly true that the original 80-400 is not as good as it might be (which I think nearly everyone here agrees on), it was developed long ago for lower resolution cameras, and works pretty well for many things. If it does not get a good wildlife shot on the D7100, that's as much because the D7100 has outrun the lens. When my wife bought hers some years ago, she got some nice crisp slides from her F100. Though it's always been a little soft at 400, it's not horrible, and if you're replacing a 70-300, as she was, it's equally relevant how it does up to 300.

ilkka_nissila · November 15, 2015

The VR version is not a part of the lens' name. "II", "III" etc. in the lens name refer to the version of the lens. Each lens has its own VR implementation. In the early days Nikon called the second generation VR "VR II" but they've given up on advertising VR generation with numerals as it gets very confusing (since it's not the same as the lens generation in most cases). They now just give the CIPA rating, i.e. how many stops of improvement is seen in a certain standardized test. The AF 80-400/4.5-5.6 D gets 2.0 stops in the CIPA test and the 200-500/5.6 gets 4.5 stops in normal mode, using the same testing methodology. You can find the CIPA test results for older lenses here

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/57751

In newer lenses their introductory material should give the VR system's CIPA rating.

A while ago Nikon announced a problem fix in the form of a firmware upgrade for the 200-500 and the range of serial numbers affected by the fix. By checking the serial number of the lens you're about to buy you can make sure it has the new firmware. The serial number should be visible on the surface of the box. Of course, some dealers might not let you know the serial number but soon the likelihood of getting an early sample as a new lens should be quite small. And of course Nikon will update it if you do get an early one. Mine was upgraded by the dealer sending it to service before it was put on sale.

If you are uncertain about something, it would be much better if you asked a question about it instead of making a false statement and then having other people put in the work to correct the untrue claims. Much of the forum content is searchable into the foreseeable future and if people make a lot of untrue statements in the forum discussions, it gets very difficult for those who want to learn to get the correct information by searching. So if you are not sure, don't make a statement, ask a question.

Peter_in_PA · November 15, 2015

The 200-500 has the same VR system as my 80-400 lens, it does not even boast the new VR11 as my 18-200 has.

</blockquote>

Really...? I'm pretty sure this statement is incorrect, as the lens has the VR mode switch. I appreciate new blood around here, so welcome to the forum (I am pretty sure you just joined), but you seem to throw around a lot of statements that seem odd, sir.

Andrew Garrard · November 15, 2015

Daniel, I think you may be suffering from "reading a lot into insufficient information on the internet" syndrome. This has cost me a lot of money in the past; I sympathise. I don't personally own the 200-500, hence my sole recommendation was that you try it yourself and form your own opinion. However, given that almost every report I've seen of this lens from people who have tried it is positive, I'd be hopeful you wouldn't be wasting your time. All I suggest is that you try one in a shop and see how it compares to your expectations; if you want longer, either hire it or buy it from a place with a generous return policy. I don't suggest that the lens is perfect, just that I believe it improves in some ways on the 80-400 AF-D. If you'd like more opinions, I'd try sites such as DxOMark, LenScore, Photozone, dpreview, or reviewers such as Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett. KR will tell you some things about lenses, but he's also quite good at posting an "early review" of items before trying them.

Another piece of advice: As part of my computer science degree, I was told about the difference between information that was wrong and information that was outdated (I forget the context). The example given was that the address for the Eaden Lilley department store, whose address, if incorrect, was more likely to have been plain wrong than outdated, since Eaden Lilley had been around for longer than, for example, Florida. As a demonstration of irony, since my graduation, Eaden Lilley has gone into receivership and the shop has closed. (A better personal example would be whether my school admitted girls - which it didn't from 1096 until 1994. I, of course, left in 1992, which explains a lot about my social skills.) Why do I mention this? Because Ken's review of the 80-400 claims that it's sharp on a D3. And a D3 is really not a demanding test of lenses in the world of 24MP DX cameras and 36MP (and more, from Sony and Canon) full-frame ones. Just because an old review says good things about a product doesn't mean it's still accurate. DPReview still list the D1 as "highly recommended", but that's a very historical perspective. Treat everything you read with a pinch of salt, and form your own opinions,

Especially about anything I tell you.

Mary Doo · November 15, 2015

the original 80-400 is not as good as it might be (which I think nearly everyone here agrees on), it was developed long ago for lower resolution cameras, and works pretty well for many things.

</blockquote>

It became available in 2000 - 15 long years ago. Most everyone was shooting film then. It produced very acceptable results and, yes, I was happy with what it could do, pros and cons and limitation. The current AF-S version is much better in term of focus speed and sharpness at 400mm.

Daniel, it seems you have moved to different issues about this lens. Is it focussing for you now - although it's a bit sluggish? (You suspected this lens had a focus problem in another thread that you started.)

daniel_smithson · November 15, 2015

The 200-500 has VR, NOT VR11, my lens has VR. The fact that Nikon is still selling VR after the advent of VR11, is inconceivable. Then again they are still selling a 16mp camera for $6,000.00, which is really sad.

Data on the 200-500 <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f%252f5.6e-ed-vr.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f%252f5.6e-ed-vr.html</a>

And a 16mp junk for $6,000.00 <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d4s.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d4s.html</a>

It's illogical.

Mary Doo · November 15, 2015

Daniel, did you just buy the 80-400mm D lens? Is that why you are so unhappy? . However, I would like to know whether it is now focussing for you. Believe it or not, I am still worrying about that because it may indeed be defective. Did you buy it new?

Peter_in_PA · November 15, 2015

Daniel, There is a definite market and need for the D4s, and at that price, too. You are not that market, and you don't have that need, and that is okay. It's not "illogical" at all. They will almost certainly update that camera just in time for the next Olympics, which is their regular M.O. Not sure the 200-500 is VR I, as VR I doesn't have the mode switch that is found on this lens, iirc, and they never claim 4.5 stops of VR on VR I... and I wouldn't be surprised if they just didn't delineate anymore, since they haven't dealt with VR I in a long time on many (any?) lenses. In any case, even if it does "only" have VR I, that might make sense when you consider that on a long lens like that, use on a sturdy support and/or at high shutter speeds (for capturing bird action for instance), and a lot of guys turn off VR (which I think you expect to be some kind of magic bullet that it is not) in such uses.

Sign In

VR vs non VR

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