Lenses for canon rebel T1i

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ransley, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. ransley

    ransley Guest

    Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
    looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
    about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar, and
    would it even make a notable difference. How would a Canon EF 20mm
    f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron. I would
    like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
    photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
    be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
     
    ransley, Jun 17, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ransley

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT), ransley
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    > Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
    >looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
    >about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,


    Yes. It's a superb lens.

    >and
    >would it even make a notable difference.


    Depends on the final image and how critical you are. Won't make a
    difference in a 4x6 snapshot or Web image, but might well be notable to
    you in a mural size print. In other words, you need to first decide on
    the type of final image.

    >How would a Canon EF 20mm
    >f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.


    I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
    often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
    because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
    smoothness of operation, and durability,

    >I would
    >like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
    >photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
    >be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.


    Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
    on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
    compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 17, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ransley

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:08:56 -0700, John Navas
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
    >on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
    >compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.


    In other words, first choose the glass, then the body.

    In computers, first choose the application software, then the OS and
    hardware. Most people go at it backwards, just like in photography.

    What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital cameras
    were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses, unmatched
    in the SLR world even at many times the price.

    If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
    than on the body.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 17, 2009
    #3
  4. ransley

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >How would a Canon EF 20mm
    > >f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.

    >
    > I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
    > often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
    > because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
    > smoothness of operation, and durability,


    some tamron lenses are outstanding. but of course if you discount the
    lens only by its name, you are hurting yourself, to coin a phrase you
    used in another thread.

    > >I would
    > >like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
    > >photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
    > >be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.

    >
    > Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
    > on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
    > compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.


    yep, too many people do that.
     
    nospam, Jun 17, 2009
    #4
  5. ransley

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:18:37 -0700, nospam <> wrote
    in <170620090918371124%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:


    >> I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
    >> often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
    >> because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
    >> smoothness of operation, and durability,

    >
    >some tamron lenses are outstanding.


    Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
    in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
    being spent. ;)

    >but of course if you discount the
    >lens only by its name, you are hurting yourself, to coin a phrase you
    >used in another thread.


    Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
    even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
    If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
    to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens. The moment is
    priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
    something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
    by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
    supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 17, 2009
    #5
  6. John Navas wrote:
    []
    > What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital
    > cameras were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses,
    > unmatched in the SLR world even at many times the price.


    The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some people
    the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an important
    limiting factor on their creativity. (I recently asked someone why they
    changed from a top-end Panasonic to a DSLR).

    > If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
    > than on the body.


    Agreed, if you want to make the most of your DSLR.

    [Caveat: I would say "more" rather than "far more" as you may not need as
    many lenses today with the quality zooms which are now available.]

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 17, 2009
    #6
  7. ransley

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
    > >> often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
    > >> because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
    > >> smoothness of operation, and durability,

    > >
    > >some tamron lenses are outstanding.

    >
    > Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
    > in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
    > being spent. ;)


    you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
    third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.

    > >but of course if you discount the
    > >lens only by its name, you are hurting yourself, to coin a phrase you
    > >used in another thread.

    >
    > Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
    > even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
    > If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
    > to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.


    oem lenses fail too. the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
    who makes them. canon/nikon make crappy lenses too. sometimes the
    third parties are better, sometimes not. the label on the barrel is
    not the only indicator of quality.

    and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
    would have backup lenses and cameras.

    > The moment is
    > priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
    > something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
    > by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
    > supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)


    yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
    magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.
     
    nospam, Jun 17, 2009
    #7
  8. ransley

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:58:49 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
    <dh9_l.43737$>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >[]
    >> What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital
    >> cameras were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses,
    >> unmatched in the SLR world even at many times the price.

    >
    >The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some people
    >the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an important
    >limiting factor on their creativity. ...


    The available depth of field is sufficiently shallow for my needs.
    As always, YMMV.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 17, 2009
    #8
  9. ransley

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:52:21 -0700, nospam <> wrote
    in <170620091052217473%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:


    >> Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
    >> in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
    >> being spent. ;)

    >
    >you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
    >third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.


    Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
    samples, and don't reflect things like durability. That said, the best
    OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.

    >> Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
    >> even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
    >> If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
    >> to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.

    >
    >oem lenses fail too.


    Sure, but much less often.

    >the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
    >who makes them.


    Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.

    >canon/nikon make crappy lenses too.


    Usually only in the case of bargain OEM-branded third-party lenses.
    I typically buy top grade lenses, never less than middle grade.
    You tend to get what you pay for.

    >sometimes the
    >third parties are better, sometimes not.


    Almost always not in my experience.

    >the label on the barrel is
    >not the only indicator of quality.


    But arguably the best one for typical users.

    >and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
    >would have backup lenses and cameras.


    I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
    prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
    frontend money. But as always, YMMV.

    >> The moment is
    >> priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
    >> something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
    >> by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
    >> supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)

    >
    >yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
    >magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.


    Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 17, 2009
    #9
  10. ransley

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
    > >> in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
    > >> being spent. ;)

    > >
    > >you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
    > >third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.

    >
    > Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
    > samples,


    how many copies of a given lens have you evaluated?

    > and don't reflect things like durability.


    build quality is usually mentioned

    > That said, the best
    > OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.


    depends on the test and on which lens.

    > >> Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
    > >> even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
    > >> If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
    > >> to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.

    > >
    > >oem lenses fail too.

    >
    > Sure, but much less often.


    depends on the lens.

    > >the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
    > >who makes them.

    >
    > Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.


    it's not really that hard, and the typical user is not anal about the
    differences anyway.

    > >canon/nikon make crappy lenses too.

    >
    > Usually only in the case of bargain OEM-branded third-party lenses.
    > I typically buy top grade lenses, never less than middle grade.
    > You tend to get what you pay for.


    true

    > >sometimes the
    > >third parties are better, sometimes not.

    >
    > Almost always not in my experience.


    your experience is not the only one

    > >the label on the barrel is
    > >not the only indicator of quality.

    >
    > But arguably the best one for typical users.


    sometimes yes, sometimes no

    > >and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
    > >would have backup lenses and cameras.

    >
    > I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
    > prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
    > frontend money. But as always, YMMV.


    if you are going someplace where getting a photo is vital, you had
    better have a backup plan if something happens. to not do so is just
    stupid.

    > >> The moment is
    > >> priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
    > >> something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
    > >> by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
    > >> supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)

    > >
    > >yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
    > >magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.

    >
    > Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.


    which means that some pros do.
     
    nospam, Jun 18, 2009
    #10
  11. ransley

    Bob Larter Guest

    ransley wrote:
    > Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
    > looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
    > about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,


    I have that lens, & it's pretty damn good.

    > and
    > would it even make a notable difference.


    Compared to what?

    > How would a Canon EF 20mm
    > f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.


    In general, Canon primes are excellent.

    > I would
    > like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
    > photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
    > be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.



    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Jun 18, 2009
    #11
  12. ransley

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:53:38 -0700, nospam <> wrote
    in <170620091753384093%>:

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> wrote:


    >> Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
    >> samples,

    >
    >how many copies of a given lens have you evaluated?


    Has nothing to do with reviews.

    >> and don't reflect things like durability.

    >
    >build quality is usually mentioned


    Mostly guesswork, and nothing to do with durability.

    >> That said, the best
    >> OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.

    >
    >depends on the test and on which lens.


    I stand by what I wrote.

    >> >oem lenses fail too.

    >>
    >> Sure, but much less often.

    >
    >depends on the lens.


    What lens?

    >> >the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
    >> >who makes them.

    >>
    >> Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.

    >
    >it's not really that hard,


    We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    >and the typical user is not anal about the
    >differences anyway.


    The typical user all too often makes poor choices.

    >> >sometimes the
    >> >third parties are better, sometimes not.

    >>
    >> Almost always not in my experience.

    >
    >your experience is not the only one


    True, but is yours that different?

    >> >the label on the barrel is
    >> >not the only indicator of quality.

    >>
    >> But arguably the best one for typical users.

    >
    >sometimes yes, sometimes no


    Usually yes.

    >> I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
    >> prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
    >> frontend money. But as always, YMMV.

    >
    >if you are going someplace where getting a photo is vital, you had
    >better have a backup plan if something happens. to not do so is just
    >stupid.


    Whatever you say.

    >> >yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
    >> >magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.

    >>
    >> Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.

    >
    >which means that some pros do.


    The ones being paid for endorsements.

    --
    Best regards,
    John
    Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jun 18, 2009
    #12
  13. ransley

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:59:20 -0700, John Navas wrote:

    >> The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some people
    >> the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an important
    >> limiting factor on their creativity. ...

    >
    > The available depth of field is sufficiently shallow for my needs.
    > As always, YMMV.


    IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 18, 2009
    #13
  14. ransley

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT), ransley <>
    wrote:
    : Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
    : looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
    : about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar, and
    : would it even make a notable difference. How would a Canon EF 20mm
    : f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron. I would
    : like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
    : photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
    : be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.

    I still recommend the Sigma 18-50mm constant aperture f/2.8. My wife and I
    both have it, and it's been a reliable workhorse. We have five other lenses
    between us, but those two Sigmas and her 60mm Canon macro get most of the use.
    It won't work on your putative 5D, but what do you care? If you win the lotto,
    you'll give all your current equipment to your grandchildren anyway.

    You don't want a 50mm lens as your walking around lens. On a 1.6-crop camera,
    it's just too long.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #14
  15. ransley

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:08:56 -0700, John Navas <>
    wrote:
    : On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT), ransley
    : <> wrote in
    : <>:
    :
    : > Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
    : >looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
    : >about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
    :
    : Yes. It's a superb lens.
    :
    : >and
    : >would it even make a notable difference.
    :
    : Depends on the final image and how critical you are. Won't make a
    : difference in a 4x6 snapshot or Web image, but might well be notable to
    : you in a mural size print. In other words, you need to first decide on
    : the type of final image.
    :
    : >How would a Canon EF 20mm
    : >f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.
    :
    : I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
    : often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
    : because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
    : smoothness of operation, and durability,
    :
    : >I would
    : >like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
    : >photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
    : >be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
    :
    : Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
    : on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
    : compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.

    I think John overstates his case, although his basic point is valid. You can
    do well with 3rd-party lenses if you're careful. Never buy any lens without
    soliciting advice from those who already have it (as you're doing now).

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #15
  16. ransley

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:18:35 -0700, John Navas <>
    wrote:
    : On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:08:56 -0700, John Navas
    : <> wrote in
    : <>:
    :
    : >Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
    : >on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
    : >compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.
    :
    : In other words, first choose the glass, then the body.
    :
    : ...
    :
    : What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital cameras
    : were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses, unmatched
    : in the SLR world even at many times the price.
    :
    : If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
    : than on the body.

    Well, yes, but that's mainly because you'll need more lenses than bodies. The
    statement, while true, is a bit of a red herring.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #16
  17. ransley

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:33:26 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:
    : On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:59:20 -0700, John Navas wrote:
    :
    : >> The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some
    : >> people the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an
    : >> important limiting factor on their creativity. ...
    : >
    : > The available depth of field is sufficiently shallow for my needs.
    : > As always, YMMV.
    :
    : IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.

    Aw, c'mon, Ace, you're putting words in his mouth. John is no newbie. You have
    to assume that he knows what his needs are; and if the camera meets them,
    that's all that's required.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #17
  18. ransley

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:27:33 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

    > : IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.
    >
    > Aw, c'mon, Ace, you're putting words in his mouth. John is no newbie. You have
    > to assume that he knows what his needs are; and if the camera meets them,
    > that's all that's required.


    John may know what his needs are, and topmost is the need to never
    appear to be wrong. You apparently don't know John very well, and
    here I thought that you were also an ace. Say it ain't so, Coe. It
    would really be terrible if you were nothing more than a photo dood.

    :)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 21, 2009
    #18
  19. ransley

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > : If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
    > : than on the body.
    >
    > Well, yes, but that's mainly because you'll need more lenses than bodies. The
    > statement, while true, is a bit of a red herring.


    actually, most people only own one or two lenses.
     
    nospam, Jun 21, 2009
    #19
  20. ransley

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:59:24 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:
    : On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:27:33 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
    :
    : > : IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.
    : >
    : > Aw, c'mon, Ace, you're putting words in his mouth. John is no newbie.
    : > You have to assume that he knows what his needs are; and if the camera
    : > meets them, that's all that's required.
    :
    : John may know what his needs are, and topmost is the need to never
    : appear to be wrong. You apparently don't know John very well, and
    : here I thought that you were also an ace. Say it ain't so, Coe. It
    : would really be terrible if you were nothing more than a photo dood.

    Welll, I guess you have a point. I first met John in the cell phone
    newsgroups, and it's true that he was a self-acknowledged expert over there.
    But I have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's not claiming
    that a particular camera is better than any other, just that it works for him.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,428
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. ransley

    Rebel T1i exposure questons

    ransley, Jun 26, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,674
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jul 2, 2009
  3. Canon Rebel T1i Drawbacks?

    , Aug 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,093
    Chris Malcolm
    Aug 30, 2009
  4. David J Taylor

    Re: Canon EOS Rebel T1i SLR vs Canon PowerShot SX1IS

    David J Taylor, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    869
    ransley
    Nov 28, 2009
  5. Wayne

    Part fell out of Canon T1i

    Wayne, Oct 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    799
    Irwell
    Oct 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page