Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Best sport lens for Nikon

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MAL - 14 Feb 2007 16:36 GMT
Hello!
I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport
lens (Formula 1) for Nikon?

MAL
Joseph Meehan - 14 Feb 2007 17:56 GMT
> Hello!
> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best
> outdoor sport lens (Formula 1) for Nikon?
>
> MAL

   What sports?

Signature

Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

David J Taylor - 14 Feb 2007 18:06 GMT
>> Hello!
>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>    What sports?

He said: "Formula 1"

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/default.stm

David
Joseph Meehan - 14 Feb 2007 18:19 GMT
>>> Hello!
>>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> David

   Yea, I guess I went over that a little too fast.  I am not a big race
car fan so I guess it did not hit me.

Signature

Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Matt Clara - 14 Feb 2007 23:02 GMT
>>>> Hello!
>>>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>    Yea, I guess I went over that a little too fast.  I am not a big race
> car fan so I guess it did not hit me.

Hell no, can hardly call it a "sport."  I certainly don't think of it as
such.
--
www.mattclara.com
RichA - 15 Feb 2007 17:49 GMT
> >>>> Hello!
> >>>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> such.
> --www.mattclara.com

Anything that requires coodination is a sport.  Which is WHY some
dominate F1 just like baseball, football, etc.
Put the average fat, bloated American in an F1 car and they'd die of
heart attack or heat stroke.
Why not just answer the guy's QUESTION instead?
tomorrow@erols.com - 14 Feb 2007 18:03 GMT
> Hello!
> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport
> lens (Formula 1) for Nikon?

I am not a professional photographer, nor do I play one on TV.
However, I do take lots of motorcycle and sports car road racing
photos, and I used my Nikon D70S and Nikon 80-400 VR f/4.5-5.6D to
take almost all of the photos posted here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/zkocf

At the 2006 Formula One USA race at Indy.

I was very happy with the lens' performance for my needs; although
there is a photo in there of another photographer whom I think might
be a bit more advanced than me, and he is using a very different
lens.  Perhaps you would be more interested in obtaining one like
his.  I am sure that one of the more advanced photographers here in
this forum would be able to look at the picture of his lens and tell
you what make/model it is.

(And please, no mocking of my amateurish efforts if you care to visit
the referenced site.  My baby photography ego is fragile!)

Tim
Adrian Boliston - 14 Feb 2007 18:34 GMT
> I am not a professional photographer, nor do I play one on TV.
> However, I do take lots of motorcycle and sports car road racing
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> this forum would be able to look at the picture of his lens and tell
> you what make/model it is.

I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L.  Not cheap I bet!
Paul Furman - 15 Feb 2007 01:58 GMT
> I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L.  Not cheap I bet!

If it's an 'L' it doesn't fit on a Nikon. If it's the Nikon 400, that
one doesn't have VR and I think that's a problem for panning. So the
best choice would be the 300mm f/2.8 VR. If you can get a better seat
then the 200mm f/2.8 VR and if you need zoom for varied distance &
framing then either the  70-200mm f/2.8 VR or the 200-400mm f/4 VR.
JR - 15 Feb 2007 19:22 GMT
> > I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L.  Not cheap I bet!
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> then the 200mm f/2.8 VR and if you need zoom for varied distance &
> framing then either the  70-200mm f/2.8 VR or the 200-400mm f/4 VR.

he doesnt need VR for panning shots.....Use a 70-200/AFS VR, not for the
VR but for the AFS focus speed, he can also use a 80-200/2.8 AFS....Also
a 300/4 AFD, or AFS will work as well....

these are done with a D2x and the 70-200 AFS-VR, with VR OFF....at
Laguna Seca, American Lemans race....

http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082700780b.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082700477.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082701965.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082702860.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082703486.jpg

All done from the spectator area on the front straight.....

JR
Paul Furman - 15 Feb 2007 20:24 GMT
>>>I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L.  Not cheap I bet!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> these are done with a D2x and the 70-200 AFS-VR, with VR OFF

Doesn't VR help though with panning? Maybe not the older models? Those
are great shots, I like how the guard rails are sharp as you pan
parallel to them, I'd guess that takes some practice.

> ....at Laguna Seca, American Lemans race....
> http://homepage.mac.com/jrhone/.Pictures/Nk1082700780b.jpg
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> All done from the spectator area on the front straight.....
JR - 16 Feb 2007 21:59 GMT
I dont think the VR helps at all when panning.....

> >>>I reckon its the 400mm 2.8L.  Not cheap I bet!
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> >
> > All done from the spectator area on the front straight.....
David J Taylor - 16 Feb 2007 22:08 GMT
> I dont think the VR helps at all when panning.....

Yes, it does.  Some systems even have a special "panning mode" setting for
the VR.

David
JR - 19 Feb 2007 02:31 GMT
In article <PXpBh.1338$I46.6@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

> > I dont think the VR helps at all when panning.....
>
> Yes, it does.  Some systems even have a special "panning mode" setting for
> the VR.
>
> David

Well I am speaking of the NIKON VR system on my 70-200/2.8 AFS VR....it
does nothing for panning...the only thing it has is an active mode, for
if you are moving, as in if you are in a car or plane and wanna use
VR....but other than that it will not help...if you have used a VR lens,
it must lock on a subject and it takes a second for the VR to lock on
the subject....nearly impossible if a car is moving at 150+
mph....according to Nikon's website it says nothing about panning and VR
with regards to this lens.

JR
tomorrow@erols.com - 19 Feb 2007 03:11 GMT
> In article <PXpBh.1338$I4...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>  "David J Taylor"
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> mph....according to Nikon's website it says nothing about panning and VR
> with regards to this lens.

Don't know about the 70-200/2.8 AFS VR, but the owners manual for my
AF VR Zoom Nikkor ED 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D states:

"The vibration reduction mechanism reduces camera shake.  However, if
you move the camera quickly, vibration in the direction of that
movement may not be affected.   For example, if you pan the camera
horizontally, only vibration in the vertical direction is reduced,
making smooth pans much easier'"

And Ken Rockwell's site says:

"I have also tried panning shots, the VR system is supposed to feel
that you are panning and only correct on the non-pan axis. This works,
I shot a few rather sharp pictures of a landing swan the other week,
panning with the bird..."

And the panning shot that I referenced earlier in this thread:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g3tj3

was taken with the above lens with VR on.   I tried panning with VR
off and did not get as sharp a result.  (Not claiming this shot is
particularly sharp, just that comparatively it was sharper than the
photos taken with VR off!)
Paul Furman - 19 Feb 2007 17:58 GMT
>>>>I dont think the VR helps at all when panning.....
>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> I shot a few rather sharp pictures of a landing swan the other week,
> panning with the bird..."

Does that refer to the older VR on a 70-200 or the newer VRII?

> And the panning shot that I referenced earlier in this thread:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> particularly sharp, just that comparatively it was sharper than the
> photos taken with VR off!)

That shot would seem to be with the 80-400 not the 70-200. Is that a
newer VRII type?
tomorrow@erols.com - 19 Feb 2007 20:46 GMT
> tomor...@erols.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> That shot would seem to be with the 80-400 not the 70-200. Is that a
> newer VRII type?

It was, sorry if I wasn't clear.  I was referring to my 80-400 lens.
That lens came out in 2003 (?) or so; don't know it is VRII or not.
I didn't even know that there WAS a VRII type!
Paul Furman - 20 Feb 2007 00:27 GMT
>>tomor...@erols.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> That lens came out in 2003 (?) or so; don't know it is VRII or not.
> I didn't even know that there WAS a VRII type!

Hmm ok so apparently there are 3 flavors of VR and the 70-200 does not
support panning but the 80-400 does.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

The 105 VR macro & 70-300 have this description:
New VR II Vibration Reduction allows photographers to shoot hand-held at
up to *4* shutter speeds slower than otherwise possible, providing
sharper images in general and close-up photography

Your 80-400 and the 200-400 have this:
Result of VR (Vibration Reduction) is equivalent to using a shutter
speed *three* f/stops faster   
VR is automatically detected during *panning* operation. Two modes of
VR: Image plane and Viewfinder

And the 70-200, 200, 300, 24-120 descriptions say:
VR operation offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed *3* stops
faster. In addition, *active* vibration mode selection is possible. For
using in an active situation such as in a car, boat or plane.
Robert Brace - 20 Feb 2007 21:02 GMT
>>>tomor...@erols.com wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> faster. In addition, *active* vibration mode selection is possible. For
> using in an active situation such as in a car, boat or plane.

Paul:
   The 24-120 AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor does not have an ACTIVE vibration mode.
The VR choice is ON or OFF.
   It does, however, detect horizontal panning.  The operators manual
states "the lens automatically distinguishes panning from camera shake and
vibration reduction works effectively"  (Pg. 15 second bullet point down).
Bob
Paul Furman - 20 Feb 2007 21:21 GMT
>>Hmm ok so apparently there are 3 flavors of VR and the 70-200 does not
>>support panning but the 80-400 does.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> states "the lens automatically distinguishes panning from camera shake and
> vibration reduction works effectively"  (Pg. 15 second bullet point down).

OK looks like I simplified in trying to summarize, that's a fourth
flavor of 3 options... the Nikon web site says:

"-VR operation offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed 3 stops
faster at 120mm    [presumably less at 24mm?]
-First Nikon wide-angle zoom lens with Vibration Reduction (VR)"

They don't mention panning... but I believe you :-)

-3 vs 4 stops (less at wide angle, doesn't work for 1:1 macro)

-active mode

-horizontal panning detection (horizontal only presumably means it might
get confused pointing straight up in the sky at a bird)
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 20 Feb 2007 23:49 GMT
>Well I am speaking of the NIKON VR system on my 70-200/2.8 AFS VR....it
>does nothing for panning...the only thing it has is an active mode, for
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>mph....according to Nikon's website it says nothing about panning and VR
>with regards to this lens.

Might I suggest you RTFM. From p. 15:

.. Panning is also possible, as the lens automatically distinguishes
panning from camera shake and vibration reduction works effectively (in the
NORMAL mode).

Also see the diagram on p 17 and two other mentions of using normal mode
for panned shots, as well as one on p18.
Signature

Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

Paul Furman - 21 Feb 2007 00:22 GMT
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:

>>Well I am speaking of the NIKON VR system on my 70-200/2.8 AFS VR....it
>>does nothing for panning...the only thing it has is an active mode, for
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Also see the diagram on p 17 and two other mentions of using normal mode
> for panned shots, as well as one on p18.

Ah yes, they do flesh it out much better in the manual although that
diagram is confusing. So while the web site description doesn't mention
panning, it's in the manual for the 70-200.
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 21 Feb 2007 00:44 GMT
>Ah yes, they do flesh it out much better in the manual although that
>diagram is confusing. So while the web site description doesn't mention
>panning, it's in the manual for the 70-200.

Does a little bit of Engrish translation help? The abscissa is the
amplitude and the ordinate the frequency of the vibrations. In panning the
frequencies are reduced because your muscles aren't fighting to hold the
camera statically still.
Signature

Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

mattster - 17 Feb 2007 23:53 GMT
> he doesnt need VR for panning shots.....Use a 70-200/AFS VR, not for the
> VR but for the AFS focus speed, he can also use a 80-200/2.8 AFS....Also
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> JR

Nice shots. very well crafted.
Can you tell me if you need to stop down for these in order to get
some DOF on the cars?
Also, I sold my 80-400 4-5.6 vr because it was too slow for this sort
of thing. I did have some amazing results with it panning on birds
flying past though. The literature with it claimed that it could
improve your panning but I'm not sure how.
Neil Harrington - 14 Feb 2007 22:43 GMT
>> Hello!
>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/zkocf

Very nice!

Were most of those (cars on the track) at or near the long end of the
80-400?

Neil
tomorrow@erols.com - 14 Feb 2007 22:50 GMT
> Very nice!

Hi Neil.  Thanks; I'm learning but I have a very long way to go.
Especially when I look at some of the links others post here to their
photos; I'm really awestruck at some of the talent out there!

> Were most of those (cars on the track) at or near the long end of the
> 80-400?

Yes, almost all of them were close to the full 400mm.  I was, of
course, shooting from designated spectator areas in the stands, so I
couldn't really get very close to the cars.

I appreciate your response.  If anyone who looks at the photos has
some constructive advice on how I can improve my autosports photos,
I'm all ears.   I'm just not very creative or analytical, so I tend to
make the same mistakes over and over.   When I read photography
magazines, I think I understand their advice, but I seem to forget it
all when I'm actually at the track, shooting!
Neil Harrington - 14 Feb 2007 23:16 GMT
>> Very nice!
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> magazines, I think I understand their advice, but I seem to forget it
> all when I'm actually at the track, shooting!

Most of those shots look just great to me!

Neil
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 15 Feb 2007 00:16 GMT
>I appreciate your response.  If anyone who looks at the photos has
>some constructive advice on how I can improve my autosports photos,
>I'm all ears.   I'm just not very creative or analytical, so I tend to
>make the same mistakes over and over.   When I read photography
>magazines, I think I understand their advice, but I seem to forget it
>all when I'm actually at the track, shooting!

It's not clear what exposure mode these were shot in viewing the exif info.
You might try experimenting with either shutter priority or full manual
mode and drop the shutter speed so as to introduce a bit of blur in the
tires/wheels due to their rotation. As you get slower and slower you'll
need to pan with the car to keep it stationary in the frame but get linear
motion blur in the background due to panning if the car is going fast
enough, the car clear, and the wheels slightly blurred in rotation. Not
easy at all, takes quite a bit of practice to perfect this technique.
Similar to taking shots of propeller planes or helicopters in flight, you
don't want the shutter speed so fast as to completely stop the blades.

One of my better shots of this can be seen at:
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/VIR400/slides/DSC_1055.html
Signature

Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

tomorrow@erols.com - 15 Feb 2007 01:29 GMT
On Feb 14, 7:16 pm, "Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"
<egruf_usen...@cox.net> wrote:

> It's not clear what exposure mode these were shot in viewing the exif info.
> You might try experimenting with either shutter priority or full manual
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> One of my better shots of this can be seen at:http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/VIR400/slides/DSC_1055...

Great shot!   Thanks, Ed, that's exactly the kind of feedback that
helps me.  As a coincidence, I was at Roebling Road Raceway outside of
Savannah, Georgia, last weekend, where my son was taking the SCCA
double weekend licensing school.  I was there taking photos, and while
reviewing them after one track session, my son asked why all the
pictures made his car look as though it were standing still.  Good
question!

So, I found a spot trackside that allowed me to pan, and I set the
camera to shutter priority, tried different shutter speeds from 1/30
to 1/125 second, and got the following as the best result:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g3tj3

This one was taken at 1/60, f18, 175mm with the same 80-400mm lens.  I
left VR on because it is supposed to work while panning, and it seemed
to in this case.

The thing is - and this is where my lack of imagination or some other
failing comes in - I would never have thought to try this if my son
hadn't asked me that question.   I'm afraid that I'm just not really
creative.  That may just be the death knell for me ever becoming a
really good amateur photographer!
Neil Harrington - 15 Feb 2007 06:28 GMT
> On Feb 14, 7:16 pm, "Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"
> <egruf_usen...@cox.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> left VR on because it is supposed to work while panning, and it seemed
> to in this case.

That's very good too, but it really depends on what's important to you.
Personally I like your long lens shots taken at obviously higher shutter
speeds better, even though they do not convey the sense of fast movement
that this sort of panning shot does. This is because I'm interested in
seeing the cars as sharp as they can be. I already *know* they go fast, and
don't need the camera to tell me that. But others less interested in the
cars themselves probably will like that kind of panning shot better because
it effectively communicates motion. So there really isn't any "best" way of
doing it as far as I'm concerned.

I like to shoot old aircraft at air shows. There there's a problem with
propellers. Airplanes in flight look all wrong with the prop frozen by high
shutter speeds, so to give a realistic blurred look to the prop arc I have
to use 1/250 or slower -- much slower especially with WW I era planes with
their slow-turning engines. But that's the *only* case where I use slow
shutter speeds deliberately to blur any part of the photo. Events like
motorcycle hill climbs, etc., I want everything sharp. Others may prefer
blur to show motion.

> The thing is - and this is where my lack of imagination or some other
> failing comes in - I would never have thought to try this if my son
> hadn't asked me that question.   I'm afraid that I'm just not really
> creative.  That may just be the death knell for me ever becoming a
> really good amateur photographer!

I don't think that's true, but why even worry about it anyway? I think what
you're doing is good already, and will probably get better the more you do
it. As for being "creative" and "really good," whatever those terms mean to
you, as long as such things are important to you they too will probably come
to you the more you work at it. But the desire to be "really good" suggests
that perhaps the opinions of others are more important to you than they need
to be. Do you enjoy what you're doing, and like the results yourself? I'm an
amateur too, and have been for 50+ years. Some of my photographs are "really
good," which simply means I like them a lot. Others like them too, and
praise is always pleasant to have, but I really do this stuff primarily for
my own enjoyment.

Neil
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 15 Feb 2007 11:15 GMT
>Great shot!   Thanks, Ed, that's exactly the kind of feedback that
>helps me.  As a coincidence, I was at Roebling Road Raceway outside of
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>left VR on because it is supposed to work while panning, and it seemed
>to in this case.

There you go. I believe there's three techniques to use:

1. fast shutter speed to freeze everything and get the sharpest image of
the car, this is the easiest in good light. Personally, a couple of these
tend to be more than enough for me. Of course if you are capturing
something else, such as a wheel in the air over a bump or just due to
cornering forces or crossed up action that's different and much better,
imo.

2. slow shutter, NOT panning the camera, so the background is sharp and the
car/mc is blurred. Be careful here to have a good background here.

3. Slower shutter panning as previously described. And yes, you can and
should use VR here. Always good to have this technique in your pocket, for
when it's just too dark for anything else.

>The thing is - and this is where my lack of imagination or some other
>failing comes in - I would never have thought to try this if my son
>hadn't asked me that question.   I'm afraid that I'm just not really
>creative.  

Look for positions which convey the actions of not only the car/mcs, but
the driver/rider if possible. Exits of corners where there is
sliding/crossed up action or even run offs. Can you get close enough and
are conditions such you can focus on the driver/rider in a spot showing the
effort required? Of course passing spots are another thing to look for,
such as this:
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/VIR400/slides/DSC_0819.html
Signature

Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

M-M - 15 Feb 2007 12:30 GMT
Another example of a panning action shot. This is my Radio Control
Airplane being flown by a buddy while I manned the Coolpix 990 with 3x
teleadapter:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/zlinsmoke.jpg

Signature

m-m

Gizmo. - 15 Feb 2007 13:24 GMT
> Look for positions which convey the actions of not only the car/mcs, but
> the driver/rider if possible. Exits of corners where there is
> sliding/crossed up action or even run offs.

Look for where the marshals are stationed - that's where the action will be
;o)
C J Campbell - 14 Feb 2007 23:26 GMT
>> Hello!
>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> (And please, no mocking of my amateurish efforts if you care to visit
> the referenced site.  My baby photography ego is fragile!)

Well, if he isn't more advanced, he certainly is rich. That is a very long,
very expensive Canon lens.

Don't mind the mocking. We do that here to toughen you up. After a year on
rec.photo you should have a skin thick enough to find work as a paparazzi.
:-)

Signature

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Fletis Humplebacker - 17 Feb 2007 15:18 GMT
>> Hello!
>> I would like to hear Your opinion: What lens would be the best outdoor sport
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Tim

Hey Tim,
Good to see you do something besides terrorize the community with
your loud pipes! I have the D70 and D200 but not the same lens as
you. That's a pretty good range and lens from what I hear. I have a
70-200 2.8 VR and 1.5 teleconverter for my long stuff.

I have a dialup so your page takes too long for me to see it all but
that Canon shooter probably has a 400 2.8. The Canon guys will
know. Looks like it weighs more than him. Rather than forking over
enough coin to get a new scoot you can always manually focus
in the area you know they will be at. Cars and bikes will be on
a predictable path, unlike field sports.
tomorrow@erols.com - 18 Feb 2007 21:17 GMT
> ... you can always manually focus
> in the area you know they will be at.
> Cars and bikes will be on
> a predictable path, unlike field sports

Good point, thanks.
Bruce - 14 Feb 2007 20:37 GMT
Try the  Nikon 200-400mm F4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor Lens  @£4000.

Bruce
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.