Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              14      
15
       end
  

Archive 2017 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots

  
 
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #1 · p.15 #1 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Yairt wrote:
I want to express my tests finding of the Sigma 135 ART vs the Milvus 135 On Nikon D810
First i own Zeiss and Sigma Art lenses , so i am not biased at all.

I rented both and bought the Sigma since i found it is the better lens , not because anything else.

First facts
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-mtf-charts-and-a-look-behind-the-curtain/


Facts? You are providing a written opinion, not visual documentation or any kind of a test.

Your reasons for "buying the Sigma" were, no doubt, due to COST and AF, not because of supreme detail or image quality. Me? If I can afford the more expensive Zeiss, it's pretty clear I could certainly afford the cheaper Sigma. What I want, however, is the best lens possible for my purposes.

Moving on, what you call 'facts" is actually just an MTF chart, not the whole story. Even LensRentals prefaces every MTF chart it does by saying, "this is just an MTF test, nothing more."

The entire point of Dustin Abbot's video presentation was to show the difference between 'sharpness' and micro-contrast ... where the Zeiss is noticeably-superior at every aperture, esp. up close.



Yairt wrote:
The sigma is a little better than the Zeiss wide open according to the only valid test , which takes into account large amount of samples and it is Not depended on the camera sensor.

So please stop being religious about zeiss it is a tool noting more.


"The only valid test?" Who are you, the determiner of all things? Speaking of religion, you are saying, "Thou shalt not believe any other test but this one

Moving on, I won't confuse you by getting into the actual definition of "valid," versus "sound," as defined philosophically, but for you to try to claim that MTF graph results are the 'only' authority is pretty clueless.

BTW, I am an atheist and not religious in the slightest. What I am is an admirer of quality optics. The camera sensor in the video had nothing to do with the outcome; it was the same for both lenses. To say otherwise is simply emotional-denial of the results, not factual rebuttal.



Yairt wrote:
The 135A is the first ART lens that its auto focus is consistent and accurate.
My results are on Nikon D810 and Not on Canon 5DMk4 which is 30MP and has an anti aliasing filter which masks details by default.


If AF is important to you, buy the Sigma. Easy choice.

However, again, trying to blame the results on Dustin's tests on the Canon sensor is simply living in denial. Let me help you understand something ... it's the same sensor for both lenses

If the Zeiss shows more micro-detail on a smaller, filtered sensor ... rocket science ought to tell you that it will show more detail on a larger, unfiltered sensor too ... or do you think the Canon 5D IV sensor filter only affects Sigma-branded lenses and not Zeiss'



Yairt wrote:
IMHO , The Sigma has an inconsistent behavior near MFD and that is where most of the criticism comes from.
Near MFD the Zeiss is simply light years a head in all aspect , it is not even close.


Well, since I am a close-up and macro photographer, we at least find a point we can fully agree on: the Zeiss completely trounces the Sigma up close, and (we agree again) it isn't even close. If a person is interested in photographing flowers, or foliage, or any type of intimate nature shot (where subtle colors and micro-detail are everything), forget the Sigma and go with the Zeiss.



Yairt wrote:
On normal shooting distances from 8 to 25 feet my findings change.
The Sigma is clearly sharper (on the D810) and with less CA and better and smoother out of focus rendering.
The zeiss has different color balance but you can not say it is better since it doesn't have larger color range just different balance. ( not the case with the ART 85 and the Milvus 85 where the Milvus is much more transparent and with a richer color range )
with careful matching i couldn't tell the difference.
once the color and exposure are matched global and local contrast are super close
...Show more

Isn't that pretty much what the video demonstrated? That the two lenses were equivalent mid-range?
To me, the Sigma looked better on the edges, but still lacked the micro-contrast in the center (wide-open).
It was a qualitative wash at mid-range, so if a person is shooting weddings, etc. ... where they're constantly on the move, taking this shot and that, they will benefit far more from the Sigma's AF than from any qualitative advantage of the Zeiss.



Yairt wrote:
Infinity
I am sorry but unless some has an eye sight of a superman ( or wonder woman) i dont see a difference when both lenses are match and focused tightly.
(One mistake i saw on many reviews is the focusing on infinity. It is hard to only look at one point since your DOF should be match.
i carefully make sure the DOF start around the same place and goes to infinity.)


Again, that is pretty much what the video concluded, isn't it? However, we agree for different reasons.
IMO, the Zeiss was still better at micro-contrast; however the Sigma appeared better in the corners (at least wide-open) Trouble is, most people don't shoot landscapes wide-open; they're stopped down to at least f/8, where vignetting isn't a problem and corner-sharpness is typically at its best. So, to me, the Zeiss' micro-contrast was still superior for pulling all of the subtle detail out of the tree leaves, etc.

The real reason to shoot wide-open is up-close, under 8', to blur the background and define the subject, so Zeiss' superiority up close should be noted. As should its lack of AF, however, if this is important to you.



Yairt wrote:
The best professional article on line is not free and is on :
https://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/Sigma135f1_8A/Sigma135f1_8A.html
If someone is interested in facts and doesn't have emotions in it i advice reading this site prior to making a purchase.
All The best
Happy Shooting.
Yair


'The best?" Really? And who are you to make this determination?

I actually believe Dustin's video was far more helpful than any of the written reviews, because it allowed the viewer to see the differences ... up close, mid-range, and long-range ... where each lens looked good ... and where each lens did not ... and to apply the findings to their own style.

The video also demonstrated the difference between 'global sharpness' and overall micro-detail. People act like MTF charts are everything, but they're not.

At the end of the day, every review seems to be unanimous that they're both good lenses with few weaknesses ... but there are weaknesses in both.

For some, lack of AF is a weakness in the Zeiss ... while lack of micro-contrast + limited (150°) focus-throw in the Sigma will be considered a severe weakness (compared to the Zeiss' 270° focus throw). If you're doing stack-shooting of flowers, fall-color leaves, or anything in nature where you're fairly-close and wanting the most micro-detail, the difference is pretty clear.

Also, for close-up work, the Zeiss has a 1:4 reproduction ratio; where the Sigma has a 1:5 ratio.
Both are sub-optimal in the min. focus distance department: the Zeiss 2.62' (80 cm); the Sigma 2.87' (87.5 cm).

For me, as a close-up/macro shooter, if the Zeiss went 1:1, and if and had a 9-12" min focus distance, it would be a perfect lens. But it's still great at what it does.

For weddings and such, the Sigma looks to be the better overall tool for the job, for the AF alone, with comparable image quality elsewhere (esp. since 'micro-detail' isn't as important in this kind of shooting).



Jul 19, 2017 at 08:57 AM
Yairt
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #2 · p.15 #2 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


First , i am not fighting no one and respect everybody opinion

we can agree to disagree nothing will happen.

it is fun from photography the world has enough wars.

Re lensrental measurement , those are measured data that are the best available to compare MTF , i didn't say MTF is everything , just it mean the Sigma is a sharper slightly and in average and what is relevant is that it is objective not subjective ,

if you can show other objective measurements. Done in Lab with a careful methodology please do .

To my best knowledge there is not such test publicly available.

I have a lot of respect for Dustin Abbot's reviews , i agree with him on many issues, on the 135 ART vs Zeiss we have differences in findings.

BTW , I am an atheist as well and I am not living in denial. (i wish i was!!!!) i look for imperfections all my life and i have zero tolerance for none fact conclusions.

i have zero emotion in this , i find it fun , if tomorrow Nikon/ dont care who will make a better 135 i will buy it in second.

OK ,

Again , it is far easier to see the differences in resolution on a Nikon D810 than on 5D4 , if you think resolution is very close on the canon , it still may look more resolution on the D810.

it is nothing about Nikon , 5Dsr will do even better.

We totally agree for close-up and macro the zeiss wins hands-down ,

I am not using the 135 for macro work , the Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2M ( amazing lens) from my experience is the best tool available for that as far as i know.

Regarding the mid field and far distance , Now you are getting to the differences in opinion and findings between me and Dustin ,

i claim that we are both correctly telling our findings,

Dustin is telling the difference are almost none existing.

I am claiming the Sigma is clearly sharper. It can be fully logical since i am using higher resolution sensor!

I also claim it is harder to nail focus on infinity and match DOF using 5D4 than on D810 or 5Dsr.

regarding my reference to diglloyd web site ,

it is the most professional and scientific reviews on line , if you will read one you will agree.

it contains full resolution downloads of multiple of samples in all apertures.

He analyses every pictures , makes few crop and examine them in details in few apertures.

show me a web site with such a level of analysis and I will take my hat off, but if you don't just go to https://diglloyd.com/index.html.

ATB
Yair




Jul 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #3 · p.15 #3 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Yairt wrote:
First , i am not fighting no one and respect everybody opinion

we can agree to disagree nothing will happen.

it is fun from photography the world has enough wars.

Re lensrental measurement , those are measured data that are the best available to compare MTF , i didn't say MTF is everything , just it mean the Sigma is a sharper slightly and in average and what is relevant is that it is objective not subjective ,

if you can show other objective measurements. Done in Lab with a careful methodology please do .

To my best knowledge there is not such
...Show more

No problemo, no need to 'fight' at all ... let's just discuss our differences.

LenScore already has objective measurements of the Ziess Apo ... which is above 95% of other lenses on the planet ... so when the the measurements of the Sigma come out, we can see the full details.

In the meantime, I don't need to read charts, or articles: MY EYES told me all I need to know in that video, namely that the Sigma does not, in any way, meet my needs as a close-up/macro nature shooter.



Yairt wrote:
BTW , I am an atheist as well and I am not living in denial. (i wish i was!!!!) i look for imperfections all my life and i have zero tolerance for none fact conclusions.

i have zero emotion in this , i find it fun , if tomorrow Nikon/ dont care who will make a better 135 i will buy it in second.


Well, it's good we agree on something else

I can't say I have zero emotion in this, as photography is my passion.

What I can say is, I have zero reason to lie.

Unlike some, who buy the Sigma because 'it's cheaper,' I bought the Zeiss because it's better.



Yairt wrote:
Again , it is far easier to see the differences in resolution on a Nikon D810 than on 5D4 , if you think resolution is very close on the canon , it still may look more resolution on the D810.

it is nothing about Nikon , 5Dsr will do even better.


I am not sure what you're talking about.



Yairt wrote:
We totally agree for close-up and macro the zeiss wins hands-down ,

I am not using the 135 for macro work , the Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2M ( amazing lens) from my experience is the best tool available for that as far as i know.


Cool, and this is why I reject the Sigma for my kind of work (high-detail, close-focus nature shots).

However, I will help you on something else as well: the Zeiss Milvus (formerly Zeiss Macro-Planar) is a dog compared to the the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar. Not sure if you realize this, but both lenses are manufactured by Cosina (who also manufactures the Otus series). I don't wish to digress, but check out >> this post << for more information. (Think of the Voigtländer as a better version of the Milvus, manufactured by the same company, Cosina, with better bokeh, true 1:1, and better color-correction.) In fact, you might want to watch this video from a Zeiss Master, saying that the 100mm Makro Planar is not in the same leage as the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo either:


(check out time 31:00 for edification )

No graphs, no charts ... but the irrefutable opinion of the brains behind both



Yairt wrote:
Regarding the mid field and far distance , Now you are getting to the differences in opinion and findings between me and Dustin ,

i claim that we are both correctly telling our findings,

Dustin is telling the difference are almost none existing.

I am claiming the Sigma is clearly sharper. It can be fully logical since i am using higher resolution sensor!

I also claim it is harder to nail focus on infinity and match DOF using 5D4 than on D810 or 5Dsr.


Here we disagree.

The differences I see in Dustin's video are night-and-day. If you don't see them, then I question your eyes.

It's like a guy saying, "Hey, do you see that bird?!"

One guy sees it, the other guy doesn't.

That doesn't mean the bird isn't there ... it only means one guy has the ability to spot it ... while the other guy does not.

PS: As a degreed philosopher (UCLA), I can say with authority you have no concept of what the word 'logic' actually means.

None of this is logic; we're arguing facts, opinion, and perceptions.



Yairt wrote:
regarding my reference to diglloyd web site ,

it is the most professional and scientific reviews on line , if you will read one you will agree.


I wasn't aware Lloyd was a degreed scientist

I am aware that he is a 'professional' (viz., he earns money from his website, is sponsored by many of the brands he espouses, etc.), but this is the first time I've ever heard of him referred to as a scientist



Yairt wrote:
it contains full resolution downloads of multiple of samples in all apertures.

He analyses every pictures , makes few crop and examine them in details in few apertures.


Not sure that's 'science,' but if his words move you to purchase ... then Lloyd has succeeded at his job.



Yairt wrote:
show me a web site with such a level of analysis and I will take my hat off, but if you don't just go to [url]https://diglloyd.com/index.html[/url].
ATB
Yair


I am sorry, but I am not going to pay Lloyd $250/yr. for his opinion. I totally respect all the effort he's put into his site, but I'm not willing to pay that much to be a part of it.

There are plenty of reference sites, that don't charge (or that charge $30/yr) which offer comparable info--and without all the shameless/utterly-obvious advertising.

Cheers.



Jul 19, 2017 at 09:48 PM
Todd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #4 · p.15 #4 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


A recent photo from Fort Davis Texas at a bird blind at a state park. Sigma 135mm F/1.8 wide open and f/1 .8. Compared to the Zeiss, this isn't bad.






Edited on Jul 20, 2017 at 12:18 AM · View previous versions



Jul 19, 2017 at 10:18 PM
Hardcore
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #5 · p.15 #5 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


I love it when people argue over sharpness after watching a 1440p video (probably 1080p Auto for most) on youtube.

Btw, great photo Todd!



Jul 20, 2017 at 12:14 AM
Yairt
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #6 · p.15 #6 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


i tried moving the discussion from the video to measurements and web site with a detailed set of downloadable samples.

I asked for different sources of objective and repeatable information that supports different option than mine and didn't get any



Jul 20, 2017 at 03:57 AM
pmac1985
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #7 · p.15 #7 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Anyway....

How does the AF speed and accuracy compare to the 70-200vr2?

Thinking of ditching that as it gets little use, and as much as i would like the nikon 105, my 85 1.4g is my most used lens so it too close for with the 105.

that would give me 35/85/135 and a 24-70.



Jul 20, 2017 at 04:46 AM
Yairt
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #8 · p.15 #8 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


I can finally see the difference between us!

I am a Physicist and in my work i do R&D based on high accuracy measurements

Sorry , but there is no way you will change my option in an argument without facts based on measurements or full high resolution files.

LenScore is a respectable site , which is test methodologies are not published , i respect them but i would highly appreciated if they publish the measurements protocol and how to get to each test result.

Just like the DXO tests more clarity is need to provide an understanding of the test results.

lets assume the basics otherwise this discussion is meaningless , i don't lie and i assume you are not as well.

whatever you say, i bought the Sigma because it's better for my shooting distances according to my tests and others measurements and supplied full resolution files .

I know that most of the current Zeiss are made in Cosina .I know that Voigtländer are made in Cosina as well.

I have a lot of respect for Voigtländer products.

thanks for the tip , i will search data on this lens !

you continue to try and insult and try to cause me to react back , you will not succeed.

Read exactly what i say i didn't say Lloyd is a scientist , yet the testing methodologies diglloyd is using are scientific .

Looking at video and talking is very nice way to express your toughs and findings, which can be as solid as possible.

it definitely crates to a bigger crowd.

Yet writing articles with clear informative comments of samples which are fully provided and can be downloadable and do it for years and for a large part of the industry leading products is different.

Be aware , on Zeiss web site they publish Lloyd articles when a new product is released , need i say more ?

http://lenspire.zeiss.com/en/first-look-zeiss-milvus-35/

I have no problem paying $200/yr for information , i am sorry that the common assumption is that people should work and publish there work and not get paid.

Again , show me one site with multiple series of downloadable full resolution samples of lens in each review ?



Yair




Jul 20, 2017 at 04:57 AM
Yairt
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #9 · p.15 #9 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


pmac1985,

I have the 70-200 E and used to have the 70-200 VR2 , i also owned the 85mm 1.4G and 1.8G ,and currently own the Art 85 and 135.

AF speed and accuracy is much better on the 70-200 in all aspects.

I am talking about speed and keepers percentage.

With both 70-200 my in focus hit rate is close to 100% , no prime can match that.

If you want to upgrade consider the 70-200 E , it is expensive yet awesome.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-ed-af-s-vr-mtf-tests/

https://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/Nikon70_200f2_8E_FL_ED_VR/Nikon70_200f2_8E_FL_ED_VR.html



Jul 20, 2017 at 05:12 AM
pmac1985
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #10 · p.15 #10 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Thanks sadly upgrading isn't an option this would be a near on swap for what i could get for my 70-200 compared to the sigma price.

My biggest worry is the AF, watching a lot of reviews they AF seems to be not as good as i hoped, a lot of hunting and missed shots. which is sort of similar to how i have found my 35art.

i guess i will just have to stick with the 70-200 for now.

If i didn't love my 85 so much the 105 would have been perfect.. the loss on the 85 would be to much to stomach also.



Jul 20, 2017 at 05:23 AM
Yairt
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #11 · p.15 #11 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Sadly, Nikon is keep preventing 3rd party lens manufacturer to get their protocols of communication.
The other fact is that fast glass is always worse at AF.
All the Sigma ART Lenses I tested were not on par with Nikon AF.
The worst part is trying off center foucs points ...
The good news is that Nikon new lenses ( 70-200E, 28E,105E)
are a huge step in optics.
I wish they picked other FL for there primes but it is business after all and they picked FL which they didn't had.





Jul 20, 2017 at 06:26 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #12 · p.15 #12 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Hardcore wrote:
I love it when people argue over sharpness after watching a 1440p video (probably 1080p Auto for most) on youtube.


And I love it when people blurt out a one-liner response without actually reading a thing: the discussion was not about sharpness



Jul 20, 2017 at 06:45 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #13 · p.15 #13 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Yairt wrote:
I can finally see the difference between us!

I am a Physicist and in my work i do R&D based on high accuracy measurements .


And I am a casualty investigator who collects and amass evidence which determines who is at fault for a given loss



Yairt wrote:
Sorry , but there is no way you will change my option in an argument without facts based on measurements or full high resolution files.

LenScore is a respectable site , which is test methodologies are not published , i respect them but i would highly appreciated if they publish the measurements protocol and how to get to each test result.

Just like the DXO tests more clarity is need to provide an understanding of the test results.


Nor will you change my mind, so let's leave it at that.



Yairt wrote:
lets assume the basics otherwise this discussion is meaningless , i don't lie and i assume you are not as well.

whatever you say, i bought the Sigma because it's better for my shooting distances according to my tests and others measurements and supplied full resolution files .


I bought the Zeiss because it is *MUCH* better than the Sigma for close-work. In case you don't remember, you already conceded this point. (You said, "The Sigma has an inconsistent behavior near MFD and that is where most of the criticism comes from. Near MFD the Zeiss is simply light years a head in all aspect , it is not even close.")

What else is there to debate?



Yairt wrote:
I know that most of the current Zeiss are made in Cosina .I know that Voigtländer are made in Cosina as well.

I have a lot of respect for Voigtländer products.

thanks for the tip , i will search data on this lens !


You're welcome.



Yairt wrote:
you continue to try and insult and try to cause me to react back , you will not succeed.

Read exactly what i say i didn't say Lloyd is a scientist , yet the testing methodologies diglloyd is using are scientific .

Looking at video and talking is very nice way to express your toughs and findings, which can be as solid as possible.

it definitely crates to a bigger crowd.

Yet writing articles with clear informative comments of samples which are fully provided and can be downloadable and do it for years and for a large part of the industry leading products is
...Show more

Huh? I didn't try to insult you

You are going on and on about Lloyd, which means nothing to me. And, speaking of 'common assumptions,' you are basically assuming what I do and do not believe regarding authors getting paid for their work. WTH does this have to do with anything?

I will pay for what I believe is valuable to me ... and I will not if I don't (or can get the same information elsewhere). Just because a man writes an article doesn't obligate me to pay him. Please stop going on and on, just to keep writing.

Back to the point: go re-read your own conclusions up top:

1) You agree the Zeiss destroys the Sigma up close; it's not even a contest. Since this is where I use this focal length, please comprehend this fact (on which we both agree) is why I bought the Zeiss;

2) At mid-range, there are advantages to both, but perhaps the Sigma is sharper. We disagree about the micro-contrast here, so there is no point in trying to change each other's mind. This is where you shoot, which is why you bought the Sigma;

3) At long range, in your own words, you said, "Infinity: I am sorry but unless some has an eye sight of a superman ( or wonder woman) i dont see a difference when both lenses are match and focused tightly."

Again, I will repeat myself, that's pretty much what the video concluded, isn't it? Go watch it again.

In closing, there is no reason to keep debating. You bought the Sigma because it suits your shooting; I bought the Zeiss because it suits mine.

Writing 7 more pages about Lloyd Chambers won't change what we've already agreed on ... nor will it change where we disagree.

Have a good one.



Jul 20, 2017 at 07:14 AM
Yairt
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #14 · p.15 #14 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


John, Enjoy your Zeiss !!!
I can't wait for the Milvus 35/1.4 I ordered,
It looks amazing!
Have a great day!



Jul 20, 2017 at 08:08 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #15 · p.15 #15 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


Yairt wrote:
John, Enjoy your Zeiss !!!
I can't wait for the Milvus 35/1.4 I ordered,
It looks amazing!
Have a great day!




Thanks ... and you do as well.



Jul 20, 2017 at 09:06 AM
jtgray
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #16 · p.15 #16 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


This was shot at a retirement ceremony for a Navy Chief who has impacted a lot of Sailors lives including this one







Jul 20, 2017 at 11:40 PM
Marshall Alsup
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #17 · p.15 #17 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


I just read this thread because I'm considering this Sigma lens. Very interesting discussion. I wouldn't have necro'd this except that I wanted to comment on that last photo. Very emotional. It really struck me. Very nice shot jtgray.

Also thanks to those that contributed examples, especially those comparing against other common lenses like the 105 and 200.



Jul 06, 2019 at 09:03 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #18 · p.15 #18 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots


With both 70-200 my in focus hit rate is close to 100% , no prime can match that.
200 f2 VR



Jul 08, 2019 at 04:13 PM
1       2       3              14      
15
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              14      
15
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.