about | support
home
 

Search Used

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
135 430502 Apr 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $380.93
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.75
9.40
8.3
24_70EX_med_1_

Specifications:
The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF is one of several new products to be introduced at PMA 2001 by Sigma Corporation of Japan (2-3-15, lwado-Minami, Komae-shi, Tokyo) This lens covers focal lengths from 24mm ultra wide angle to 70mm medium telephoto and provides a large f2.8 aperture at all focal lengths. Its design employs three (3) aspherical lens elements to minimize spherical aberration, astigmatism and sagittal comma flare. The use of two (2) SLD (The Special Low Dispersion) glass elements results in excellent correction of chromatic aberration and provides a high level of optical performance and 24-70rnm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL DG DF has high contrast and resolution. The lens also incorporates Dual Focus mechanism. It is easy to hold the lens, since the focusing ring does not rotate during auto focusing, and yet provides a wide focus ring for easy to use manual focus. Since the front of the lens does not rotate, it allows the use of a flower shaped "Perfect Hood" and facilities the use of polarizing filters. The lens materials used in this new lens are lead and arsenic free ecological glass.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9  next
          
hardflipfive_0
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 14, 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 48
Review Date: Apr 3, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Excellent build quality (sturdy), affordable for a 2.8, Sharp when stopped down
Cons:
Soft wide open but useable, reversed zoom ring (not that negative)

Picked up this lens used in the locals classifieds to add to my full frame kit as a mid-range zoom. The lens is almost 10 years old, but it feels like it will last for another 10 years. I didn't want to dump a load of money (k$) on my new lenses so opted for third party brand, knowing this lens is sometimes compared to the Canon 24-70. For the price paid, I must say I was pretty impressed on the overall build quality and sharpness of the lens, even though it is a bit soft wide open. Contrast is very good too and AF is quite fast.

On the negatives, the lens is a bit noisy while focusing (like an electric buzzing sound), but nothing compared to my previous Tamron 17-50 (I could not support it). I don't

As for the reversed zoom compared to Canon lenses, it didn't bother me at all. As a photographer, I always have to adapt to any situation/lens so you get used to it very quickly. It does not and never bothered me.

I could not be happier with this lens and it satisfy my needs more then expected !


Apr 3, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add hardflipfive_0 to your Buddy List  
hackmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 19, 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1
Review Date: Oct 21, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Cheap, high performance with correct exposure, aperture and ammount of light
Cons:
Bad performance at night

bought a used copy of this piece to use in my nikon D90. The lens is 3 years old and its perfect, no problems due age, except to the rubber focus ring is a little "dry". No front or back focus.


English is not my mother language, I will try to be "understandable".


Wel, first at all is a big, heavy and bulky leans and use a big filter. People get intimidate by that lens, its nice!


About IQ I can tell you I liked when used at day, despite being a f 2.8. Its a little soft at wide open and you need to step down a little bit. Center shows a very high quality image and borders a little soft. I found some distortion CA and purple fringe wich is 100% corrected (at least with the lens profile in Lightroom 3). So, if you are shooting landscape, buildings at wide open I can tell you, with the correct exposure, you have a very high picture quality. I can tell also, in this scenario, it perform better then D90 18-105mm lens kit. It produces a warmer tone than 18-105mm lens, I love it, and 90% of shots I only need to apply lens profile, because image its very well balanced (colors and the exposure) - awsome. Its kind of lens that dont give you work at PP. AF works great and its not noise like people complaing. To be honest it produce less noise than my nikkor 50mm 1.8D.


But, here comes the bad part.


I am disapointed by lens performance at night. When u take a shot, the "non lighten subject" (fraction of your image that dont get lit by flash or any kind of light) get blurried, like a out of focus blurried noise image. In this case, the darken area of the image have a very poor non sharp quality. I know you are thinking "thatīs is normal, its the darken problem", but its not. I can tell that because the 18-105, kit, in same scenario, perform 200% better, and even with the noise, image display focused in dark area, not blurried or out of focus..... I found this problem in every aperture range. In other hand, noise in darken area is pleaseant then 18-105mm, because somehow doenst show "purple" dots, only black ones.


The bottom of line is, due its low price, its a very good lens and its performance to landscape or portraits with the correct exposure, aperture and ammount of light, gives you a high quality sharp image. It capture a very good skin tone.


Also, the zoom ring isnt smooth in all range, maybe because the heavy front element.


If you have a nikon and want to have a lens that suit FX and DX sensor and you want to save some cash this is the lens for you.

Here you can see some samples about its image quality:

http://www.carloshackmannphotography.com/Galleries/Arquitechure/14214600_pNesQ#1058366042_84Boe
http://www.carloshackmannphotography.com/Galleries/Arquitechure/14214600_pNesQ#1058366803_2KmZS
http://www.carloshackmannphotography.com/Galleries/Arquitechure/14214600_pNesQ#1058365287_X9YfT
http://www.carloshackmannphotography.com/Galleries/Arquitechure/14214600_pNesQ#1058364258_DgMni
http://www.carloshackmannphotography.com/Galleries/Arquitechure/14214600_pNesQ#1058362720_8Qc8s
http://www.carloshackmannphotography.com/Galleries/Arquitechure/14214600_pNesQ#1058363477_iHANk


Oct 21, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add hackmann to your Buddy List  
biglank1
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Review Date: Feb 8, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Price, Build Quality, Sharpness, Contrast
Cons:
reverse zoom, manual focus clutch???, lens hood not uncluded, hard to find a 82mm filter/hood

Positive: I TRIED justifying the price of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L. I REALLY was trying make myself believe it was worth an extra 800 bucks. But I just had to be honest with myself. I took several exposures at different settings with both lenses on my 50D. Wide open and stopped down apertures. 24mm focal length to 50mm focal and then 70mm focal length. Was the Canon lens better?? Yes. It was better. But just SLIGHTLY and only when I zoomed in at 100%. 75% or lower and even the trained eye couldn't notice the difference. The Canon L lens was just slightly sharper in certain areas, but color and contrast were both the exact same. Honestly, I'd probably pay an extra $100 or maybe $200 bucks for the difference I saw in the pictures for the Canon. If you've got money to blow for small differences or you can find a way to justify the extra 800 then go for it. People complain about the weight, but come on! Man up! Lol. I've heard complaints about the slow auto focus? Seriously?? This thing is quick!. No hunting, even in low light. I also compared this lens to my Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma actually has slightly better color and contrast, surprisingly. I'm still going to hold on to my 50mm though. The lightweight should give me a break.

Negative: I don't like the fact that it didn't come with a lens hood. Come on, Sigma. Throw us a bone here. You made the filter 82mm and that is about as common as a lunar eclipse. Now I've got to go searching all over for lens hood and filters that fit this massive thing. But I guess with the 800 bucks I saved, I can't complain on spending an extra 20-30 bucks on a lens hood. And for the superficial and vain side, the Sigma counterpart doesn't "look as cool" as the Canon L. Sorry.

Overall, I'm impressed. Good job, Sigma.


Feb 8, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add biglank1 to your Buddy List  
bobcita68
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 3, 2009
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 4, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Build quality, price/performance
Cons:
Slightly soft wide open

I found this lens for Nikon mount, used in excellent conditions, and gave it a try, although I had read some negative comments about it. In particular, some claim it is soft wide open and AF is slow and not accurate.
On my D200, AF is on-par with consumer AF-S lenses (such as the 18-70 or 18-200), both in speed and accuracy. Focus errors may occur with non-centre AF points, but that is true for most (wide angle) lenses on the D200 (and documented in Nikkors manuals). Provided one pre-focuses, I believe AF is fast enough for shooting moving subjects (from kids playing to cars on the street).
Sharpness drops from f/4 to f/2.8, but not as bad as one may think based on out-of-camera JPG's. There is a fair amount of CA and haloing at 2.8, which I believe is a common issue with fast lenses (certainly not as bad as with the Nikkor 50 f/1.4 AF-D), but these can be removed easily by shooting RAW and post-processing. Indeed, images taken at f/2.8 sharpen up pretty well.
I also read (minor) complaints about the zoom ring being small and stiff and the switch from AF to MF awkward.
The zoom ring is indeed a tad smaller than it should be, but becomes fluent with usage. And, although changing to MF is not as simple as on the Tokina's, the MF ring is a pleasure to use (frankly, much better than that of any of the AF-S lenses I tried, including the Nikkor 24-70 2.8).
Considering the price I paid (which is less than 1/4 the price of a Nikon 24-70 2.8 in Italy), this lens is a gem.


Nov 4, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add bobcita68 to your Buddy List  
tmonzon
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 12
Review Date: Jun 24, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $325.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very affordable as far as lenses go, IQ is sharp, especially when stopped down
Cons:
Not as contrasty as other lenses, extending barrel can be annoying, autofocus is a bit slow

First off, the negatives. The first thing I noticed about the lens is that color reproduction seems to be a bit off. Colors seem to be a little more washed out on this lens. While it can be fixed in PP, I prefer a little more vibrance in my colors.

Also, the autofocus is pretty slow. I expected as such from a motor driven lens, but it even slower than I had originally thought. It'll do for concerts, if the subject is more stationary, but it'll be a lot harder to get focus quickly when it matters, like sports.

Lastly, the placement of controls on this thing are just really awkward. The zoom ring is too small, and the focus ring is too big. Maybe its just my tastes, but it took some time to get used to the controls on this thing.

Now for the positives. And these outweigh the negatives in my opinion. First off, IQ is comparable to its Canikon equivalents. Maybe I just got lucky and got a good copy the first time, but when stopped down around 2 stops, this thing is tack sharp. Even at 2.8 my copy is pretty good with sharpness.

Also, at an average price of about 400 bucks, this lens is definitely worth picking up if you don't have the 1500 to spare for the Canon or Nikon lenses. At the very least, you get a definite bang for your buck. If you're looking to upgrade from your kit lens for the first time, this is the perfect lens to do it with.


Jun 24, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tmonzon to your Buddy List  
stevecoad1
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 1, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 1, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $250.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Pretty good IQ, build quality
Cons:
heavy for size

Not a bad lens but nothing spectacular. I have a Nikon 18-105 kit lens and expected this lens to be far sharper but was disapointed in this respect. I have found that my little 18-105 can take much sharper shots than I expected, even in low light. The only reason that I purchased this is because I also occasionally shoot with my 35mm and the 18-105 is a DX. The image quality is inconsistant. One shot will be excellent and the next just okay. I have found that to get the most of it I need to shoot around f6-f8 so what is the point of getting the heavy lens. It is certainly not a bad lens but I have a hard time getting excited about the photos it takes. I guess that I'm damning it with faint praise but it is not as good as a Nikon or Cannon lense. If you want a good, fast lense at a bargain basement price this is a good one. Just don't expect it to shoot like a Nikkor lense.

Apr 1, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add stevecoad1 to your Buddy List  
gene A.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 15, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 307
Review Date: Jan 27, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: extremely sharp and contrasty
Cons:
zoom ring backwards from Canon

I shoot for a living and my canon 24-105 has had alot of use the last few years so when I saw this lens on Craigs list locally I picked it up as a back up. Maybe I just got lucky, but this thing is extremely sharp and contrasty at all f-stops and focal lengths. Its as good as any L series zoom I have ever owned and I find myself using it often, even though its the only off brand lens I own. The zoom is reversed from Canon zoom ring and frankly I find this aspect of the lens very frustrating, but other than that I highly recommend this lens.

Jan 27, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gene A. to your Buddy List  
Dirk Hiemstra
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 22, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 14, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Stopped down it is sharp. Real sharp.
Cons:
Heavy. Clutch system, no manual override. A bit soft at 2.8

I had the possibility to make a comparison to the Nikon 24-85 2.8-4.0. Hands down for the Nikon. On the other hand, the Sigma aint a bad lens, it is very, very good on F4 and above

Nov 14, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Dirk Hiemstra to your Buddy List  
apocrypha
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 15, 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 0
Review Date: Sep 15, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $200.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: affordable f2.8, nice body
Cons:
hunts at 70mm, body too heavy, soft at small f, v. stiff from 28mm to 24mm

I wasn't as happy with this lens as I wanted to be. I'm not sure what exactly I mean by that, but I guess it was partly because this was my first introduction to 2.8.

I almost exclusively shoot outdoors so if I do need to shoot f2.8 (i.e. low light) I need it to be sharp. There's not really much point in forking out for a 2.8 if it can't shoot reasonable photos. The lens was sharp, but only around the sweet zone of f8.0. For travel outdoor photography the extra weight for 2.8 was not welcome. 82mm filters are awkwardly uncommon too. The auto-focus hunted slowly, and the zoom inredibly stiffened between 24-28 (why?). It came with a large foam padded pouch which turned out to be a breeding ground for fungi.

I won't gripe about all the L series features it doesn't have which make it half the price because that is irrelevant.
My 2nd attempt on Sigma and once again I am assured Canon is the only option.


Sep 15, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add apocrypha to your Buddy List  
emaphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 6, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 6, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $430.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Cost, AF performance, build, sharpness (stopped down a bit)
Cons:
AF noise (questionable), 82mm filter thread, AF/MF clutch

All in all this lens is a sound choice for those on a budget and can not afford the Canikon equivalent. For me spending over 1K on the 24-70L was quite a stretch, so after reading this site I decided to go with the Sigma, and I'm glad I did.

AF speed is good and the noise is bearable, quite frankly I think some folks are too spoiled (or nit picky) when concerning the lens AF noise. Unless you need to be stealthy get this lens... I use a RF for stealthy stuff.

It's quite sharp enough for me and even better at f/5.6 to f/8.

Solid build is quite nice and supplied hood is great, though I am not a fan of the AF/MF clutch mechanism

As for the 82mm filter size it's not so bad. The money you saved buying this lens will pay for more than enough filters. Plus with 82mm, vignetting is not so prevalent.


Aug 6, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add emaphoto to your Buddy List  
MrAdventure
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 12, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2878
Review Date: Jul 19, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Solid Build, Black Colour...less obvious for street shooting etc, Fast Focus, Sharpness after 2.8, Very convenient focal length
Cons:
Loud Auto Focus, Slightly soft at 2.8, Lens extends during focus

I'be been using the lens for a few days now and intially, didn't like it. The loud AF really turned me off compared to my Canon EF lenses which are smooth quiet and fast.

During a shoot at an outdoor baby beauty contest though, I hardly noticed the AF noise and was quite pleased with the quality of the images I captured.

For the money this is comparable to the Canon equivalent in all areas except for AF noise.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallchocolateguy/sets/72157606255905716/


Jul 19, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add MrAdventure to your Buddy List  
SoundHound
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

Registered: Jan 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5318
Review Date: May 3, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: An incredible value and sharp wide open..
Cons:
Noisy, rough focusing and less than good build quality.

This might have been the "older" model. A loaner while waiting for my Nikkor to arrive. I was surprised at how sharp it was wide open but more than annoyed at the focusing.

Due to the build quality I consider this a semi-expendable or light duty lens. If you only have $400 it's the only way to go.


May 3, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add SoundHound to your Buddy List  
kinuko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 14, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8
Review Date: Mar 14, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $313.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very Sharp at 2.8 at wide angle end, good color and contrast, well built
Cons:
Focus fast for non-HSM but would be a great lens if it had HSM.

Negative first. At 70mm and f2.8 it's a bit soft. Stopped down to f4.0 it's tack sharp.

From 24-50 it's tack sharp at all apertures. It's fabulous value for money.

Check this Sigma 24-70 lens test page click on the picture of the stuff on the table, you'll see the full size photo direct from the camera. That's at f2.8 and it's extremely sharp.

Highly Recommended


Mar 14, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add kinuko to your Buddy List  
DocTP1885
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 26
Review Date: Feb 19, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $389.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Built like a tank Solid feel Enourmous Glass quicker response than I epxected. Sharp lens
Cons:
Ring does feel stiff goin to 24mm (eventually loosens up) When goin from 70-24m...you can feel air escaping from the sides. Weight (I dont think it's an issue, but I can see people complaining bout it) 82mm filter is not cheap. It's not HSM and you can tell. definately can hear the ring motor.

I did several months reviewing the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I heard it was a beautiful glass. I went to my local camera store and asked for it. The store salesman was nice enough for me to test out the lens. As I was testing it out, he said if I would be interested in the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 lens as well. I was curious about the sigma and since I was testing the tamron, why not the Sigma as well. When he took the sigma out of the case, my eyes popped out. This is one HUGE piece of glass. I thought for sure I couldnt afford this one. I asked and he said it was only $20 more. Now I cant pass the opportunity to check the sigma out. I put the lens on the store canon 40d and started to do some testing. 1st impression

- SIGMA: It's a tank and I love it. Built very solid. TAMRON: was light and almost fragile.
- SIGMA: Extremely sturdy. TAMRON: could see the barrel wobble a little
- SIGMA: material on it was very nice compared the plastic feel of the TAMRON
- SIGMA Lens was enormous 82mm but wow it looked good.
- SIGMA focus ring was not a smooth as TAMRON and it DID have a slight resistance goin towards the 24mm side. I also felt air pushing out from the sides of the focus ring goin to 70mm range. Thought it was kinda odd.
Sales person comment about the focus ring getting resistance towards 24mm was because it held the lens little more firmly when extended versus Tamron has to use a lock position when extended from wobbling too much. Sales person showed me this and I confirmed this was to be true.
- SIGMA performace was pretty fast. Faster then I expected, but I came from a kit lens, so anything other than a kit lens will be fast. Tamron displayed about the same speed.
- Pedal Hood on the SIGMA is ok. I think it's more for cosmetic with average function against the sun.
- Manual is above the focus ring. Either push up for manual or down for auto. (Also need to set to manual on the side button).

Quality. Thank God the salesman let me test out both cuz I see all the time with both lens to either get a good copy or not. Fortunately the SIGMA was a good copy and I questioned the TAMRON. I tested all the f stops, aperture, 70-24mm range (I was in the store quite a bit. lol) I can confirm at 70mm f2.8 it can be slightly softer. From f4-6 is deathy sharp at all range.

The focus ring is far from quiet, if you're out of focus and lens focus in, you'll know someone is goin to take a picture. I would say, it's a suttle sound, but non the less you can hear it.

Since Im an amateur photographer, I thought this would be a good walk around lens and to take family pics and well as outdoors. So I decided to buy the SIGMA and im very happy I did. It looks very professional on my canon. The thing I like about this lens is that's it's always comared against the Canon 24-70mm L. That's a compliment in my eyes. Yes, the Canon 24-70mm L is a wonderful lens at a hefty price and does edge out the SIGMA (key word: EDGE by a miniscul). but for a 1/3 of the price of the canon with similar perfomance and quality for amateurs like me, it's definately a great piece of glass to have.


Feb 19, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add DocTP1885 to your Buddy List  
tinke
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 18, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 371
Review Date: Jan 23, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Inexpensive and very good quality; as good as I can remember IQ wise compared to my 24-70L - contrast and color too!
Cons:
A little bit jerky when focusing, but very easy to live with for the price.

Very nice lens, sharp - sharp - sharp, and contrasty too.
Disclosure: This is lens # 2 (you know the Sigma rule, don't necessarily expect a keeper the first time). This is my only third party I am currently using (I have a 30 1.4 that is currently living in its box). I am prety picky, but since this is more of a specialty lens for me I didn't want the weight of the Canon L or the hefty price (my everyday is a 24-105L).

If you don't need a red ring around the end this lens will do you right, provided you are prepared to send it in or get a second copy (third?). My first lens had focusing issues (general), and horrible flare. This copy handles both issues hands down. I got a 82mm Hoya collapsible hood for it (check the auction site), and Pro 1 UV filter. It comes with what I consider to be a whimpy stock hood. Yes, I would recommend the UV as there is a lot of glass sticking out there.

Fast to focus, no real hunting issues and is usually spot on. If you don't need the Canon name on a lens to feel good about yourself this one is a keeper. Just remember that if at first you don't succeed you may need to try again - the good news is Sigma has a renowned service dept, and most lenses sent in for calibration are reported to come back tack sharp. Good luck!


Jan 23, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add tinke to your Buddy List  
eddyboy
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 599
Review Date: Dec 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $379.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: very sharp and reliable and far cheaper than the "name" brands. Good Quality...I own two one in Nikon and one for Canon EOS
Cons:
Would it have killed them to make this an HSM?? that would make it a world beater...Focus can be maddeningly slow and low light levels.

Would have gladly paid an extra $100 bucks for HSM...Good lens and definitely worth the price. If I'm only taking one lens with me it is usually the one....

Dec 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add eddyboy to your Buddy List  

   



Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
135 430502 Apr 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $380.93
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.75
9.40
8.3
24_70EX_med_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9  next