This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
p.7 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.i know it's not going to be as good, i want to know if it'll be usable. is it worse on than the normal c/y 35/1.4 curves look?so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.The CY appears to show a huge drop off in the corners anyway so that makes sense.the c/y actually has a a midzone dip (still visible at f/11) that keeps that tan line well below the zm till then. actual corners on the c/y are pretty ok on my a7.
Interesting. I would have expected the corners to be somewhat compromised from the drop in the MTF here. I guess they recover after 5.6:
CY 35/1.4 @ 5.6
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CY35.jpg
Tariq Gibran wrote
sebboh wrote
sebboh wrote
hiepphotog wrote
sebboh wrote
is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
Interesting. I would have expected the corners to be somewhat compromised from the drop in the MTF here. I guess they recover after 5.6:
CY 35/1.4 @ 5.6
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CY35.jpg
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:57 PM
p.7 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.i know it's not going to be as good, i want to know if it'll be usable. is it worse on than the normal c/y 35/1.4 curves look?so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.The CY appears to show a huge drop off in the corners anyway so that makes sense.the c/y actually has a a midzone dip (still visible at f/11) that keeps that tan line well below the zm till then. actual corners on the c/y are pretty ok on my a7.Interesting. I would have expected the corners to be somewhat compromised from the drop in the MTF here. I guess they recover after 5.6:
CY 35/1.4 @ 5.6
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CY35.jpg
well it is somewhat compromised, i don't have highest standards and i don't use it for landscape.
here is a lower right corner crop at f/5.6:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5571/15240996016_f33ed813c2_o.jpg
note the corner is sharper than the non-corner.
and at f/11:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3890/15263611632_c7a166dcef_o.jpg
these are just adobe defaults btw.
i've tested 2 other copies of the lens, both were slightly better than mine (i have a beater copy).
sebboh wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
sebboh wrote
sebboh wrote
hiepphotog wrote
For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
CY 35/1.4 @ 5.6
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CY35.jpg
well it is somewhat compromised, i don't have highest standards and i don't use it for landscape.
here is a lower right corner crop at f/5.6:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5571/15240996016_f33ed813c2_o.jpg
note the corner is sharper than the non-corner.
and at f/11:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3890/15263611632_c7a166dcef_o.jpg
these are just adobe defaults btw.
i've tested 2 other copies of the lens, both were slightly better than mine (i have a beater copy).
Sep 16, 2014 at 09:11 PM
p.7 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
It is bound to perform great on my M240 and that makes me happy. 
This will likely be a lens I can use for everything - including uber sharp landscape scenes.
This will likely be a lens I can use for everything - including uber sharp landscape scenes.Sep 16, 2014 at 09:17 PM
p.7 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.sure there is there are a few lenses that will perform better the a7r than on any canon camera.
there are even a few leica lenses that perform better on the a7r with a good adapter versus the m240, especially since there are helicoid adapters.
Do you think the same would be true if Canon had their own 36MP AA-less sensor? And are those examples just better in the center or do they benefit from higher resolution across the board?
I'd also quibble that being able to focus closer is more usability than performance.
freaklikeme wrote
Is there a situation where you get the same or better performance out of an adapted lens versus the same lens on its native mount? I don't believe so.Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
there are even a few leica lenses that perform better on the a7r with a good adapter versus the m240, especially since there are helicoid adapters.
Do you think the same would be true if Canon had their own 36MP AA-less sensor? And are those examples just better in the center or do they benefit from higher resolution across the board?
I'd also quibble that being able to focus closer is more usability than performance.
Sep 16, 2014 at 09:57 PM
p.7 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
sebboh wrote
hiepphotog wrote
sebboh wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
ecarlino wrote
sorry, I wasn't clear:the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
That is good news. Sounds like it might well be plenty good enough for me too. I wouldn't use it often for landscapes and when I did I doubt I would have anything meaningful beyond 18mm image height.
Sep 16, 2014 at 09:59 PM
p.7 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
freaklikeme wrote:
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.sure there is there are a few lenses that will perform better the a7r than on any canon camera.
there are even a few leica lenses that perform better on the a7r with a good adapter versus the m240, especially since there are helicoid adapters.Do you think the same would be true if Canon had their own 36MP AA-less sensor? And are those examples just better in the center or do they benefit from higher resolution across the board?
I'd also quibble that being able to focus closer is more usability than performance.
yes, they look better even in the corner with the right adapter (i've certainly seen examples where this is true). no, i don't think this would be true if canon would just buy sensors from sony, but companies are always going to have different cameras with different strengths.
i'd say that the helicoid issue is a matter of semantics. you could say the m 35 lux pre-asph performs a lot better at .7m on the a7 than it does on the m240 where it doesn't perform at all or you could say that it is usable at .7m on the a7 whereas it is not on the m240. some m-mount lenses are just more functional and higher performing on the a7r than they are on the m240. many are also worse performing.
sebboh wrote
freaklikeme wrote
Is there a situation where you get the same or better performance out of an adapted lens versus the same lens on its native mount? I don't believe so.Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
there are even a few leica lenses that perform better on the a7r with a good adapter versus the m240, especially since there are helicoid adapters.
I'd also quibble that being able to focus closer is more usability than performance.
yes, they look better even in the corner with the right adapter (i've certainly seen examples where this is true). no, i don't think this would be true if canon would just buy sensors from sony, but companies are always going to have different cameras with different strengths.
i'd say that the helicoid issue is a matter of semantics. you could say the m 35 lux pre-asph performs a lot better at .7m on the a7 than it does on the m240 where it doesn't perform at all or you could say that it is usable at .7m on the a7 whereas it is not on the m240. some m-mount lenses are just more functional and higher performing on the a7r than they are on the m240. many are also worse performing.
Sep 16, 2014 at 10:08 PM
p.7 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wroteHmmmm, the 35/2 Biogon is already better than the Lux. Some might argue the bokeh is ugly, but with the Distagon, even this excuse is gone.
I wonder where do you take your drugs?
The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
I wonder where do you take your drugs?
The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
Sep 16, 2014 at 10:59 PM
p.7 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
BbICEP wrote:
I wonder where do you take your drugs?
The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
i think he's looking at the mtf from the pre FLE lux asph, which is indeed worse than the biogon in a number of ways. i haven't actually been able to find an mtf of the FLE version.
edwardkaraa wrote
Hmmmm, the 35/2 Biogon is already better than the Lux. Some might argue the bokeh is ugly, but with the Distagon, even this excuse is gone.The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
i think he's looking at the mtf from the pre FLE lux asph, which is indeed worse than the biogon in a number of ways. i haven't actually been able to find an mtf of the FLE version.
Sep 16, 2014 at 11:08 PM
p.7 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wroteHmmmm, the 35/2 Biogon is already better than the Lux. Some might argue the bokeh is ugly, but with the Distagon, even this excuse is gone.
BbICEP wrote:
I wonder where do you take your drugs?
The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
sebboh wrote:
i think he's looking at the mtf from the pre FLE lux asph, which is indeed worse than the biogon in a number of ways. i haven't actually been able to find an mtf of the FLE version.
35 Lux FLE MTF:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_1-4.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_2-8.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_5-6.png
ZM35/2:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_2.png
ZM35/1.4:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_1-4.png
The 35 Lux FLE, like many Leicas, suffers from pretty significant plane of focus waviness a couple stops from wide open. Tim Ashley went pretty in-depth at exploring this in his review of the lens. From my experience with the 50 Lux ASPH and 21 Lux, this can make rule of thirds subject placement quite tricky as it's difficult to compensate for the field curvature because it's not consistent or gradual away from the middle of the frame (on the other hand, the 28 Cron's predictable field curvature makes this easier). It looks like the ZM35/1.4 will be more usable in this respect. What I wonder about the ZM is how clinical it will be wide open. MTF shows promise for nice bokeh. Coincidentally, at the center of the frame, the 50 Lux ASPH has very similar values... The few sample images on the Zeiss Flickr page seem to indicate a neutral, transparent quality. I will be very interested to see how the ZM's wide open rendering compares to the Summilux family.
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:47 PM · View previous versions
BbICEP wrote:
I wonder where do you take your drugs?
The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
sebboh wrote:
i think he's looking at the mtf from the pre FLE lux asph, which is indeed worse than the biogon in a number of ways. i haven't actually been able to find an mtf of the FLE version.
35 Lux FLE MTF:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_1-4.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_2-8.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_5-6.png
ZM35/2:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_2.png
ZM35/1.4:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_1-4.png
The 35 Lux FLE, like many Leicas, suffers from pretty significant plane of focus waviness a couple stops from wide open. Tim Ashley went pretty in-depth at exploring this in his review of the lens. From my experience with the 50 Lux ASPH and 21 Lux, this can make rule of thirds subject placement quite tricky as it's difficult to compensate for the field curvature because it's not consistent or gradual away from the middle of the frame (on the other hand, the 28 Cron's predictable field curvature makes this easier). It looks like the ZM35/1.4 will be more usable in this respect. What I wonder about the ZM is how clinical it will be wide open. MTF shows promise for nice bokeh. Coincidentally, at the center of the frame, the 50 Lux ASPH has very similar values... The few sample images on the Zeiss Flickr page seem to indicate a neutral, transparent quality. I will be very interested to see how the ZM's wide open rendering compares to the Summilux family.
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:47 PM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2014 at 11:33 PM
p.7 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
The lux is much better in any direct comparison.35 Lux FLE MTF:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_1-4.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_2-8.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_5-6.png
ZM35/2:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_2.png
ZM35/1.4:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_1-4.png
oops, those are the ones i have, guess it's the asph pre FLE that i can't find.
in any event, i would certainly choose the biogon over the FLE for landscape at f/4 or f/5.6. at smaller apertures it could go either way.
the zm 35/1.4 clearly looks better than either of them though.
edwardkaraa wrote
Hmmmm, the 35/2 Biogon is already better than the Lux. Some might argue the bokeh is ugly, but with the Distagon, even this excuse is gone.BbICEP wrote
I wonder where do you take your drugs?The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
sebboh wrote
i think he's looking at the mtf from the pre FLE lux asph, which is indeed worse than the biogon in a number of ways. i haven't actually been able to find an mtf of the FLE version.http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_1-4.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_2-8.png
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/35LuxFLE_5-6.png
ZM35/2:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_2.png
ZM35/1.4:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/blogpix/ZM35_1-4.png
oops, those are the ones i have, guess it's the asph pre FLE that i can't find.
in any event, i would certainly choose the biogon over the FLE for landscape at f/4 or f/5.6. at smaller apertures it could go either way.
the zm 35/1.4 clearly looks better than either of them though.
Sep 16, 2014 at 11:47 PM
p.7 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I haven't yet found the ASPH pre-FLE MTFs either... though also haven't looked very hard. Maybe they're hidden somewhere in an Erwin Puts publication?
Sep 16, 2014 at 11:49 PM
p.7 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
I haven't yet found the ASPH pre-FLE MTFs either... though also haven't looked very hard. Maybe they're hidden somewhere in an Erwin Puts publication?
good call:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15241931536_a1979de35a_b.jpg
also the pre-asph:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3866/15241931316_476672934f_b.jpg
and the collector's aspherical:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3844/15264939065_502f815058_b.jpg
you can see the leica asph designs are similar to the new zeiss.
I haven't yet found the ASPH pre-FLE MTFs either... though also haven't looked very hard. Maybe they're hidden somewhere in an Erwin Puts publication?
good call:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15241931536_a1979de35a_b.jpg
also the pre-asph:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3866/15241931316_476672934f_b.jpg
and the collector's aspherical:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3844/15264939065_502f815058_b.jpg
you can see the leica asph designs are similar to the new zeiss.
Sep 16, 2014 at 11:56 PM
p.7 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I am a bit puzzled here. Considering that the Ikon is no longer produced, it seems to me that there are mainly 2 camera bodies on which one can be tempted to use a ZM 35 f:1.4: the Leica M and the A7. If the lens body induced viewfinder blockage, the th Leica users won't be too happy. And if the ZM is not designed for the specifics of the A7, even though they are well known to Zeiss what could they be thinking when they released this lens?
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4 works very well with the A7R, and is a step up from the Loxia 35 f:2.0. As well it should price-wise.
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4 works very well with the A7R, and is a step up from the Loxia 35 f:2.0. As well it should price-wise.
Sep 17, 2014 at 02:05 AM
p.7 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
BbICEP wrote:
I wonder where do you take your drugs?
The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
There is no need to be rude. I understand that Russian language is very rough, but this is an international forum so it would be better to tone down your vocabulary.
I take my drugs from direct real life scene comparisons at subscription websites like diglloyd and Sean Reid. The MTF that Ron linked to are quite revealing.
edwardkaraa wrote
Hmmmm, the 35/2 Biogon is already better than the Lux. Some might argue the bokeh is ugly, but with the Distagon, even this excuse is gone.The lux is much better in any direct comparison.
There is no need to be rude. I understand that Russian language is very rough, but this is an international forum so it would be better to tone down your vocabulary.
I take my drugs from direct real life scene comparisons at subscription websites like diglloyd and Sean Reid. The MTF that Ron linked to are quite revealing.
Sep 17, 2014 at 02:38 AM
p.7 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
hiepphotog wrote:
Edward, it has floating elements design. Sat and Tang are very close to each other at WO (similar to the bigger ZF/ZE D35/1.4), shaping up to have among the best bokeh in 35.
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_9JduPP4LZA/VBgs90AvQGI/AAAAAAAAK9w/DIHqeLP0Jsw/w982-h446-no/d35.jpg
Just curious and a quick google hasn't revealed anything specific, so, does anyone have a link or can inform me on how Zeiss manufacture their aspheric lenses? Thanks in anticipation.
edwardkaraa wrote
Looks great but no mention of floating elements. I wonder if focus shift would be an issue.http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_9JduPP4LZA/VBgs90AvQGI/AAAAAAAAK9w/DIHqeLP0Jsw/w982-h446-no/d35.jpg
Just curious and a quick google hasn't revealed anything specific, so, does anyone have a link or can inform me on how Zeiss manufacture their aspheric lenses? Thanks in anticipation.
Sep 17, 2014 at 02:56 AM
p.7 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jon Tainton wrote:
Edward, it has floating elements design. Sat and Tang are very close to each other at WO (similar to the bigger ZF/ZE D35/1.4), shaping up to have among the best bokeh in 35.
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_9JduPP4LZA/VBgs90AvQGI/AAAAAAAAK9w/DIHqeLP0Jsw/w982-h446-no/d35.jpgJust curious and a quick google hasn't revealed anything specific, so, does anyone have a link or can inform me on how Zeiss manufacture their aspheric lenses? Thanks in anticipation.
I don't think it's possible to find this kind of information. Zeiss wouldn't be willing to disclose its manufacturing process.
hiepphotog wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
Looks great but no mention of floating elements. I wonder if focus shift would be an issue.http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_9JduPP4LZA/VBgs90AvQGI/AAAAAAAAK9w/DIHqeLP0Jsw/w982-h446-no/d35.jpg
I don't think it's possible to find this kind of information. Zeiss wouldn't be willing to disclose its manufacturing process.
Sep 17, 2014 at 03:10 AM
p.7 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
^Probably just pressed into a mold (which is why you see the "onion ring" artifacts sometimes).
Sep 17, 2014 at 03:12 AM
p.7 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
AhamB wrote:
^Probably just pressed into a mold (which is why you see the "onion ring" artifacts sometimes).
If I remember correctly, they don't have one specific way, but they choose the most suitable method according to design and price point. Also, as far as I know, it's not the molding that causes the onion rings, it's the milling/polishing of the surface. Non molded aspherical elements can also cause onion rings.
^Probably just pressed into a mold (which is why you see the "onion ring" artifacts sometimes).
If I remember correctly, they don't have one specific way, but they choose the most suitable method according to design and price point. Also, as far as I know, it's not the molding that causes the onion rings, it's the milling/polishing of the surface. Non molded aspherical elements can also cause onion rings.
Sep 17, 2014 at 03:18 AM
p.7 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
If I remember correctly, they don't have one specific way, but they choose the most suitable method according to design and price point. Also, as far as I know, it's not the molding that causes the onion rings, it's the milling/polishing of the surface. Non molded aspherical elements can also cause onion rings.
Thanks, my limited searches had thrown up precision grinding/maching of glass, pressure moulding, and numerous fora discussions/speculations of glass and/or polymer materials etc.
I'm surprised it isn't disclosed though, as other manufacturers seem willing to disclose how their aspheric lenses are manufactured.
AhamB wrote
^Probably just pressed into a mold (which is why you see the "onion ring" artifacts sometimes).Thanks, my limited searches had thrown up precision grinding/maching of glass, pressure moulding, and numerous fora discussions/speculations of glass and/or polymer materials etc.
I'm surprised it isn't disclosed though, as other manufacturers seem willing to disclose how their aspheric lenses are manufactured.
Sep 17, 2014 at 03:34 AM
p.7 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jon Tainton wrote:
If I remember correctly, they don't have one specific way, but they choose the most suitable method according to design and price point. Also, as far as I know, it's not the molding that causes the onion rings, it's the milling/polishing of the surface. Non molded aspherical elements can also cause onion rings.Thanks, my limited searches had thrown up precision grinding/maching of glass, pressure moulding, and numerous fora discussions/speculations of glass and/or polymer materials etc.
I'm surprised it isn't disclosed though, as other manufacturers seem willing to disclose how their aspheric lenses are manufactured.
zeiss uses molded aspherics, hand ground aspherics are easy to spot by price. the leica 35/1.4 with hand ground aspherics sells for over $10k and the one with molded sells for $3k. the nikon 58/1.2 with hand ground aspherics sells for $3.5k while the brand new 58/1.4 with molded aspherics sells for $1.6k.
hand ground aspherics cannot really be mass produced, which means the lenses they go in are collectors items.
edwardkaraa wrote
AhamB wrote
^Probably just pressed into a mold (which is why you see the "onion ring" artifacts sometimes).I'm surprised it isn't disclosed though, as other manufacturers seem willing to disclose how their aspheric lenses are manufactured.
zeiss uses molded aspherics, hand ground aspherics are easy to spot by price. the leica 35/1.4 with hand ground aspherics sells for over $10k and the one with molded sells for $3k. the nikon 58/1.2 with hand ground aspherics sells for $3.5k while the brand new 58/1.4 with molded aspherics sells for $1.6k.
hand ground aspherics cannot really be mass produced, which means the lenses they go in are collectors items.
Sep 17, 2014 at 03:45 AM