The most controversial lens on the net?

Jesper Frickmann · Feb 1, 2016

This premium branded "Zony" lens has received some rather harsh reviews on the net and sparked some strong feelings on this discussion forum. I have owned and used it for over two years now, and I have to say that overall, I am actually quite pleased with it. In the following, I will try to point out the strong and weak points of the lens and share some sample pictures.

General: Any lens design has to make compromises between weight, max. aperture, zoom range, and image quality. Although this lens is not ultra compact like the collapsable 1650 kit lens, it is still a fairly small zoom lens. Yet, they have insisted on making it a constant F/4 lens. I believe that they may have pushed the limits, and this is probably why the corners are sometimes soft, and decentering sometimes an issue. If you understand the limitations of this lens, however, I think that you can get really good results, and overall I find that it is a joy to use.

Pros: The build quality is very good, and I like the way that it handles and balances on my NEX-6 body. Focus is silent and fast. The minimum focusing distance is quite short, allowing closeups of small things. I find that the relatively wide zoom range is very useful - especially the 16mm wide end. At 70mm, the F/4 aperture allows for quite good subject isolation for portraits. Bokeh rendering I also find very pleasing.

Cons: The corners are not always perfect. I find it fairly average for a zoom lens, but not nearly as bad as some claim. I suggest that you judge for yourself from the pictures I share below. If you shoot straight into the sun, the lens can sometimes have some rather nasty green flare.

I have given the lens 3½ stars. At $999 the lens is quite expensive. Sony E lenses are generally expensive, and with the blue Zeiss badge, they add few $100s more. But I picked it up for $749 at a sale from sony.com, and at that price, I find it was worth the money.

Here are some sample images for you, starting from the wide angle going to tele.

Cityscape at wide angle.

The backlight makes things a little more challenging. You can see a little softness and chromatic aberration near the sun, but I still find it perfectly acceptable.

A shot into the sun, but no green flare here. I do not have an example showing the flare, because I delete bad shots...

A good little friend of mine. I think that this shot shows the bokeh rendering quite well.

Landscape at intermediate zoom.

I shot this landscape wide open by mistake. You can see a slight loss of sharpness in the left side. I still find it acceptable.

Landscape at slight tele zoom.

This one shows the lens' ability to focus at short range.

70mm wide open. Notice that the grass in the foreground is slightly blurred due to the shallow focus.

Subject isolation.

Landscape at 70mm.

TLopez · Mar 10, 2016

Jesper, I'm no troll thank you. Just telling you how it is.

dmanthree · Mar 10, 2016

...I have stayed with m4/3. I love the sony bodies and would switch to their E mount, but the lack of an excellent "standard" zoom is a deal breaker. This lens, at this price, should be a lot better. For their APS-C bodies there isn't a good standard zoom that I can see. And that's a shame. The bodoes deserve better.

Kirwin · Mar 10, 2016

...and come out with either a Mark II version; or better yet, a faster tele-lens to end these tiresome arguments.

I've lost my desire to purchase this lens knowing that so many returns of this lens are in the marketplace awaiting to be resold... because of either actual decentering or perceived decentering.

--
Regards,
Kirwin

cxsparc · Mar 10, 2016

Jesper, just about every line you write below is twisting the truth to say the least.

Jesper Frickmann wrote:.. A few individuals on this forum have spread the notion that the Zony 16-70 is no better than the little kit lens said:
They chew on that for a few days, and then they try to make it look like all this is irrelevant, because you will normally get a decentered and defective copy of the 16-70, so who cares what one of the rare, non-defective copies looks like?

Nobody said that this is irrelevant. But it IS a problem getting a good copy of the 1670. And the risk seems quite a bit higher than compared to the other e-mount lenses. So if you can't return it, you run the risk of washing a lot of dough down the drain.

Jesper Frickmann said:
They also take great pleasure in talking everyone who has shot a wall without perfect alignment of the camera, and hence a shot that is not absolutely perfectly sharp, into returning the lens, then concluding:

cxsparc, post: 57417796, member: 1138230"]
Well, yet another one.

Click to expand...

Nothing could be more wrong. I even wrote to one poster that his shots are not sufficient to evaluate the lens. It is also not about being perfectly sharp, but rather that an entire side from top to bottom is blurred. I repeatedly explained that, together with the hint to mainly test around 24 mm where decentering strikes most.

Jesper Frickmann said:
I will leave it to everyone to make up his or her own opinion on this matter. Who do you trust more - companies like DXO and Sony, or a few trolls on this forum?

I took the effort to respond to your blatant lies to give you at least another chance to re-think what you wrote. I really don't get the emotionality you feel that forces you into this mode of unsubstantiated accusations and denial of the problem of decentering with the 1670.

This forum here is a source for balanced information on gear, and not for worshipping ;-).
[/QUOTE]

PC Wheeler · Mar 10, 2016

cxsparc said:
Jesper, just about every line you write below is twisting the truth to say the least.

cxsparc said:

Jesper Frickmann wrote:..

A few individuals on this forum have spread the notion that the Zony 16-70 is no better than the little kit lens, and that the 18-105G is a much better lens. I pull data from a trusted and independent source, DXOMark, and show that this is clearly not the case.

Click to expand...

a) The 1670 is at some settings inferior to the 1650 and 18105. Compare that to what you wrote above.

b) DXO actually shows that the 18105 is about as sharp in their subjective rating as the 1670 (15 versus 17). When you check details, the wide end of the 18105 is better over the frame.

I think such conclusions, by whatever tester, are very copy dependent -- and no tester I know of has tested 100 or even 10 copies of any of these lenses. So the only agreeable conclusion about the 16-70 is that they have serious quality control problems, you have to be very careful when buying one (by having a good return opportunity with no hassles) and that it is overpriced.

My 16-70 blows away my (good) 16-50 under all comparable shooting situations. I was fortunate and bought a friend's copy after seeing his shots (he is very picky about lenses), using it myself and testing it myself -- and the price was right . Mine is a very GOOD copy -- but there are clearly some very BAD copies out there.

So I regard no one as right in this thread and no one as wrong -- and certainly no one as a Troll!

Lighten up, folks.

dave92029 · Mar 10, 2016

Ok, the subject has been beaten to death, Butbased on many comments in this discussion I ordered a Sony 16-50mm on eBay for $124.90 delivered. The lens arrived today.

All I can say is Thank You to all who suggested this lens. I've only taken a few shots but I'm very impressed, especially since it cost less than $125!

Dave

Here are some of my test shots.

Yea, I've already been told to clean up my office. Too busy shooting pictures!

Amamba · Mar 10, 2016

Jesper Frickmann said:
The 18-105mm G lens is the other premium zoom offering that we have, and it is frequently put forward as a better alternative to the Zony 16-70mm. Since I had so much fun digging around in DXO’s data, here we go again ;-)

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...5mm-F4-G-OSS-on-Sony-A6000__1629_942_1215_942

They give the G an overall score of 15 (45x30cm print size) vs. 17 (51x34cm print size) for the Zony.

Sharpness

Sharpness scale.

Zony center sharpness.

G center sharpness.

Zony corner sharpness.

G corner sharpness.

G beats the Zony at corner sharpness in the wide end F/4-5.6, and center sharpness at 50-70mm F/4. Zony catches up when stopped down to F/8 in the wide end, and F/5.6 at 50-70mm.

Zony beats the G for corner sharpness at 24-70mm F/4, and 35-70mm F/5.6-8. Yes, Zony actually beats the G almost everywhere else for corner sharpness. So much for all the nonsense about soft corners on this lens!

Otherwise, I would say that sharpness is fairly similar for the two lenses.

Transmission

Difference between T-stop and F-stop shows loss of light due to internal reflections and absorbance.

The effect of the Zeiss T* lens coating is very clear here. You do get what you pay for! Zeiss color and contrast is for real

Distortion

Distortion on the G is awful. Even if you have software that autocorrects, it will still cost you about 6% sharpness, if we believe Roger Cicala’s measurements. Again a big win to Zony.

Vignetting

Vignetting scale.

Zony vignetting.

G vignetting.

The Zony only has strong vignetting at 16mm wide open. The G has strong vignetting wide open throughout most of the zoom range except around 24mm. Zony wins.

Chromatic aberration

Chromatic aberration scale.

Zony chromatic aberration.

G chromatic aberration.

Zony wins again.

Conclusion

I think that it is very clear from the data above that the Zony is a better lens than the G, and that you do get what you pay for here. The Zony is also smaller, lighter, and the G has a relatively long minimum focus distance.

I think it is very clear from the data above that IQ wise they are both very close (with each having it's own strenghts and weaknesses) and neither is stellar.

Jesper Frickmann said:
The only three reasons for buying the G instead of the Zony is 1) the 70-105mm zoom range is important to you 2) You are a videographer and want the power zoom 3) You need the lens here and now, and you do not have the cash for the Zony and cannot wait for a good sale on it.

4) You don't want to spend extra $400 on added portability when neither is close in sharpness to a typical $400 17-50/2.8 DSLR zoom like Tamron or Sigma.

If they were priced similarily, Zeiss would make sense just for the size alone. At that kind of difference, it's up to the user.

Amamba · Mar 10, 2016

PC Wheeler said:
val1 said:

I would argue both sony zoom lenses are deeply flawed.

Click to expand...

Then rather than "both", don't you really mean "all"? Are there any Sony APS-C E-mount zoom lenses you like? The 10-18? The 16-50? The 18-200 or 18-200LE? Sure there are FE lenses like the 70-200 f/4 which are very good, but they're also large and heavy and expensive. And adapted zoom lenses also result in a larger and heavier package. Ditto for always carrying a set of primes, though I like the primes I have -- the 24 ZA and the 50 f/1.8.

Personally, I find the colors produced by my two Zeiss lenses (24 f/1.8 and 16-70 f/4) to be special, in some intangible way. So they spend more time on my A6000 than any other lenses I own.

Amamba · Mar 10, 2016

Jesper Frickmann said:
cxsparc said:

You are aware that the 1650/2.8 is a full stop brighter? Same for the Sigma 1750/2.8? And that the 1770 is a variable aperture lens going from 2.8 to f4?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course, and therefore they also have the advantage of being stopped down when comparing sharpness at the same F-stop. But if you compare corner sharpness for the 17-70, I would not say that they are miles apart. At many points the Zony is actually as good.

Jesper Frickmann said:

So essentially all these comparable lenses are much brighter and therefore larger/heavier. They manage to do this while delivering better IQ and at a lower price (even the Sony SAL only costs 60%). It is not clear to me why you deem none of these lenses to be fairly comparable. Especially the 1770 lacks only a 1 mm in wideangle but is a lot brighter over most of its focal range.

Click to expand...

The Sigma is definitely a better bargain than the Zony, no discussion!

Jesper Frickmann said:

The point seems to be that Sony designed a standard zoom lens with low weight & size as main design goals, and image quality, brightness and price only as subordinate goals. Those other lenses document that better IQ for less money is possible.

Click to expand...

I would not say that IQ was a subordinate goal. IQ is actually pretty good. But it had to fit a NEX body for size, and that does of course mean more design challenges. And it still has the advantage of the T* coating - just look at transmission data!

I think that the bottom line is, that you can get better IQ for your money if you go with an SLR system than a mirrorless system. But I chose to pay a little more for a mirrorless system, because I appreciate not having to drag so much weight around, and I assume the same is true for most of us here. And this is where the Zony 16-70mm fits the bill for me - good IQ in a small package.

Sigma is significantly sharper than either of the Sony zooms. I have used one for years.

Unfortunately, they removed OS in Sony A-mount version.

Amamba · Mar 10, 2016

Jesper Frickmann said:
snapa said:

Why would I want to buy a lens that I strongly feel is "nothing more than an over rated, over priced, compromises kit zoom lens!"? Even If I could get one for $200, I think it is too compromised to even think about it. Enjoy your 16-70, I will continue to enjoy my 16-50 and put it in my small belt pouch

BTW I'm glad you were able to find a good copy, as you have said multiple times from you friend. Not every one is that lucky as you were ;-)

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

Only in your opinion, which you repeat multiple times in every thread on this forum.

And you are of course welcome to have your opinion. The problem that I have, is that you pose yourself as an expert and push your misguided opinion on people who come to this forum for advice on what lens to buy. I am personally very glad that you did not talk me out of buying it.

No offence, but in your original posts you sound like someone who spent a lot of money on a lens and is now trying hard to justify this by claiming it's superiority over other choices.

I have no doubt that a good copy of 1670 is a very good, useful lens with good IQ. I also have no doubt that with Sony's infamous QC lottery, there are some duds around, and there are some great 1650 kits too. Personally, my 1650 kit is just OK, nothing spectacular, but my 1855 kit is extremely sharp. This is also something to consider when buying Sony lenses. They may need to be exchanged until you get a good copy.

Personally, I like to compare DXOMark's sharpness field map at various apertures / focal lenghts, as I think it gives the best idea of how a lens performs. When you look at 1670 vs 18105, you'd see that there's no consistent advantage for one over another.

E.g. at 24mm, wide open, Sony is a bit sharper in center (deeper green) but Zeiss is better at edges (although neither is really sharp in corners / edges).

Stop it down to f5.6, and Sony is better than Zeiss. Again, not a night and day difference.

At 35mm, Zeiss is better in the corners

But at 50/5.6, Sony is slightly ahead

But stop them down to f8, and Zeiss is better in the corners

At the long end, Sony (at 105mm) beats Zeiss (at 70mm). It's especially visible wide open where Zeiss, quite honestly, sucks.

So, what does it prove ?

dave92029 · Mar 10, 2016

Amamba said:
Jesper Frickmann said:

snapa said:

Why would I want to buy a lens that I strongly feel is "nothing more than an over rated, over priced, compromises kit zoom lens!"? Even If I could get one for $200, I think it is too compromised to even think about it. Enjoy your 16-70, I will continue to enjoy my 16-50 and put it in my small belt pouch

BTW I'm glad you were able to find a good copy, as you have said multiple times from you friend. Not every one is that lucky as you were ;-)

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
Snapa

Click to expand...

Only in your opinion, which you repeat multiple times in every thread on this forum.

And you are of course welcome to have your opinion. The problem that I have, is that you pose yourself as an expert and push your misguided opinion on people who come to this forum for advice on what lens to buy. I am personally very glad that you did not talk me out of buying it.

Click to expand...

No offence, but in your original posts you sound like someone who spent a lot of money on a lens and is now trying hard to justify this by claiming it's superiority over other choices.

I have no doubt that a good copy of 1670 is a very good, useful lens with good IQ. I also have no doubt that with Sony's infamous QC lottery, there are some duds around, and there are some great 1650 kits too. Personally, my 1650 kit is just OK, nothing spectacular, but my 1855 kit is extremely sharp. This is also something to consider when buying Sony lenses. They may need to be exchanged until you get a good copy.

Personally, I like to compare DXOMark's sharpness field map at various apertures / focal lenghts, as I think it gives the best idea of how a lens performs. When you look at 1670 vs 18105, you'd see that there's no consistent advantage for one over another.

E.g. at 24mm, wide open, Sony is a bit sharper in center (deeper green) but Zeiss is better at edges (although neither is really sharp in corners / edges).

Stop it down to f5.6, and Sony is better than Zeiss. Again, not a night and day difference.

At 35mm, Zeiss is better in the corners

But at 50/5.6, Sony is slightly ahead

But stop them down to f8, and Zeiss is better in the corners

At the long end, Sony (at 105mm) beats Zeiss (at 70mm). It's especially visible wide open where Zeiss, quite honestly, sucks.

So, what does it prove ?

Nothing? Like you mentioned earlier, some lens models are good, and other models of the same lens are not so good. Did DXO compare a "good one" to a "so so" lens?

To me what's important to me is when I take my lens and camera out in the "Real World" will I come home with "good" images.

--
Dave

Amamba · Mar 10, 2016

dave92029 said:
Amamba said:

Jesper Frickmann said:

snapa said:

Why would I want to buy a lens that I strongly feel is "nothing more than an over rated, over priced, compromises kit zoom lens!"? Even If I could get one for $200, I think it is too compromised to even think about it. Enjoy your 16-70, I will continue to enjoy my 16-50 and put it in my small belt pouch

BTW I'm glad you were able to find a good copy, as you have said multiple times from you friend. Not every one is that lucky as you were ;-)

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

Only in your opinion, which you repeat multiple times in every thread on this forum.

And you are of course welcome to have your opinion. The problem that I have, is that you pose yourself as an expert and push your misguided opinion on people who come to this forum for advice on what lens to buy. I am personally very glad that you did not talk me out of buying it.

Click to expand...

No offence, but in your original posts you sound like someone who spent a lot of money on a lens and is now trying hard to justify this by claiming it's superiority over other choices.

I have no doubt that a good copy of 1670 is a very good, useful lens with good IQ. I also have no doubt that with Sony's infamous QC lottery, there are some duds around, and there are some great 1650 kits too. Personally, my 1650 kit is just OK, nothing spectacular, but my 1855 kit is extremely sharp. This is also something to consider when buying Sony lenses. They may need to be exchanged until you get a good copy.

Personally, I like to compare DXOMark's sharpness field map at various apertures / focal lenghts, as I think it gives the best idea of how a lens performs. When you look at 1670 vs 18105, you'd see that there's no consistent advantage for one over another.

E.g. at 24mm, wide open, Sony is a bit sharper in center (deeper green) but Zeiss is better at edges (although neither is really sharp in corners / edges).

Stop it down to f5.6, and Sony is better than Zeiss. Again, not a night and day difference.

At 35mm, Zeiss is better in the corners

View attachment 1229731

But at 50/5.6, Sony is slightly ahead

But stop them down to f8, and Zeiss is better in the corners

At the long end, Sony (at 105mm) beats Zeiss (at 70mm). It's especially visible wide open where Zeiss, quite honestly, sucks.

So, what does it prove ?

Click to expand...

Nothing? Like you mentioned earlier, some lens models are good, and other models of the same lens are not so good. Did DXO compare a "good one" to a "so so" lens?

So, which one was good and which one was a "so so"?

dave92029 said:
To me what's important to me is when I take my lens and camera out in the "Real World" will I come home with "good" images.

Agreed, I just got put off by OP's hard push to justify his buying the 1670 by declaring it superior to 18105 based on DXOMark review that clearly shows them having about the same IQ overall.

Buy whichever one works for you and hope you don't get a bad copy.

dave92029 said:
--
Dave

PC Wheeler · Mar 10, 2016

Amamba said:
Have you tried old Minolta Maxxum lenses like 35-70 and the Beercan ? The colors are fantastic (although being old non-digital designs they do require some post to bring up the best in them)

Yes, back when I shot with an A55. But A-mount lenses are not so handy on an E-mount camera.

Sympa · Mar 10, 2016

In DXO, I prefer to use the 'profile' option to view sharpness. This allows for better comparing of lenses as the result is a graph line referenced to a number instead of a color, and multiple lenses are shown in one single graph.

16-70 vs 16-50:

Some interesting results, but the 16-70 is always better than the 16-50 kit lens. The below are at the widest aperture shared by the lenses.

At 16 and 25 mm the Zeiss is better than the kit lens, but not by much.

At 35, the Zeiss is clearly better - or at f/4 it is equal in sharpness to the kit at f/5.6.

At 50, the 16-70 is a lot better than the kit lens. But both are equal if you close down to f/8.

the 55-210:

But the 55-210 at 55mm is the winner in this focal length: it is clearly better than the 16-70 at 50 mm and equal to the 18-105. At f/5.6 this is all about the same. This matches with my experience that the 55-210 is a fine portrait lens.

At 100 mm f/5.6, the 55-210 is the loser. Doesn't catch up even at f/8.

the 18-105:

The 18-105 is a lot better at max zoom than the 16-70 is at 70mm. The 16-70 improves to that level if it is closed down to f/5.6. The 18-105 doesn't react to the aperture at 100mm.

dave92029 · Mar 10, 2016

Sympa said:
16-70 vs 16-50:

Some interesting results, but the 16-70 is always better than the 16-50 kit lens. The below are at the widest aperture shared by the lenses.

At 16 and 25 mm the Zeiss is better than the kit lens, but not by much.

At 35, the Zeiss is clearly better - or at f/4 it is equal in sharpness to the kit at f/5.6.

At 50, the 16-70 is a lot better than the kit lens. But both are equal if you close down to f/8.

Ok, you are comparing a lens that sells for just under $1,000 to a lens that can be purchased for just over $100 (I just purchased a New 16-50mm on eBay for $124.90), and the photos produced are comparable at the f stops that would probably be used in Real World photography. Well what would any reasonable person do with that kind of data?

I rest my case.

Dave

Jesper Frickmann · Mar 10, 2016

TLopez said:
Jesper, I'm no troll thank you. Just telling you how it is.

To all of you that I called a troll, please accept my apology - I got upset and overreacted. And I am also sorry that I questioned your integrity, that was unfair of me.

As for the measurements that I discussed above - I did not claim that the Zony 16-70 was sharper everywhere; I also pointed out where the other lenses would beat the Zony. What I did point out, was that on distortion, transmission, and vignetting, the Zony shows its value. We also agreed that for other camera systems, there are zoom lenses that are sharper, but also bigger and heavier. The Zony has been designed with a constraint on size, and that of course means compromises.

As for the defect rate, some of you have received and returned copies that you found did not live up to your expectations, and some of us are perfectly happy with our copy. There have also been several threads on this forum, where people have returned the lens after testing it. I am personally not convinced that all of these tests have been carried out sufficiently rigorously to justify that conclusion. But I openly admit that I could be wrong about that - it is just my personal, subjective opinion. As for what the real rate of defects is, only Sony and the bigger vendors know.

For now, I am probably not going to post more on this thread, unless i have something new to add. But yes, it is indeed a lens that attracts a great deal of controversy ;-)

Amamba · Mar 10, 2016

Camo626 said:
"If kept at 20-45mm/f5.6-8.0, the 16-50 pretty much hangs in there (or is better) than both other lenses, AND makes it the only coat pocket/belt pouch zoom lens. Now, If you need more reach, the other 2 lenses are needed, but so is a camera bag on your shoulder."

First of all, I own the 16-70, and I love my copy. But if you are going to use a zoom only at "20-45mm/f5.6-8.0", just slap on a prime lens. I would just use one of the many prime choice (24/1.8 or 30/2.8 or 35/1.8, etc) and go to town.

The value argument is very valid. Lets go by BH photo price. 998 vs 348. Review the lens for what it is, and everyone can judge if the improvement (or lack of improvement) is worth the cost.

This is not a very good price comparison. Because 1650 is a widely available kit lens, it's very easy to pick up one that's never or barely been used for $130-150. And if you're buying a body you're only paying $150 for a brand new one. $348 is a price very few if any users are paying. 1670 is another story.

Camo626 · Mar 10, 2016

Yeah I realize that the kit lens can be had for 150 almost new. The point was simply to point out if the additional cost (whatever the actual amount) justifies the improvement over the kit lens.

I got my 1670 for $700 dollars brand new. But I already have the kit lens, and I don't want to sell it. So for me, the 1670 was additional $700. It is worth it for me.

So if someone rather compare the cost of $150 vs 998, that's completely okay. So is the additional $850 worth it? Well that's for the next person to decide.

I will have to say though. Before I got mine, I made sure I had couple weeks to return it. I would have return the lens and not deal with exchanges etc. So lucky for Sony that I got a decent copy.

snapa · Mar 10, 2016

Amamba said:
So, what does it prove ?

It proves that if you need more reach (which most people do) and less risk of getting a bad copy, the 18-105 is a much better choice. Your post also proves the 18-105 is more versatile and cost ~33% less than the 16-70 and is therefore the better lens with just as good IQ/sharpness, etc...

If you already have the 16-50, keep it for when you want to go light and keep it small for your coat pocket or belt pouch, since in it's sweet spots, it is as good at the 16-70, or better ;-)

Amamba · Mar 10, 2016

snapa said:
Amamba said:

So, what does it prove ?

Click to expand...

It proves that if you need more reach (which most people do) and less risk of getting a bad copy, the 18-105 is a much better choice. Your post also proves the 18-105 is more versatile and cost ~33% less than the 16-70 and is therefore the better lens with just as good IQ/sharpness, etc...

If you already have the 16-50, keep it for when you want to go light and keep it small for your coat pocket or belt pouch, since in it's sweet spots, it is as good at the 16-70, or better ;-)

The most controversial lens on the net?

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Attachments

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts