The case for the 12-100mm

453C · Jan 20, 2017

MShot said:
Wonder if its worth throwing the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 in the discussion? Haven't used it, can't compare sharpness, but on sale now for $900 and a stop faster than the OLY, worth considering / comparing?

You have prime lenses and small zooms from 12-40/80. You don't need dual IS and weather sealing. You need the range and like saving a stop. You have a use case covered by 70-200. You want to save $400. You want to save weight. Its 12.7 Oz. You have IS in the case you ever buy an unstabilized Panny body.

Would you choose the Panny 35-100 f/2.8?

How about used from KEH for $619?

That's a very viable option already in use, and I'm sure it works well. It has been discussed in context with the 12-100mm, if not here, then in other threads.

_______________________________________________

Common pairings:

I. Panasonic 12-35 mm f/2.8 (305 g, 74 mm long) & 35-100 mm f/2.8 (360 g, 100 mm long)

II. Olympus 12-100 mm f/4.0 ( 561 g, 116.5 mm long) & Panasonic 20 mm f/1.7 II (87 g, 25.5 mm)

Panasonic combo total: 665 g, 174 mm

O & P combo total: 648 g, 142 mm

Panasonic combo is brighter overall, both are weather sealed, and both offer OIS (Dual IS on the 35-100).

O & P combo offers full FL range in one WS lens, Sync IS for the 12-100, weighs slightly less, and is more compact. With the 20 mm mounted, this combo offers a brighter lens, and a smaller camera package.

_______________________________________________

I think those are the main differences; I'll let someone else look up prices, if they want. Beyond that, other features and personal preferences come into play. I'm happy to see MFT continue to roll out options for all of us. For some, this is a good one, but not all.

MShot · Jan 20, 2017

A faster lens isn't important if F/4 is fast enough for your purpose and 12-100 is the range you prefer. It means you have to carry two lenses and change them when you don't need to.

Clayton1985 · Jan 20, 2017

erichK said:
Then why use an interchangeable lens camera?

I answered this before so I'll just cut and paste:

You buy a system because you can't find a fixed lens camera that can do what your system can do. If you have a fixed lens camera that offers at a minimum the following then please point me in that direction:

Covers 14 to 600mm with options to shoot some focal lengths at FF equiv f2.8 and faster
Fixed lens can "shrink" to be as small as the 17 f1.8 or other small primes
High ISO performance at least equal to m4/3
The fixed lens is optically as good as the 7-14, 12-100, and 17 f1.8
Has dual card slots
Very good PDAF
Live Time
High Res Mode
15fps

So sure if you can do this with one camera and one lens then I'm ready to pre-order. Until then I'll happily use the 12-100 on one camera, the 7-14 or 17 f1.8 on the other and change lenses as infrequently as possible. Although it is sometimes unavoidable, I didn't buy a system to change lenses and can't imagine why anyone else would do that either.

larsbc · Jan 20, 2017

MShot said:
Wonder if its worth throwing the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 in the discussion? Haven't used it, can't compare sharpness, but on sale now for $900 and a stop faster than the OLY, worth considering / comparing?

You have prime lenses and small zooms from 12-40/80. You don't need dual IS and weather sealing. You need the range and like saving a stop. You have a use case covered by 70-200. You want to save $400. You want to save weight. Its 12.7 Oz. You have IS in the case you ever buy an unstabilized Panny body.

Would you choose the Panny 35-100 f/2.8?

How about used from KEH for $619?

I already have the 35-100/2.8 but if I were buying again, I do the same thing: 12-35/2.8 + 35-100/2.8. They're a great pair: compact, fast, weather sealed, same filter sizes. I'd also consider the new PL zooms, too: 12-60/2.8-4 + 50-200/2.8-4 although they're a bit bigger.

I've had long range wide-to-long do-it-all zooms before and I never liked always having such a bulky lens on my camera. And I've never gone on a trip wondering, "should I bring my 35-100?" It's small enough and light enough than I never have to worry about its size.

MShot · Jan 20, 2017

Sure, depends on what you need.

For the use case I carry the 45, 14-150 and 75-300 with an EM-5. I also carry a PL/7 with the compact 12-32 Panny on it so I have a backup body with me. The EM-5 shutter broke just before an event last year and the PL/7 saved me from 2 hours of driving round trip to the hotel to get another body, or a camera store to buy one. The PL/7 adds only a pound to the bag so for this purpose it's worth it to me.

I can plant myself where I need to be for at least a half hour at a time to pan. I added the 75 to use this year. Yeah, the IQ and aperture are better on the primes, but usually I have enough light for good results with the zooms - and the benefit is they zoom, which helps if something happens out of the range of the prime I have on the camera. I like the primes for panning because its one less thing to think about when I'm trying to concentrate on a moving subject. To be fair I get the same result - prime or zoom as long as I have enough light for the zooms.

Where I don't, this is where I'm thinking of adding lens(s). Sometimes I find I need a 1/800 shutter and ISO 1000-1600. When I do, I lose too much clarity and detail for my taste. This is a situation where I am not panning and have to freeze action. The 40-150 +TC and/or 300 f/4 would work because I can use a mono/tripod in this situation, but I'd rather not drag it all around. I can't hand hold these lenses for 30-40 minutes at a time as I have to do when I pan, so they are too heavy a solution. I would only use them on a tripod. My limit for hand holding for long periods is 2lbs. The 12-100 and EM-5 are light enough and so is the 75/300 and the EM-5.

I find the 75-300 is pretty good at f/4 on the wide end of the range. Brighter enough over f/6.7 at the long end, that it might be fast enough for me when the light fades from the hour or in overcast skies.

I'm not comparing focal lengths, only light. I'm saying from what I see comparing brightness between 75 f/4 and f/6.7, and thinking f/4 might be enough at any focal length. That would cover me between 75 where I can use the 75 f/1.8 and 100mm. The Panny 35-100 f/2.8 would definitely work through it's entire range. I could choose a prime if I want to from 75mm down. I won't need to.

Above 100mm, the 75-300 might work to 150mm in less than ideal light where I think its around f/5. I need the 14-150 for rain.

This covers everything I need from 35-150 with the 35-100 and 75-300. Above that, I will be challenged in lower light until I can buy a 1lb zoom that ranges to 600mm at f/4 or faster if such a thing is ever offered in a 1lb package. Not likely?

For this use case, I doubt I'll use anything wider than 45mm on the zoom. I could with the 12-100, leave the 12-35 compact Panny home, but its something like 3oz and its fun to shoot on the Pl/7 I have to carry for a back up body anyway, so no reason not to take it.

No reason I can think of to need a 12-100 f/4 zoom when a 35-100 f/2.8 covers everything I would use the 12-100 for.

F/2.8 enables me to shoot 1/800 shutter outdoors on very gloomy days with ISO well below 1000. Maybe 320, maybe 200. Much better. All the images will have good IQ. I know because I tried it with a borrowed 40-150PRO. I have no IS problem with an EM-5 and an unstabilized lens. The images are all sharp. I just need to get the ISO down when I have to run a high shutter speed.

Problem solved to 150mm (I think)

MShot · Jan 20, 2017

Hadn't thought about the 12-35 f/2.8. Maybe I don't need a prime. 12-35, 35-100, 75-300. PL7 for backup body.

MShot · Jan 20, 2017

I prefer internal zoom too

453C · Jan 20, 2017

MShot said:
Sure, depends on what you need.

Yep. I don't understand some of the moaning about this lens. There are plenty of other options, and I've yet to see someone recommend it for covering a faceoff in the Coal Mine Hockey League.

Member said:
For the use case I carry the 45, 14-150 and 75-300 with an EM-5. I also carry a PL/7 with the compact 12-32 Panny on it so I have a backup body with me. The EM-5 shutter broke just before an event last year and the PL/7 saved me from 2 hours of driving round trip to the hotel to get another body, or a camera store to buy one. The PL/7 adds only a pound to the bag so for this purpose it's worth it to me.

Using two bodies certainly changes the calculus, as one of the reasons I opted for the 12-100 was to avoid the delay of having to swap lenses during action. I'm also using it for backpacking, so overall system weight might be more of a concern for me than others.

Member said:
I can plant myself where I need to be for at least a half hour at a time to pan. I added the 75 to use this year. Yeah, the IQ and aperture are better on the primes, but usually I have enough light for good results with the zooms - and the benefit is they zoom, which helps if something happens out of the range of the prime I have on the camera. I like the primes for panning because its one less thing to think about when I'm trying to concentrate on a moving subject. To be fair I get the same result - prime or zoom as long as I have enough light for the zooms.

Zooms probably have the edge when you don't have much flexibility around your trackside perch. Otherwise, we're fortunate to have good options in zooms & primes.

Member said:
Where I don't, this is where I'm thinking of adding lens(s). Sometimes I find I need a 1/800 shutter and ISO 1000-1600. When I do, I lose too much clarity and detail for my taste. This is a situation where I am not panning and have to freeze action. The 40-150 +TC and/or 300 f/4 would work because I can use a mono/tripod in this situation, but I'd rather not drag it all around. I can't hand hold these lenses for 30-40 minutes at a time as I have to do when I pan, so they are too heavy a solution. I would only use them on a tripod. My limit for hand holding for long periods is 2lbs. The 12-100 and EM-5 are light enough and so is the 75/300 and the EM-5.

FWIW, my E-M1 + 12-100 weigh in at 1110 g (2 lbs, 3 oz). Sync IS is pretty cool, but I haven't experimented with it enough to say how well the different modes work for panning.

Member said:
I find the 75-300 is pretty good at f/4 on the wide end of the range. Brighter enough over f/6.7 at the long end, that it might be fast enough for me when the light fades from the hour or in overcast skies.

I'm not comparing focal lengths, only light. I'm saying from what I see comparing brightness between 75 f/4 and f/6.7, and thinking f/4 might be enough at any focal length. That would cover me between 75 where I can use the 75 f/1.8 and 100mm. The Panny 35-100 f/2.8 would definitely work through it's entire range. I could choose a prime if I want to from 75mm down. I won't need to.

Have you considered trying a Dual Sync capable body with the 35-100? Might be worth a try, but I can understand not wanting to mix body brands.

Member said:
Above 100mm, the 75-300 might work to 150mm in less than ideal light where I think its around f/5. I need the 14-150 for rain.

75-300 II has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 150mm. Other values here.

Member said:
This covers everything I need from 35-150 with the 35-100 and 75-300. Above that, I will be challenged in lower light until I can buy a 1lb zoom that ranges to 600mm at f/4 or faster if such a thing is ever offered in a 1lb package. Not likely?

Not with very good IQ, but you never know. Mitakon or another could always issue a MF surprise prime in that range that has decent IQ, but no AF, no zoom, and probably heavier than a pound.

Member said:
For this use case, I doubt I'll use anything wider than 45mm on the zoom. I could with the 12-100, leave the 12-35 compact Panny home, but its something like 3oz and its fun to shoot on the Pl/7 I have to carry for a back up body anyway, so no reason not to take it.

Ah, you meant the Panasonic 12-32. I like the 20mm f/1.7 for my small & light option.

Member said:
No reason I can think of to need a 12-100 f/4 zoom when a 35-100 f/2.8 covers everything I would use the 12-100 for.

Seems reasonable to me, especially since you already own one. In my case, the best native lenses I had beyond 45mm were the old Panasonic 45-200 & 100-300; not horrible, but not particularly good. On that point alone, the 12-100 was more attractive to me than it might be to others.

Member said:
F/2.8 enables me to shoot 1/800 shutter outdoors on very gloomy days with ISO well below 1000. Maybe 320, maybe 200. Much better. All the images will have good IQ. I know because I tried it with a borrowed 40-150PRO. I have no IS problem with an EM-5 and an unstabilized lens. The images are all sharp. I just need to get the ISO down when I have to run a high shutter speed.

Problem solved to 150mm (I think)

Nah, it's time for an E-M1 Mk II and a 40-150 PRO. Go on, you know you want them. Better get a new CF monopod while you're at it. : )

MShot · Jan 20, 2017

Some people think moaning is a profession. I prefer to try to figure out how to use something and make it work for me. The results are better.

I have to shoot at some tracks from 45 to 600mm, mostly 45 to 300mm. At one event in 2016, I had to shoot at 14mm because I couldn't get further away, but that is unusual. I used the 14-150, could have used the 12-32 Panny, Maybe I did use the 12-32, can't remember.

Usually I can position for a prime, shoot distance/ angle, change to a different prime if I wish when I have what I want, and want to try something different, or switch to a zoom. Because I usually have good light, the main advantage of a zoom is if something happens somewhere else like a spin that is too close or too far for the focal length of the prime but could be quickly captured with a zoom. If I shot for the Associated Press I would buy any kit I needed, but that's too much like work.

I regret missing some opportunities, but I love shooting with primes because of high IQ, fast glass, low weight, small size, all the MFT virtues.

I have no problem mixing brands. I owned the G2, G3, G5 before buying EM-5 and following with several PENs. I liked all the Panny's. I like the G85 A LOT. Love the grip, handling, value. A good deal for the body, a great deal with the kit lens. It's a dual IS kit. I might go that way. I'll need more Dual IS lenses. - What am I saying? I don't need Dual IS. the G85 fits me well, love the way it handles, has everything I need. IBIS with any lens is better than I need.

I have the 75-300II. I like it but it is too slow when the light dies and I'm shooting 1/800 to freeze the action. ISO shoots up to 1000-1600 and detail and IQ is degraded. I need to use the OLY FT 50-200 + TC f2.8-3.5 on a tripod for that. I already own it with the MFT adaptor. Great optics, slow and heavy, but I can pre-focus and MF. Results are excellent.

I have no problems with focus. I shoot everything in AF-S, get the same results in MF. With the 50-200 I have to pre-focus. Its easy. Subject movement is predictable.

Yes I meant Panny 12-32. I have the OLY 17 f/2.8 and the Panny 20 f/1.7, Sigma 30 and 60 f/2.8, OLY FT 50 f/2, MFT 45 and 75 f/1.8. Some of these lenses are too fast. I have to use an ND filter to widen the aperture to get the DOF I want because I often pan race cars as slow as 1/30. Even at ISO 200, the lens stops down too much. Sometimes the background looks good at f/14 - f/16 when the car is moving fast. I've used f/20 with good success. Depends on a lot of things, speed, distance, what I'm trying to do. I like to be able to use f/5 any time, anywhere I want it.

I did not find the Panny 45-200 IQ good enough for my taste. Sometimes good, sometimes not. Maybe it was the body. Last used it on a G5. Its gone now. Maybe I didn't know how to use it properly or didn't have the skills at the time. Sold it.

It's easy to buy a lot of gear you don't need. I have some. Professional critique convinced me I can improve more with more knowledge of how to make the best use of the gear I have, than by purchasing better gear. I have recently seen great images out of fossils like Canon 40D and Nikon D90's with average glass. I was amazed when I learned which kit made them. That convinces me that the latest and greatest and most expensive gear is not what I need to make better photos. You don't make a better jump over 5 feet by being able to jump 10 feet when 6 feet yields the same result. I only need faster glass.

I know I need faster glass on gloomy days between 75 and 300mm and it would be nice to have it between 45 and 300mm in a zoom. I know I can't have the latter in one lens but the 35-100 f/2.8 would cover a lot of it and the 75-300 is decently fast up to 175-200mm. Most people think of the 75-300 for shooting it fully extended. I use it that way, but I also find it quite good at the short end. Very good at the short end. If I can position myself to use it between 75 and 150-175mm the results are quite good.

OLY refurbished my EM-5 under warranty even though it was out of warranty because they had no parts and made me wait almost two months for the repair. It has a new shutter and gear mechanism with just a couple of test shots on it. I have a grip for it. Cosmetically perfect, not a nick in it, the camera could pass for open-box. Hard to kick it to the curb.

But I like the grip of the EM-1 for longer lenses and the higher resolution LCD and EVF, especially when I use magnify to focus a lens manually with the EVF. It is for those reasons I am thinking about the EM-1. I don't need CAF, or tracking. IBIS, even 3-axis in the PL/7, seems to be good enough. Very few photos are not sharp enough for my purposes. Those that are not, are so far off because I screwed up so bad, NASA doesn't have a camera that would fix that.

453C · Jan 20, 2017

MShot said:
Some people think moaning is a profession. I prefer to try to figure out how to use something and make it work for me. The results are better.

I have to shoot at some tracks from 45 to 600mm, mostly 45 to 300mm. At one event in 2016, I had to shoot at 14mm because I couldn't get further away, but that is unusual. I used the 14-150, could have used the 12-32 Panny, Maybe I did use the 12-32, can't remember.

Usually I can position for a prime, shoot distance/ angle, change to a different prime if I wish when I have what I want, and want to try something different, or switch to a zoom. Because I usually have good light, the main advantage of a zoom is if something happens somewhere else like a spin that is too close or too far for the focal length of the prime but could be quickly captured with a zoom. If I shot for the Associated Press I would buy any kit I needed, but that's too much like work.

I regret missing some opportunities, but I love shooting with primes because of high IQ, fast glass, low weight, small size, all the MFT virtues.

I have no problem mixing brands. I owned the G2, G3, G5 before buying EM-5 and following with several PENs. I liked all the Panny's. I like the G85 A LOT. Love the grip, handling, value. A good deal for the body, a great deal with the kit lens. It's a dual IS kit. I might go that way. I'll need more Dual IS lenses. - What am I saying? I don't need Dual IS. the G85 fits me well, love the way it handles, has everything I need. IBIS with any lens is better than I need.

I have the 75-300II. I like it but it is too slow when the light dies and I'm shooting 1/800 to freeze the action. ISO shoots up to 1000-1600 and detail and IQ is degraded. I need to use the OLY FT 50-200 + TC f2.8-3.5 on a tripod for that. I already own it with the MFT adaptor. Great optics, slow and heavy, but I can pre-focus and MF. Results are excellent.

I have no problems with focus. I shoot everything in AF-S, get the same results in MF. With the 50-200 I have to pre-focus. Its easy. Subject movement is predictable.

Yes I meant Panny 12-32. I have the OLY 17 f/2.8 and the Panny 20 f/1.7, Sigma 30 and 60 f/2.8, OLY FT 50 f/2, MFT 45 and 75 f/1.8. Some of these lenses are too fast. I have to use an ND filter to widen the aperture to get the DOF I want because I often pan race cars as slow as 1/30. Even at ISO 200, the lens stops down too much. Sometimes the background looks good at f/14 - f/16 when the car is moving fast. I've used f/20 with good success. Depends on a lot of things, speed, distance, what I'm trying to do. I like to be able to use f/5 any time, anywhere I want it.

I did not find the Panny 45-200 IQ good enough for my taste. Sometimes good, sometimes not. Maybe it was the body. Last used it on a G5. Its gone now. Maybe I didn't know how to use it properly or didn't have the skills at the time. Sold it.

It's easy to buy a lot of gear you don't need. I have some. Professional critique convinced me I can improve more with more knowledge of how to make the best use of the gear I have, than by purchasing better gear. I have recently seen great images out of fossils like Canon 40D and Nikon D90's with average glass. I was amazed when I learned which kit made them. That convinces me that the latest and greatest and most expensive gear is not what I need to make better photos. You don't make a better jump over 5 feet by being able to jump 10 feet when 6 feet yields the same result. I only need faster glass.

I know I need faster glass on gloomy days between 75 and 300mm and it would be nice to have it between 45 and 300mm in a zoom. I know I can't have the latter in one lens but the 35-100 f/2.8 would cover a lot of it and the 75-300 is decently fast up to 175-200mm. Most people think of the 75-300 for shooting it fully extended. I use it that way, but I also find it quite good at the short end. Very good at the short end. If I can position myself to use it between 75 and 150-175mm the results are quite good.

OLY refurbished my EM-5 under warranty even though it was out of warranty because they had no parts and made me wait almost two months for the repair. It has a new shutter and gear mechanism with just a couple of test shots on it. I have a grip for it. Cosmetically perfect, not a nick in it, the camera could pass for open-box. Hard to kick it to the curb.

But I like the grip of the EM-1 for longer lenses and the higher resolution LCD and EVF, especially when I use magnify to focus a lens manually with the EVF. It is for those reasons I am thinking about the EM-1. I don't need CAF, or tracking. IBIS, even 3-axis in the PL/7, seems to be good enough. Very few photos are not sharp enough for my purposes. Those that are not, are so far off because I screwed up so bad, NASA doesn't have a camera that would fix that.

I can't help but be reminded of this scene (warning: profanity). : )

MShot · Jan 20, 2017

Unforgettable.

This is what happens to you if you blame your kit instead of finding a way though the noise...

453C · Jan 20, 2017

MShot said:
Unforgettable.

This is what happens to you if you blame your kit instead of finding a way though the noise...

Did you try to sell that to the happy couple? Give it to them? Email it at regular intervals, such as their anniversary? lol

Looks like my upcoming summer vacation, or my last big one.

FrankS009 · Jan 20, 2017

A fine lens. The review does not mention, however, that it's weight is 561 grams vis a vis that of the 12-40mm which itself weights in at a portly 382 grams - compared to the Panasonic 12-35mm at 305g. The 12-100 is heavier than every M4/3rds camera body except the M1 II and the GH5. A good reason to leave it at home if lighter high quality lenses covering the same focal lengths are available.

F.

-
"We shoot the things that move us in ways that will move others." David duChemin

JaKing · Jan 20, 2017

FrankS009 said:
A fine lens. The review does not mention, however, that it's weight is 561 grams vis a vis that of the 12-40mm which itself weights in at a portly 382 grams - compared to the Panasonic 12-35mm at 305g. The 12-100 is heavier than every M4/3rds camera body except the M1 II and the GH5. A good reason to leave it at home if lighter high quality lenses covering the same focal lengths are available.

F.

-
"We shoot the things that move us in ways that will move others." David duChemin

Frank, I have a number of configurations

E-M1 MkI or MkII with:

14-42 EZ pancake zoom;

12-50 macro, plus 40-150R (yet to buy ... );

12-100;

FTs 7-14, 50-200 MkI plus 12-100.

You get the idea. Starts at body + lens + OEM strap + battery + card = approx 646 grams and fits in a coat pocket - and up. There are even smaller and lighter kits, of course.

FrankS009 · Jan 20, 2017

I do get the idea and do the same thing, starting with the GM5 and 12-32mm or 20mm 1.7 at about 300g, My heaviest lens and camera combination is the GX8 plus Panasonic 7-14mm that totals 687g, about the same as your lightest duo. Just a different emphasis I guess.

F.

JaKing · Jan 20, 2017

Quite, Frank.

I've handled the smaller/lighter Pens of one flavour or another, and loved them in the abstract, but prefer the handling of the E-M1 size bodies - bit like my E-510 ...

We are all different, each and every one of us.

453C · Jan 20, 2017

FrankS009 said:
A fine lens. The review does not mention, however, that it's weight is 561 grams vis a vis that of the 12-40mm which itself weights in at a portly 382 grams - compared to the Panasonic 12-35mm at 305g. The 12-100 is heavier than every M4/3rds camera body except the M1 II and the GH5. A good reason to leave it at home if lighter high quality lenses covering the same focal lengths are available.

F.

Sure, and that was discussed.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58993023

The use of "system" applies even more acutely when discussing decisions like this. For my use, it works, and any weight penalty is mitigated by a lightweight backpacking system.

Jacques Cornell · Jan 21, 2017

arbux said:
larsbc said:

arbux said:

Extra stop where? Until and including 25mm pansocnic has brighter aparture. Who is using tele in dim condition? Maybe some sports photographers - and f4 on m43 is not for sports.

Click to expand...

[snip]

arbux said:

The difference in f-stop is negligible + you get more on the wide end from 14-140. I doubt there is much need of using tele end in dark conditions.

Click to expand...

I've used telephoto in dim conditions. I've done it the most in Costa Rica where I was photographing wildlife living in the dense tree canopy. I've also shot in low light for some landscape type photos in mountain valleys where the sun had gone down.

Click to expand...

OK, but for landscape you have tripod so max. aperture doesn't matter much.

Not when I'm hiking in rugged mountains.

Hiking with a Micro Four Thirds Camera

Tips on cameras and other gear for photo hiking

www.jacquescornell.photography

MShot · Jan 21, 2017

It seems to weigh as much as my OM 135 with the adaptor which is comfortable for me to hand hold all day - comparing weight only

453C · Jan 21, 2017

MShot said:
It seems to weigh as much as my OM 135 with the adaptor which is comfortable for me to hand hold all day - comparing weight only

It may be a little heavier, but pretty close.

Loading…

www.mir.com.my

I think you should give one a try and see if it's to your liking. I know you own several other options in the FL, but using it might make it easier for you to know if it's for you.

The case for the 12-100mm

Veteran Member

MShot

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

MShot

Guest

MShot

Guest

MShot

Guest

Veteran Member

MShot

Guest

Veteran Member

MShot

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

MShot

Guest

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts