Upgrading normal lens

Started Oct 3, 2012 | Discussions
Dan Beaty Regular Member • Posts: 420
Upgrading normal lens

Recently I have found in my budget the possibility to buy some higher quality lenses for my K20d. What I am hoping is to get the best out of this camera for mostly landscape photography.

I have the da16-45 which has great color and center sharpness, but not as good at the edges. I bought a used M 28/2.8 earlier model, which has decent overall sharpness at the apertures I use, but due to a slow aperture mechanism, I have to always use the self timer to get correct exposure and depth of field by stopping down.

Should I invest in repairing it, or is there a sharper lens I can look for in the new or used market that would be a better investment? No, I am not ready to spent the $$$ for the FA31/1.8.

The FA 35/2 is a consideration, but it is not my preferred FL. The DA 35/2.4 gets good reviews, but is it a good long term investment? I am fine with manual focus, even manual aperture, if it gets the extra IQ I am hoping for. Neither do I need super fast apertures for most of my work.

The focal lengths I used most often in 35mm film were 28, 50 and 100 in landscape photography. Is there a zoom that would make a significant upgrade for my purposes?

Years of using 6x7 format in film have me desiring the maximum detail possible in this format, which I do enjoy greatly.

Dan

 Dan Beaty's gear list:Dan Beaty's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED +4 more
Pentax K20D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
JNR
JNR Senior Member • Posts: 2,809
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Good questions all, Dan. I have the same rig in terms of body and lens, and continue to use the 16-45 on the K-01. If anything, the 16-45 does at least as well on the newer, slightly higher resolution sensor. By all reports, the lens performs at least as well optically as the Pentax 16-50 (although the build on that lens is in a much higher class, and the added stop of speed is helpful). In my opinion, you have to go to primes to get significantly better IQ than the 16-45 despite its middling build quality.

The m28 f/2.8 probably has oil on the diaphragm. Frankly, I doubt it would outperform the 16-45 (other than giving you a smaller form factor and an extra stop). It has a nice feel as well. Even a CLA that removes the oil (or what ever is creating a slow stop down) is going to cost you very close to the value of the lens on the used market. So, it comes down to how much you care about the lens, but strictly based on economics I doubt it is worth the repair. The A-series version of these prime lenses often sell for around twice as much, as they give you so much more metering flexibility. They are much better candidates for repair.

I have the 35 f/2 - a fine lens yielding a very nice overall look. Certainly not the feel of a Limited, but competitive in terms of image quality. It gets more use now that I have the K-01, as the handling of the pairing is very good.
--
JNR
http://www.jamesrobins.com

 JNR's gear list:JNR's gear list
Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +9 more
WRB Regular Member • Posts: 123
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Sounds like you are nearly describing the DA* 50-135. One of my favorites and with very good results.

SRT201
SRT201 Senior Member • Posts: 2,515
No need to spend big money for resolution

No need to break the bank. Here are some cheap options...

The DA 35 2.4 is a wonderful little lens. At f4 it is truly amazingly sharp. As for long term... it is solidly built and give no indication of cheapness aside from the weight. It does not need a metal mount. I picked mine up when they were $169.

I hear the new DA 50mm f1.8 is also a very sharp lens but don't have one yet.

If you want maximum detail go pick up a manual Rikenon XR 50mm f2 or f1.7 on eBay for $15 to $50. They are also often branded by Sears. Those lenses are razor sharp corner to corner. Outperforms my Pentax M50 1.7. Great for landscapes. Be careful to avoid the P versions unless you know how to remove the P pin (it's easy). The P versions can get stuck on AF Pentax bodies.

I recently picked up a Promaster 100 f3.5 macro. It's an AF lens that was made by Cosina. There were versions branded by Vivitar, Cosina, Promaster and yes even Pentax. VERY sharp as well and a nice macro. Feels cheaply built and loud AF but the IQ is impressive and I have read no reports of breakage. You can still find them on the auction site or occasionally in the used departments of the major dealers.

-- hide signature --

Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.

viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,137
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Dan Beaty wrote:

Should I invest in repairing it, or is there a sharper lens I can look for in the new or used market that would be a better investment? No, I am not ready to spent the $$$ for the FA31/1.8.

The FA 35/2 is a consideration, but it is not my preferred FL. The DA 35/2.4 gets good reviews, but is it a good long term investment? I am fine with manual focus, even manual aperture, if it gets the extra IQ I am hoping for. Neither do I need super fast apertures for most of my work.

Think of the DA 35 mm f/2.4 as a 2.4 version of the 35/2. They are a similar optical design, similar resolution, etc. The DA 35/2.4 is basically a slightly slower version with a cheaper build quality. It is a good value lens, and it is sharp corner to corner.

The focal lengths I used most often in 35mm film were 28, 50 and 100 in landscape photography. Is there a zoom that would make a significant upgrade for my purposes?

A 17-70 or something would cover the range, but would probably have similar limitations at the edges as your 16-45 mm.

For the focal lengths you used on film, the DA 35 mm f/2.4 (or 2.8 limited macro), the 21 mm f/3.2 and 70 mm f/2.4 would be relatively equivalent.

Eric

-- hide signature --

I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Michael de Ruijter Contributing Member • Posts: 840
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Dan Beaty wrote:

... for mostly landscape photography.

I have heard the K 35mm f3.5 is excellent. It's a legacy lens, so not quite as expensive but very seldom seen For Sale.

... Should I invest in repairing it ...

I think for the same $$$ you could replace it with another one the same.

... or is there a sharper lens I can look for in the new or used market that would be a better investment? ...

The K 28mm f3.5 (a couple have been up for sale recently), or the K 28mm f2.0 (lots of $$$ though).

... The DA 35/2.4 gets good reviews, but is it a good long term investment? ...

It probably is as long as it's properly taken care of.

... I am fine with manual focus, even manual aperture, if it gets the extra IQ I am hoping for. Neither do I need super fast apertures for most of my work.

This is why I suggest the K-series of legacy lenses.

The focal lengths I used most often in 35mm film were 28, 50 and 100 in landscape photography. Is there a zoom that would make a significant upgrade for my purposes?

The only zoom in the Pentax lineup that would come close to covering that range is the DA* 16-50mm f2.8. But it brings more distortion with it over the primes which is not the best for landscape photography.

Look at maybe the DA 21mm f3.2 Limited as a close equivalent to the 28mm.
Look at the K 35mm f3.5 as an equivalent to the 50mm.

Look at the K 55mm f1.8 as a close equivalent to the 100mm. I know it's not really close, but Pentax didn't ever produce a 65mm lens which would be a 100mm equivalent. If you're willing to spend a bunch more $$$ look at the DA 70mm f2.4 Limited.

Years of using 6x7 format in film have me desiring the maximum detail possible in this format, which I do enjoy greatly.

You've been spoiled...

-Mike

math guy Senior Member • Posts: 2,474
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Dan Beaty wrote:

The DA 35/2.4 gets good reviews, but is it a good long term investment?

I have it and love it. I use it more for people shots than landscapes, but it does a fine job when I do use it for landscapes. The only knock on it is that it is plastic. If you take good care of it, though, that shouldn't be an issue. Is it a good investment? Well, I wouldn't call it an investment in the sense of potentially selling it in the future. But you will very easily get your money's worth out of it in usage.

The focal lengths I used most often in 35mm film were 28, 50 and 100 in landscape photography. Is there a zoom that would make a significant upgrade for my purposes?

Given that you like 28 and 50 in 35mm format, I would think the DA21 (a great landscape lens -- my favorite, in fact) and the 35/2.4 would work great for you. If you're willing to get the DA21 used, you could probably pick up both for a total of $650. Those two along with something like the DA70 make a great lightweight kit.

Having said all that, I'm not sure that you'll gain much over the 16-45. I've never used that lens; but from everything I've read about it, it's almost prime-like in IQ. But if you are looking to get a prime or two, I can highly recommend the 21 and 35/2.4.

-- hide signature --

-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt

 math guy's gear list:math guy's gear list
Pentax K-50 Pentax K-3 Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +6 more
OP Dan Beaty Regular Member • Posts: 420
Re: No need to spend big money for resolution

SRT201 wrote:

No need to break the bank. Here are some cheap options...

The DA 35 2.4 is a wonderful little lens. At f4 it is truly amazingly sharp. As for long term... it is solidly built and give no indication of cheapness aside from the weight. It does not need a metal mount. I picked mine up when they were $169.

I hear the new DA 50mm f1.8 is also a very sharp lens but don't have one yet.

If you want maximum detail go pick up a manual Rikenon XR 50mm f2 or f1.7 on eBay for $15 to $50. They are also often branded by Sears. Those lenses are razor sharp corner to corner. Outperforms my Pentax M50 1.7. Great for landscapes. Be careful to avoid the P versions unless you know how to remove the P pin (it's easy). The P versions can get stuck on AF Pentax bodies.

Interesting. The DA 35 2.4 seems to be very popular. I would not expect it to stand up to the more expensive FA35/2 in IQ. I have owned 2 Sears 50mm 1.7 K mount lenses since 1983. I was not aware that it could outperform the Pentex equivalent. My impression is that it does hold much detail across the board, but reveals less of a "grainy" appearance than my other lenses. Maybe less contrast than Pentax.

So far, I have not found too many landscapes that suit the 50mm, but will try to find some now.

Dan


 Dan Beaty's gear list:Dan Beaty's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED +4 more
OP Dan Beaty Regular Member • Posts: 420
Re: Upgrading normal lens

viking79 wrote:

Think of the DA 35 mm f/2.4 as a 2.4 version of the 35/2. They are a similar optical design, similar resolution, etc. The DA 35/2.4 is basically a slightly slower version with a cheaper build quality. It is a good value lens, and it is sharp corner to corner.

The focal lengths I used most often in 35mm film were 28, 50 and 100 in landscape photography. Is there a zoom that would make a significant upgrade for my purposes?

A 17-70 or something would cover the range, but would probably have similar limitations at the edges as your 16-45 mm.

For the focal lengths you used on film, the DA 35 mm f/2.4 (or 2.8 limited macro), the 21 mm f/3.2 and 70 mm f/2.4 would be relatively equivalent.

Eric

Eric, thanks for the comments. I might consider trying the Da 35/2.4. The 16-45 has a very nice "look," but with vertical landscapes the tops of the trees look blurry. I tried 2 copies, and both were the same in this regard.

Realizing that focal lengths can vary from their specifications, my tests and calculations both tell me that an 18mm on the K20d would equal the 28mm on 35mm film. The DA 21 would be closer to the 32mm on film.

Dan

 Dan Beaty's gear list:Dan Beaty's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED +4 more
OP Dan Beaty Regular Member • Posts: 420
Re: Upgrading normal lens

math guy wrote:

Given that you like 28 and 50 in 35mm format, I would think the DA21 (a  great landscape lens -- my favorite, in fact) and the 35/2.4 would work great for you. If you're willing to get the DA21 used, you could probably pick up both for a total of $650. Those two along with something like the DA70 make a great lightweight kit.

Having said all that, I'm not sure that you'll gain much over the 16-45. I've never used that lens; but from everything I've read about it, it's almost prime-like in IQ. But if you are looking to get a prime or two, I can highly recommend the 21 and 35/2.4.

Thanks everyone for the timely advice and comments. Joe, you and several others recommend the da21. But it would not make sense to spend over $400 for a used lens that is not much faster nor will gain much over the 16-45 I already have. Am I expecting too much from this camera and format?

Dan

 Dan Beaty's gear list:Dan Beaty's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED +4 more
KentG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,465
Re: No need to spend big money for resolution

I agree. the Rikenon 50s lack the SMC coatings of the Pentax lenses and from experience they have an inferior contrast. An M42 Yashica Yashinon 50/1.7 I had for awhile was better than the Riks. One reason I still have my Pentax A 50/1.4 is I have yet to acquire another 50mm lens to equal or beat it. But I still have more to compare it with.

 KentG's gear list:KentG's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-S1 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 50mm F2.8 Macro Pentax FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 +3 more
math guy Senior Member • Posts: 2,474
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Dan Beaty wrote:

Joe, you and several others recommend the da21. But it would not make sense to spend over $400 for a used lens that is not much faster nor will gain much over the 16-45 I already have.

I can't disagree with you there. Like I said before, I haven't used the 16-45, but I've only heard very good things about it. To get better IQ, you may need to spend a lot more than what you're wanting to spend. I don't have any star lenses (they're way out of my price range at this point), but that may be what you need to get the results you want.

 Am I expecting too much from this camera and format?

That's something only you can answer. I know a lot of the folks on the forum are constantly clamouring for a 35mm digital from Pentax. And since you mentioned having shot medium format before, maybe APS-C isn't going to give you what you want. For me, it's a great size, but everyone has different preferences. If you haven't already done so, you might consider the new Nikon D600 -- not much larger than an APS-C body but with a 35mm sensor.

 math guy's gear list:math guy's gear list
Pentax K-50 Pentax K-3 Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +6 more
etoastw Regular Member • Posts: 432
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

It might be worth checkout the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.  I got one because I generally don't like zooms, but it seemed to get pretty good responses for image quality; I'd have to say I generally agree, but probably not at all combinations of aperture/focal length -- it has sweet spots.  I seem to remember you probably need to be there to test the one you're going to buy, as the build varies a bit.  That's what I did, I tested out a few.  (SRS Microsystems seemed to put up with my hanging about, which I thought was good.)

Other than that, you could look at just replacing your M28 f/2.8, if fixing it is too expensive.  I've got an A28 f/2.8 which I don't use much, and can't remember what the image quality is like, but it wasn't expensive.  I'd be surprised if it's a different design.  I think the f/3.5 28s are generally regarded as being better.

If you want something around 100mm equivalent, and you can find one, the Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 SL is pretty impressive.  And if you liked 50mm, then I would have thought 35mm APS-C would be good for you, so either of the DA 35mm primes should be okay?  (I haven't tested either.)

Wide angle, there isn't a whole lot that's super-sharp everywhere; perhaps you should get a 645D!

 etoastw's gear list:etoastw's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Fujifilm X100T Pentax K-5 II Pentax smc DA 12-24mm F4.0 ED AL (IF) Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +10 more
OP Dan Beaty Regular Member • Posts: 420
Re: Upgrading normal lens

math guy wrote:

To get better IQ, you may need to spend a lot more than what you're wanting to spend. I don't have any star lenses (they're way out of my price range at this point), but that may be what you need to get the results you want.

One of the reasons I considered the fa31/1.8 out of my price range was that many are saying that other lower priced choices compare fairly well, such as the fa35/2, and even several older manual focus lenses.

IF - there was a truly noticeable difference at the medium apertures often used in landscape photography, I might be willing to pay much more.

Which star lenses do you think would get the results I want? The Limited series seems to come up most in the kinds of focal lengths I need.

Dan

 Dan Beaty's gear list:Dan Beaty's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED +4 more
miles green
miles green Veteran Member • Posts: 6,295
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Dan Beaty wrote:

math guy wrote:

Given that you like 28 and 50 in 35mm format, I would think the DA21 (a  great landscape lens -- my favorite, in fact) and the 35/2.4 would work great for you. If you're willing to get the DA21 used, you could probably pick up both for a total of $650. Those two along with something like the DA70 make a great lightweight kit.

Having said all that, I'm not sure that you'll gain much over the 16-45. I've never used that lens; but from everything I've read about it, it's almost prime-like in IQ. But if you are looking to get a prime or two, I can highly recommend the 21 and 35/2.4.

Thanks everyone for the timely advice and comments. Joe, you and several others recommend the da21. But it would not make sense to spend over $400 for a used lens that is not much faster nor will gain much over the 16-45 I already have. Am I expecting too much from this camera and format?

Dan

I can vouch for the 21 ltd, truly a little gem, optically and mechanically. Unless you'd rather have a much faster lens (f/1.4) but there is no point for landscapes. I have it in silver and i love it!

The 35 and 70 limiteds also sound like they're for you, but it's easier to get old glass that performs equally well stopped down at those focal lengths. Except for the rear coatings of course. (you only care if you have very high contrast, like with street lights at night). The 21, 35 and 70 limiteds share the same filter size as do the 15, 40, 43 and 77 (cute little 49mm filters, nothing like the 82mm filters i had for the 45mm f/4 on the 67!)

The 31 is a great lens, but you've gotta want that f/1.8 and resulting smooth bokeh to justify it. It's great stopped down, don't get me wrong, but so are others.

I'm not a zoom fan but:

I hear the Sigma 17-17 OS is nice...

For wide and wider, consider the Sigma 8-16 and Samyang 14. I'm not even mentionning the Zeisses. Oops, i did! I have the 8-16 and i'm very happy with it.

You can't really go wrong with the DA* 16-50. I'll be waiting for the DA* 18-85-ish announced on the roadmap. The zoom can wait, no problem! 

 miles green's gear list:miles green's gear list
Pentax K-1 Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 43mm F1.9 Limited +8 more
Petroglyph
Petroglyph Veteran Member • Posts: 5,878
Re: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

I spent some time calibrating the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and was rewarded with some excellent results.  I agree on the usually decent price.  My two pentax branded primes are more suitable for portraits in my opinion they might be fine for landscape but I haven't tried them on that so I can't say.  If you want high IQ go with the Tamron 90mm macro.  Might be a little long for your work.  That 31mm ltd. is the best for most things but not inexpensive.

 Petroglyph's gear list:Petroglyph's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Pentax K-1 Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 50mm F2.8 Macro +6 more
kitsios_spyros
kitsios_spyros Senior Member • Posts: 2,575
Re: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

Petroglyph wrote:

I spent some time calibrating the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and was rewarded with some excellent results.

That 31mm ltd. is the best for most things but not inexpensive.

I own only the first one (T 28-75), but I agree with both recomendations.

Kind Regards,

Spyros

 kitsios_spyros's gear list:kitsios_spyros's gear list
Pentax K-01 Pentax K-5 II Samsung NX300 Pentax K-3 Pentax K-3 II +12 more
math guy Senior Member • Posts: 2,474
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Dan Beaty wrote:

One of the reasons I considered the fa31/1.8 out of my price range was that many are saying that other lower priced choices compare fairly well, such as the fa35/2, and even several older manual focus lenses.

IF - there was a truly noticeable difference at the medium apertures often used in landscape photography, I might be willing to pay much more.

Which star lenses do you think would get the results I want? The Limited series seems to come up most in the kinds of focal lengths I need.

The star I had in mind was the 16-50 since your main interest is landscapes. But come to think of it, I believe the Tamron 17-50 has a little better reputation than the Pentax. But again, I haven't used either, so don't take my word for it either way. Another one to consider is the Pentax 12-24, which is very highly regarded. The main reason I mentioned the star line is that you are not happy with the 16-45, which is generally regarded as an excellent lens. So I was thinking that in order to improve on that, you'd have to take a step up the price ladder.

The Limited series come up a lot because they really are great lenses -- excellent IQ in small packages. The trade-off is speed, which is just a matter of physics. Fast lenses have to be larger. For landscapes, though, that shouldn't be a big deal. I love the Limiteds myself, especially since I prefer shooting primes. But as you've already mentioned, you may not see a big improvement over your 16-45... at least not big enough to justify the expense. One thing to keep in mind is that you could probably still get $225 or $250 for your 16-45 on the used market, so that could be used to offset the cost of a new lens.

 math guy's gear list:math guy's gear list
Pentax K-50 Pentax K-3 Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +6 more
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,137
Re: Upgrading normal lens

Dan Beaty wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Think of the DA 35 mm f/2.4 as a 2.4 version of the 35/2. They are a similar optical design, similar resolution, etc. The DA 35/2.4 is basically a slightly slower version with a cheaper build quality. It is a good value lens, and it is sharp corner to corner.

The focal lengths I used most often in 35mm film were 28, 50 and 100 in landscape photography. Is there a zoom that would make a significant upgrade for my purposes?

A 17-70 or something would cover the range, but would probably have similar limitations at the edges as your 16-45 mm.

For the focal lengths you used on film, the DA 35 mm f/2.4 (or 2.8 limited macro), the 21 mm f/3.2 and 70 mm f/2.4 would be relatively equivalent.

Eric

Eric, thanks for the comments. I might consider trying the Da 35/2.4. The 16-45 has a very nice "look," but with vertical landscapes the tops of the trees look blurry. I tried 2 copies, and both were the same in this regard.

My copy was the same, I think it is normal for that lens (depends a bit on focal length and centering of particular copy).  The DA 35 mm f/2.4 actually has a full frame image circle so you are operating a bit away from the softer edges.

Realizing that focal lengths can vary from their specifications, my tests and calculations both tell me that an 18mm on the K20d would equal the 28mm on 35mm film. The DA 21 would be closer to the 32mm on film.

Agreed, didn't mean to imply it would be the same, just that it is the closest prime to that focal length, and might be usable in the same situations.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Richard the picture man Veteran Member • Posts: 3,018
Re: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

I tried two copies of the Tammy and was not happy. However that was  four years ago. Finally went with the Sigma 17-70. Love it.

 Richard the picture man's gear list:Richard the picture man's gear list
Pentax K-r Pentax K-5 Pentax K-5 II Pentax 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 WR
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads