Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2018, 06:07 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Norwich, CT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 17
Night photo/Astrotracer best lens advice

Howdy,

I’ll be in some dark sky areas in a few weeks in northern Maine and Canada and am curious what folks are using for lens for night photography with the Astrotracer.

I have a few older 50s both M42 and M along with the DA* 16-50 currently. Well I don’t have too much time to pick up a new to me lens, I’m curious what folks are using. Looking for wider shots incorporating possibly some landscape elements depending on weather conditions.

Using a K3 body with GPS via hot shoe.

Thanks

06-01-2018, 06:25 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Newcastle
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,954
I understand that people generally choose fast lenses (f2.8 or less) that give good sharpness wide open or stopped down once or so. Desirable field of view is for taste, and depends on your aspirations (constellations verses landscape shots).

I believe the Samyang 16mm f2 is highly regarded for this kind of work - check out the reviews. Also Irix too.

I am interested in what others say here as I am thinking about the same kind of application
06-01-2018, 07:13 PM - 1 Like   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
You might want to look through the information in this thread: Want to try Astrophotography - PentaxForums.com


ON the K-1 I use the DFA 15-30, (in it's Tamron iteration it is in the top 5 or so lenses for Astro. Also highly recommended is the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 and the Samyang 14mm.


More info:
Lonely Speck’s Ultimate List of Best Astrophotography Lenses – Lonely Speck


You want wide and fast and minimal aberrations. I would just use your 16-50 @ f/2.8 to give it a try. ISO at 3200 or 6400 to start then reduce as best you can depending on the time you can get out of the Astrotracer.
06-01-2018, 07:15 PM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2017
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 280
I started astrophotography using a K-5 with GPS and now I use a K-1. My current lens for astro is the Samyang 14 mm f2.8. On my full-frame K-1, I get some distortion in the corners where the stars appear elongated, but this doesn’t happen on the cropped K-5 sensor. I also got good results with the Pentax 10-17 for very wide angles. It has lots of fisheye distortion at 10 mm which is fine if there is no foreground and at the 17 mm, there isn’t much fisheye effect.

I did have to manually adjust the infinity stop on my Samyang; originally the focus ring was set wrong... very common with Samyang. It works great now. If you get a Samyang, get it from somewhere like B&H where you can return it if there is a quality issue.

Where are you headed in Maine? There are some great Dark Sky areas in the western mountains.

06-01-2018, 07:30 PM   #5
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 41
I started with my kit lens cause it was all I have. Currently I use my sigma 17-50 2.8 until I get a prime wide angle lens. Have had some pretty good results with these two lenses though.
06-01-2018, 08:10 PM   #6
Veteran Member
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Indiana, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,845
I have had nice results with the FA 50 1.4 and when I had it my Sigma 70-200 HSM II. Anything fast enough is great, especially if you can stop down a little bit for added sharpness.
06-01-2018, 08:29 PM - 2 Likes   #7
Custom User Title
Loyal Site Supporter
FozzFoster's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Alberta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,803
I use the K-S2 with the O-GPS1 unit.

I use a kit lens right now just to get down to 18mm on the milky way shots. I wish the aperture was faster to soak in more light though.
https://flic.kr/p/26dSHK2
If I can use a tighter crop, I have a Sigma 24mm f/1.8, but I find 24mm too tight for the milky way. However, like you say, it's ncie to incorporate the foreground landscape. So I really want a wider lens for these shots.
https://flic.kr/p/XxUKAY

I'm waiting for the new DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 this summer/fall and I'm expecting that will be the go-to for astro shots.

Also, I've used a Sigma 70-300mm and shot the Andromeda galaxy with some success too.
https://flic.kr/p/27FB1VJ
https://flic.kr/p/251nH7w


Last edited by FozzFoster; 06-03-2018 at 01:17 PM.
06-01-2018, 08:42 PM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
You generally want sharp, fast (f2.8 or better) lenses for astrophotography. Also be wary of coma distortion that can stretch stars into comma shapes or triangles at the edge of the frame. Coma is mostly invisible with daytime photography. Wide zooms tend to have the most coma.

I'll start with the lenses you already own:
  • Are any of your 50mm lenses macro? Macro lenses tend to be very sharp and free from coma. 50mm is long for most night landscapes. You can isolate parts of the Milky Way with the astrotracer at 50mm.
  • Avoid the DA* 16-50 because of coma distortion. Here's one of the few review sites that tests coma. It's in Polish but the pictures show how bad the coma can get Test Pentax smc DA* 16-50 mm f/2.8 AL ED IF SDM - Koma i astygmatyzm - Test obiektywu - Optyczne.pl (they have an English site lenstip.com but never translated this review)
Some wide astrophotography lenses that I know work well:
  • Pentax 15-30 f2.8. One of the few wide zooms that don't suffer from coma. It's big, heavy, and expensive. Part of the cost is to cover a full frame sensor so probably not worth the price with your K-3, unless you plan to add a K-1 in the future and take many night photos.
  • Samyang/Rokinon/Bower (3 companies rebadging the same lens) 14mm f2.8. Sharp, coma free, and relatively inexpensive.
  • Samyang/R/B 24mm f1.4. A very fast lens to shorten exposure times. 24mm is not very wide angle with an APS-C sensor, though.
Additional lenses that could work. I have no experience with these lenses, though.
  • Samyang/R/B 16mm f2.0. If the design is consistent with other wide Samyang lenses it will work well.
  • Irix 15mm f2.4
  • Pentax 14mm f2.8
06-02-2018, 04:08 AM - 8 Likes   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,699
I do astro - well astro landscapes. I started with the K5 and now I'm using the K1. As far as the best lens - it depends on what you are doing. For the Milky Way and not deep space objects (nebula, galaxies, etc.) then it's a fine trade off of 2 main features - focal length and aperture. Let me explain....
  • Aperture is the most important item. However, just not pure aperture - like f2.8 or faster. You are looking for physical aperture size - because the larger the physical aperture the more light the lens will let in. You determine that by taking the focal length of the lens and dividing it by its stated aperture. For instance take the Pentax M 28mm f2.8 - you get 28/2.8 = 10. So it's essentially physical aperture size = focal length / f
  • Focal length - That now leads us to the focal length of the lens. The wider the lens, the smaller the focal length in mm, so using the equation from above, let's use one of the widest and fastest lens available for Pentax - the Ronkinon 10mm f2.8. Its physical aperture is 10/2.8 = 3.5 which is somewhat small. The problem here is that the wider you go, the numerator get smaller, which essentially reduces the overall physical aperture size. So, you need to balance the width of the lens against the aperture size, in order to get a lens wide enough to get a good field of view of the Milky Way, but also have the physical aperture size sufficiently large enough to collect as much star light as possible.
Here are some of the best lenses you can use on the K3 for Milky Way astro. They are a balance of large aperture and wide angle (focal length) on a crop sensor body.
  • Ronkinon 16mm/f2 - 16 / 2 = 8
  • Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 - 18 / 1.8 = 10 however at the 35mm end you get 35 / 1.8 = 19
  • Samyang 24mm/f1.4 - 24 / 1.4 = 17
With my K5, I use the Sigma 18-35/f1.8 and I shoot at 18mm. I also stitch.

This was done using the K5 and Sigma 18-35. I didn't use the GPS astrotracking because I got to the location too early and by the time the Milky Way rose in the sky, my fingers were too frozen (with gloves) to operate the controls. So - what I have is just the 13 second sky shots and NOT the 60 astrotracked sky shots. [PS - the location difference between this shot and the third image is 93 feet. When I took this shot, it was my first time at the location and this was the best I could do location wise at 3am.]


This was also with the K5 and Sigma 18-35 - 11 frames stitched together. Didn't use the GPS astrotracer.


I finally decided to get the images I really wanted, I needed to go to a full frame sensor. Here is my latest from 3 weeks ago. K1 with the Pentax 15-30/f2.8 at 15mm f2.8, 50 seconds - 3 frames stitched with the GPS astrotracer enabled.


06-05-2018, 10:37 AM   #10
Custom User Title
Loyal Site Supporter
FozzFoster's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Alberta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,803
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
However, just not pure aperture - like f2.8 or faster. You are looking for physical aperture size - because the larger the physical aperture the more light the lens will let in.
This is great information @interested_observer - thanks for sharing this!

So, my claim that "the new DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 will be the go-to for astro shots" is probably incorrect then, eh?

Also, you mention that the 10mm f/2.8 (3.5) is somewhat small and your suggested lenses begin at 16mm f/2 (8).
At what physical aperture would you say is bare minimum for astro?
I've done astro with a kit lens 18mm @ f/3.5 (5.14) with okay results, so the I take it the DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 @ 18mm f/2.8 (6.43) won't be terrible but not the best? Do you think you'd recommend this lens for astro work?
06-05-2018, 02:19 PM - 4 Likes   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,699
QuoteOriginally posted by FozzFoster Quote
...<snip>.. So, my claim that "the new DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 will be the go-to for astro shots" is probably incorrect then, eh?

At what physical aperture would you say is bare minimum for astro?
I've done astro with a kit lens 18mm @ f/3.5 (5.14) with okay results, so the I take it the DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 @ 18mm f/2.8 (6.43) won't be terrible but not the best? Do you think you'd recommend this lens for astro work?
Overall, I really don't think that there is a perfect answer nor a wrong or bad set of answers. There are some better answers than others, but they are all going to need to be viewed/evaluated within a set of constraints of whomever is doing the buying and using....
QuoteQuote:
Different people have differing opinions, differing needs and approach the trade space considerations with different perspectives and valuations.
The overall evaluation is based on collecting light. For astro / Milky Way - collecting more light is better, which leads to a better overall resulting image (better color, better star resolution, more light, etc.). This is one of the few areas in photography, where gear really does make a difference. Now, having said that - you can really use anything for a lens. You will get an image, and possible a good image.

It all boils down to what set of compromises you are going to make - and only you can make the trade and decision on what you feel is best for you. You are not able to make a decision in this respect without making some compromises. My opinion is all of this is based on how you want to shoot. Here are just a few to get you started....
  • Are you going after shooting just a single frame? If just one frame, then you are not going to be using the astrotracker, or any type of tracking mount. This then begs the question of how wide you want to shoot, which will determine the aperture available (fortunately f2.8 is pretty consistently available). This would lead you to wider focal lengths with the largest aperture you can find (10mm/f2.8, 12/f2.8, 14/f2.8, 16/f2, etc.)
  • If you are going to use the astrotracker, or a tracking mount, then you will be compositing images (sky and landscape elements) together.
  • If you want to collect the greatest amount of available light - then you will probably track (either astrotrack or a tracking mount), and possibly consider stitching. This would lead you to looking at a longer focal length with a larger physical aperture (35/f1.4, 50/f1.4, etc.).
  • If cost is a primary concern, then use what you have - or find something that is within you budget - M 28mm/f2.8 can be found for $75 or a M 50mm/f1.7 for $50, or whatever.
These are a few ways of evaluating the problem space to make a decision - but there are plenty of others, too. [Note - I had intended to link to a number of these item in the last post. The Ian Norman - "lonely spec" has an entire series on this topic.]In the body of the PentaPixel link is a link to this spreadsheet comparison / evaluation set ....
QuoteQuote:
So, my claim that "the new DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 will be the go-to for astro shots" is probably incorrect then, eh?
No, it's not incorrect at all. At the 18mm end the Sigma 18-35/f1.8 collects substantially more light (f2.8 to f1.8 is 1 1/3 stops faster so almost ~3x more light, and if you calculate the physical open aperture area, I'm guessing probably 4x more actual light). But, that's the (retired) engineer in me. I can certainly see the 11-18/f2.8 doing a very credible job and producing some excellent images.

I had squirreled away $1k for a lens when I bought the K1. It came down to the Sigma 35/f1.4 and the Pentax 15-30/f2.8. I was only going to buy 1 more lens - that's it. The 35/f1.4 had a 2 stop advantage - collecting at least 4x more light (more if you look at the physical open aperture area). But, I also wanted a general wide angle lens for everything else - essentially a multi-purpose lens that was very good for astro/MW. I went with the 15-30 - giving up a substantial amount of light collection in the trade. Yes, a compromise - but, I feel a reasonable compromise. That is the only reason I posted the 3 images above. I finally was able to successfully capture the overall color, width, lighting and overall feeling I wanted - and have been after for several years (and I was still stitching at 15mm). Would the 35/f1.4 have done the job better - absolutely yes, but I would not have had the versatility I really wanted. It would have been more of a one trick pony - be it a really nice pony.

I thought about it for several months - trying a lot of alternatives (the cropped Sigma 18-35/f1.8 on the K1 @ 30mm where you get full frame coverage), and it looked like a patchwork quilt when stitched (some vinginetting). I have a couple of 28/f2.8 lenses that I could have gone with - and I still need to test out (one an old Contax Zeiss 28/f2.8) that I have not gotten around to - as of yet.... But, in many ways - I just wanted to stop testing, and trying - and just go with a proven lens (especially one with no coma). I just want to shoot excellent resulting images.

I email folks at work (well, where I use to work, prior to retirement) images. They want / ask to see them - especially when we go to lunch. I use them as a sounding board. They will crap all over me for poor work. Image #3 from the above set - got an "outstanding - simply blown away" from everyone. And that's only the 3 stitch at 15mm - the actual result that I'm going for is a 3 row 7 image ~ 25 images, stitched and composited all together - that will be able to be printed large. So, I have the right tool set - now I'm only limited by my skill and imagination. I took 150 images that evening 3 weeks ago over 3.5 hours standing out in the desert.
_________________________________

QuoteQuote:
Do you think you'd recommend this lens for astro work?
So, to directly answer you question. The 11-18 would not be a bad choice. I have seen excellent results with the 16/f2 in the Astrophotography area. But, for a crop sensor body, I would probably tend to go with the 18-35/f1.8; then the 16/f2; followed by the 11-18/f2.8. Sorta of ranked by the aperture, but also balanced by focal length and overall versatility of the lens. Also,I have not seen any astro shots from the 11-18, so I'm just kind of assuming no coma and it performs overall very well.
Long answer to a short question.... sorry! Also, I'm by no means an expert - I just have an opinion. To see some really fine shots and to get excellent expert opinions (and discussions) - go to the Astrophotography social group (actually - it's a technical group). The folks there produce some really outstanding work.


Last edited by interested_observer; 06-05-2018 at 02:27 PM.
06-05-2018, 03:44 PM   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
Aperture size determines star brightness. Focal ratio determines brightness for extended objects (galaxies, nebulas).

... I think.
06-05-2018, 03:50 PM - 1 Like   #13
Custom User Title
Loyal Site Supporter
FozzFoster's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Alberta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,803
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
Long answer to a short question.... sorry! Also, I'm by no means an expert - I just have an opinion.
I really appreciate your insight @interested_observer! Thanks so much for writing this all out for me.
I definitely need to do more research in the area, but I must say I am impressed with your work!
All the best,
06-05-2018, 05:42 PM   #14
Veteran Member
SSGGeezer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Indiana, U.S.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,845
So my 50-135 at f/3 or f/4 will have a 30mm+ aperture at 135mm for sucking in lots of light doing Astro-photography? I like those numbers!

---------- Post added 06-05-18 at 05:45 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
So, to directly answer you question. The 11-18 would not be a bad choice. I have seen excellent results with the 16/f2 in the Astrophotography area. But, for a crop sensor body, I would probably tend to go with the 18-35/f1.8; then the 16/f2; followed by the 11-18/f2.8. Sorta of ranked by the aperture, but also balanced by focal length and overall versatility of the lens. Also,I have not seen any astro shots from the 11-18, so I'm just kind of assuming no coma and it performs overall very well.
The 11-18 has not yet been seen in the wild. They were looking to release it this summer but the delays in the new DFA 50 1.4 seem to have pushed it back. If any pros or ambassadors for Pentax have one for testing, they are apparently under an NDA.
06-05-2018, 09:51 PM - 4 Likes   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,699
QuoteOriginally posted by FozzFoster Quote
This is great information @interested_observer - thanks for sharing this!

So, my claim that "the new DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 will be the go-to for astro shots" is probably incorrect then, eh?

Also, you mention that the 10mm f/2.8 (3.5) is somewhat small and your suggested lenses begin at 16mm f/2 (8).
At what physical aperture would you say is bare minimum for astro?
I've done astro with a kit lens 18mm @ f/3.5 (5.14) with okay results, so the I take it the DA* 11-18mm f/2.8 @ 18mm f/2.8 (6.43) won't be terrible but not the best? Do you think you'd recommend this lens for astro work?
I was running short on time earlier, as I had to get on the road to see Mom who just had some neurosurgery. But, here is the last of the information I have.Here are two links from a PhD and professional astronomer (who shoots Canon). Above, I alluded to comparing two lenses with respect to their respective physical open aperture - areas. Link #1 above has this ....

QuoteQuote:
Photographers are trained that more light gathering means a faster f-ratio. After all, exposure is directly related to the f-ratio. But f-ratio tells light density in the focal plane, not total light received from the subject. Light gathering from the subject is actually proportional to lens aperture area times exposure time. What this means is that for greater impact with night sky photography, buy the largest aperture lens you can afford. This means the fastest f/ratio in a given focal length. Note, this does not contradict my statement about f/ratio above. For example, a 15 mm f/2.8 lens has an aperture diameter of 15/2.8 = 5.4 mm, an aperture which is smaller than the dark-adapted human eye. A 35 mm f/2.8 lens has an aperture diameter of 35/2.8 = 12.5 mm and collects over 5 times, (12.5/5.4)^2 = 5.3, as much light from the subject even though the f-ratios are the same. A 35 mm f/1.4 has an aperture diameter of 35/1.4 = 25.0 mm and collects (25/5.4)^2 = 21 times more light than a 15 mm f/2.8 lens. That would be a huge impact in light gathering in night photography when light levels are so low.
In the second link, he has some lens recommendations - for Pentax.
QuoteQuote:
Lenses for Pentax cameras:
  • Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Pentax DSLR Cameras
Budget lenses for Pentax: the manual focus only Samyang/Rokinon:
  • Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC Wide-Angle Lens for Pentax
  • Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC Wide-Angle Lens for Pentax
  • Samyang 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC Lens for Pentax K
You will note that he tends to go for slightly longer focal lengths, in order to gain 1) the f1.4 apertures and 2) the longer focal lengths coupled with the faster apertures that generate the larger physical aperture sizes, that are able to collect the greatest amount of light. This works very well, but if you are going to want to shoot wide angle landscapes, that essentially puts you into the need to stitch (and makes your post processing a bit more complex). This means, that with longer focal lengths, you will be taking more images in order to cover the same area as a wide angle lens would shoot. That's the main compromise that you will be facing. You are trading the convenience of a wide angle lens against collecting more light - which means you will be out in the middle of the night shooting more images, taking a longer time (bring spare batteries). Unfortunately, there is no free lunch here.

Using his analysis approach (aperture area) the Sigma 18-25/f1.8 at 18mm has an aperture diameter of 18 / 1.8 = 10. A Rokinon 24/f1.4 has an aperture diameter of 24 / 1.4 = 17. Comparing the two you get (17 / 10)^2 = 2.9 Thus the Rokinon gathers 2.9 times more light than the Sigma.

I think you have everything that I have come across in my search on the topic.

___________________________________

Well, I lied - I thought of something else.

Taking a concept from the spreadsheet I linked to a couple of posts above, you can extend this overall concept by factoring in exposure time. Using Pentax equipment - you have two approaches with respect to exposure time.
  • Exposure time with out tracking - Using the fact that the wider the lens, the more exposure time you can get, somewhat offsets the advantage the longer focal length provides (in terms of a larger physical aperture). Here is a link to a site that provides a really nice calculator.
  • Using the Sigma 18-25/f1.8 at 18mm (on a crop body) you get about 13 seconds (crop 1.5, 16MP (K5), and I use a pixel tolerance of 4). Going to a wider angle lens - say a Rokinon 10mm f2.8, you get about a 20 second exposure with out trailing. So, the wider angle lens provides and additional 7 seconds of exposure but at a smaller physical aperture size.
  • You could create an comparison around - aperture*exposure seconds - Sigma 18-35/f1.8 = (18/1.8)*13 = 130 as compared to the Rokinon 10/f2.8 - (10/2.8)*20 = 71
That provides a slightly better comparison analysis in terms of trying to balance the wider angle lens, which gets a longer exposure time (without star trailing), against a longer focal length, providing a larger aperture, but with a shorter exposure time.

The other approach is to use the exposure time that AstroTracer gives you. I've been using 50 to 60 seconds for a 18mm lens (crop body). With a wider lens, you could probably perhaps 90 seconds (just a guess). So, let's see how that turns out.
  • You could create an comparison around - aperture*exposure seconds - Sigma 18-35/f1.8 = (18/1.8)*50 = 500 as compared to the Rokinon 10/f2.8 - (10/2.8)*90 = 321
Unfortunately, the aperture size is really the dominate factor in these comparisons - pretty much regardless of how you look at the problem.

You can still use the wide angle lenses, you just will not be able to capture the Milky Way as bright as a longer focal length lens will capture it.


Last edited by interested_observer; 06-05-2018 at 10:28 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, folks, k-mount, lens, lots of light, night, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPS/Astrotracer versus faster lens recommendations jtkzoe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 08-12-2016 11:20 PM
K1 astrotracer with ultrawide lens Question cam_abyss Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 15 07-22-2016 11:18 AM
Abstract Another night with the astrotracer SunValley Post Your Photos! 5 05-19-2016 09:39 AM
Night CRETAN NIGHT - Milky Way with K5 + Astrotracer SOENKESCHULZE Post Your Photos! 10 11-18-2015 05:34 AM
Best photo advice lurchlarson Photographic Technique 48 01-27-2010 12:47 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top