1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Morning all...

    I've been looking at getting some lenses specifically for portrait use, mainly for photographing my children.
    I've been using my tamron 70-300 as I like the bokeh effect when I use it outside. However it's not so good inside, mainly as I can't get the distance required to fit a child into the frame and sometimes it hunts trying to get focus. Not to mention having to whack iso up to get nice bright photos. I have done some googling over the last week and from I saw the most popular options are 50mm prime, 85mm prime or 24-70...
    I had a 50mm a few years ago but didn't use it much (as i was using a dx body) but now I'm using full frame so wondering if this will be the best option? Primes will probably be better inside for light too...i was pondering over the 85mm but then I wonder if I'll be in the same boat as the 70-300 - as in struggling to frame a whole child in small spaces/focusing, so would the 50mm be a better choice?
    Finally the 24-70 would cover all distances between a 50 and 85 so would that be better? I don't have money for a Nikon but Tamron and Sigma do one ... Bokeh is pretty important to me as I personally love it.
    Excuse the thinking out loud post lol hoping someone who's had good experience with these lenses can help me :) Thanks in advance ...
     
  2. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc

    Messages:
    14,920
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes



    Bokeh can be both gear and situations dependent.

    GEAR that will enhance it
    • large aperture lenses with a minimum of 9
      blades — for the quality of it.
    • longer focal length
    • the camera has nothing to do with it!

    SITUATIONS that will enhance it
    • closer distance subject to lens and
    • greater distance between subject and BG
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    maarten.dhaese, ejm and woof woof like this.
  3. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,543
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you are struggling to frame with the 70/300 (at the 70 end?) then getting an 85 won't help and a 24/70 will only be useful for part of its range, so I would suggest a 50 or maybe a 35 is going to be useful. 50's, even own brand, especially 2nd hand are great value for money.
    Matt
     
    ejm likes this.
  4. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    15,103
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Of course an 85mm would put you in the same boat as a 70-300mm when trying to frame so I assume you'll be looking for something between 24 and 70mm :D

    Kodiak's post is excellent but I personally wouldn't write off lenses with fewer aperture blades, the shape of the blades and the effect they produce and the look they give also needs to be considered. It's all highly personal :D What I like you might not.

    Another thing to consider is the aperture you'll be shooting at, personally I don't often like razor thin depth of field portraits with next to nothing sharp so I'd probably be staying away from f1.x and going for deeper depth of field and once you pass f2.8 maybe a zoom could do the job and be more versatile than a prime.

    So, my advice is to think about the focal length and aperture you want and not fixate too much on wide aperture primes, make a list of possible purchases, research their spec and look at example pictures.
     
    MatBin and ejm like this.
  5. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    See this is what I was thinking an 85mm might leave me in the same situation... I can get lovely close ups but not a whole child ...
    I had a great 50mm 1.8 G wish I'd kept it, they're more expensive second hand now than what I paid new haha :)
     
  6. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,500
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I picked up an 85mm f/1.8 for portrait use with a 7DII which has an APS-C (crop) sensor. It's just great for head & shoulders shots, but indoors is too long for conveniently framing a full-length portrait, even of a child. For this I would probably pick up a 50mm or 35mm f/1.4. The f/1.4 helps with focusing speed in lower light and with background blur.
     
    ejm likes this.
  7. newbie1

    newbie1

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Newbie1
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sounds like framing is key consideration? The are phone apps that have field of view simulation, might be worth playing with that to see which focal length will work best where you want to use it? 24-70 will give more framing versatility and pretty good bokeh, whereas 35 or 50 prime will likely win on bokeh and better in low light at the expense of shallower depth of field. If the light is very low you may want to add some flash to help.
     
    ejm likes this.
  8. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Even with full frame at 70mm I'm struggling to get my under 3s in the frame... perhaps a 50mm would be a good first purchase and if I want something quicker in 85mm area then go for that...

    Interesting, never knew about the apps, I'll have a nose... the 24-70 will definitely be most versatile but as you say the primes will be fast in low light which is also crucial photographing speedy little humans :)
     
    newbie1 likes this.
  9. cambsno

    cambsno

    Messages:
    12,779
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Budget and what focal length? From the sounds of it a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 would be best.
     
  10. MatBin

    MatBin

    Messages:
    2,543
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Bear in mind also the af points on the sensor behave differently depending on the aperture of the lens e.g. central point may behave as a very sensitive cross point with an f2.8 but not so with a "slower" lens like an f4.
    Matt
     
    ejm likes this.
  11. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's for inside shots so something quite short but not wide to avoid distortion ... budget wise around £500 perhaps more if I can be patient and wait and save lol ... I appreciate that that would put the Nikon 24-70 out of my budget but I have seen reviews on tamron and sigma versions which are in my budget area ... if I had said zoom I would image id only be using the latter end anyway ...
     
  12. newbie1

    newbie1

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Newbie1
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Wish I had the experience and kit I have now when ours were small :)

    A bit off your question but maybe relevant - for a long time I didn't like flash as results from on camera were horrible. Now I'm using it more and more, definitely helps after some practice. Indoors like this I would exposure for ambient or close to then add a little flash bounced off the wall or ceiling so no hard shadows and not at all obvious there was flash. Hope this helps, and good luck :)
     
    ejm likes this.
  13. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Ahhh I know I bet I'll be in the same boat by the time I master this haha :)
    Yes I tend to avoid on camera flash as the harsh shadows are horrid, that said you have reminded me I have 3 flash guns and light stick somewhere so I should experiment with these and bouncing light around and actually use them! :)
     
    newbie1 likes this.
  14. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    824
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The Bokeh Effect you like is 'disassociated' out-of-focus back ground.. with pronounced high-lights.. depending on your own interpretation of what Bokeh should be.

    Indoor issue is the close focus of a longer lens being greater than the subject range out-doors... compounded by the small space leaving little room for distance behind the subject to fall out of the DoF zone behind the focus distance.

    Your camera, D750, Full-Frame sensor? Lack of crop-factor will mean that longer lenses, give a wider angle of view (than they would on DX) for indoors, so you should be better able to fill the frame at closer subject distances, but, longer lenses tend to give shallower DoF for any given aperture, and have further close focus distances.

    NOW... before looking too closely at gear, lets look at technique.... Fast aperture primes are the go-to must have techno solution for 'bokeh' backgrounds... folk don't seem to know, or can be bothered to find out how it actually happens, and expect lens to do it for them.. and when that's not enough a fast aperture....BUT subject is all.....

    Depth of Field... is a % of the focus distance; and a 'zone' 1/3 in-front, 2/3 behind the focus distance... NOTE, this is the trick... the Subject distance DOES NOT need to be the 'Focus Distance'....

    DoF is a % of focus distance.... shorten the focus distance, you will reduce the DoF.... make sense? This little nugget then offers a 'trick'; if you want to throw a back-ground OoF, you don't 'need' or necessarily 'want' a razor thin DoF, from a long lens and or super-fast aperture.. what you 'want' is your subject 'in' the focus zone.... and your back-ground NOT in the focus zone.... DoF gets smaller closer you focus.... so DONT focus 'on' your subject! Focus infront of them! This does 'beg' turning 'off' the ruddy red dots and going manual.... no.. NOT manual exposure, that's only a tiny bit of the 'manual' control on a camera.. 'manual-focus'... turn off AF.... NOW you ca decide where to focus, and don't have to have the machine trying to ut a red-dot bead on some actual target IT thinks you should focus on.... you now CAN focs infront of your subject... DoF will consequently reduce 'like' using a faster aperture, and the back-ground will fall OoF far sooner behind your subject, any unwanted DoF 'wasted' on free space infront of them where there's nothing in the scene for it to 'resolve'.

    It is exactly the same technique as used by Landscape photographers to achieve maximum DoF in a big landscape.... backwards! And it is known as 'Selective-Focus'... and it's a fantastic bit of 'technique', and using it, you can start getting 'exactly' what you want in focus, and what you don't, not. You don't 'need' such amazingly fast aperture lenses to start getting very good OoF back-grounds, and you can get much 'better' OoF back-grounds, without the little niggles of chasing ever razor thinner DoF to get it, and noses and ears gong fuzzy, because without breaking that red-dot target acquisition dependency and arbitrary 1/3 ahead. 2/3 behind, or understanding the Camera to subject to back-ground distance relationships, you wont get the degree of back-ground dissociation until you are using very wide apertures and getting razor DoF.

    THAT bit of technique sussed, you can start to get decent disassociated back-grounds, almost at will, with relatively 'short' lenses and relatively conservative apertures... and exploit DoF to keep eyes and nose in the zone of 'acceptable sharpness'.

    Leads then to recognizing that even if the DoF drops off at a few cm behind a subjects ears, at a focus range of 3 feet, the back-ground STILL has to be at least as far behind the subject as the camera is infront of it, before you start to 'see' obviously blurred disassociated back-grounds... let alone what you might perceive as 'Bokeh' effects....... which tend to need 'high-lights' in the back-ground scene to show that fuzzyness and provide high-light rings..... sun-light through hedges, will tend to give more of that 'effect' than an evenly lit wall or curtain.....

    AND.. this is absolutely CRUCIAL to your objective; knowing what makes that 'bokeh' effect and what influences it, and how much is NOT in the kit in your hand but the scene infront of you .... longer lenses, faster apertures it will remain hit and miss whether you get any of it, and you are likely chasing disappointment.... learn how, and more importantly WHEN you 'may' be able to get it.. with the kit you got, and you stand much better chance of getting results that please you.

    And BIG chunk of that will be in recognizing the sort of back-ground scene that is conducive to Bokeh effects.... and how the camera-subject-backgroud distance effects the degree of back-ground disassociation...

    So, pulling that into the more confined space of an indoor setting; F that's the effect you hope to achieve.... a different lens isn't likely to serve it on a plate..... and even with a different lens, you are likely to have to start employing studio techniques, and setting up the shot, arrangng camera-subject-back-ground to get the sort of distance between each that is likely to help you get OoF back-grounds, then probably stage setting that, to get a back-ground that will more pleasantly OoF, and if you want Bokeh, contains the high-lights that will give you those bokeh rings....

    ON TO LENSES!

    In days of yore, studio portrait photographers did not use 35mm 'small format' cameras. To many even 120 roll-film 'medum format' cameras were a little 'small', and preferred large format sheet film cameras! So, even with a Full-Frame DSLR you are't at an enormous advantage or portrait shots and effects, even in the oft larger space of an actual studio, let alone a domestic kitchen or dining room! Here the crop-factor effectively stretching shorter lenses, and giving greater relative DoF at closer focus ranges, is something of an advantage, BUT, heed you are working against the odds in the margns of the cameras comfort zone.

    50mm is/was 'standard angle' for a 35mm or full-frame camera. Anything shorter is wide angle, longer tele-photo. The Nifty-Fifty, that came as standard with so many Manual-Focus film era SLR's was always loathed as much as it was loved. As a sales feature, low f-numbers were something manufacturers chased almost as obsessively in the film-only era as they do mega-pixies now.... they gave wonderfully bright view-finders... which was handy when they were tiny, and had a chunk of glass and a mirror behind them dimming the view! And they DID with the small-format of 35mm go a log way to helping folk achieve the shallow-focus effects that were obtained with Medium Format cameras with MUCH more conservative apertures..... Just as a idea my Ziess Ikonta 120 'folder' has a 105mm 'standard' lens with a mere f6.3 maximum aperture.... that would tend to make even the rather 'slow' f5.6 at the wide end of a modern kit' zoom look 'a bit quick'... b-u-t.. lacking complicated multi-element design and even more complex 'zoom' movements....that would still focus down to under 3 feet.... without exploiting the bellows slide like a macro-rig!

    However.... 50mm lenses were oft critasised for being a bit of a one trick dog as far as wide-open shallow-focus effects went, whilst being rather either-nor, for composition, and a bit too tight for landscape and too wide for portrait, whilst always offering rather 'boring' and unflattering perspective; the 'favoured' portrait lens for a 35mm camera was 'around' 120mm; at portrait framing distances, that tended to offer a slightly more flattering perspective for noses and ears...

    You already have that range in the 70-300 and aren't getting the 'effect' you hope for, and struggling with near focus distances..... a prime may give you a slightly smaller near focus, and faster DoF razoring aperture, BUT... without tackling the topic at source, and learning to exploit DoF and breaking AF dependency to get 'selective' focus rather than simple 'shallow' focus.

    With that sort of logic, I would start by getting some-one with a GCSE in Maths to check your bank-account. before dong anything! ;-) 85mm is NOT between 24 and 70! lol! be NICE... I could afford SO many new toys if it was! But still.

    I think you are chasing 'gear' to get 'effects' when in this stance, you need know-how.

    You list a few wides in your profile; but not the 70-300 you mentioned; so I don't know if you have a more normal range zoom? That would probably be the more appropriate, and a 24-70, 'ish' probably your best bet, rather than a dedicated 'portrait' or prime lens.

    I used a relatively 'slow' f3.5, 35-70 'zoom' as my general purpose do it all lens for many year, including the 'portraiture' required of my C&G course. (all though I did use, similarly 'slow' f3.5, 70-210 or some of that) I gave away the f1.8 50mm! It was so seldom any use for much!

    It's your call, and a moderate range 'standard' zoom, i the 28-80ish region, IF you don't have anything in that area already, is probably a better 'all-round' buy; and almost certainly best VFM for the amount of likely use you may get from one in other circumstances, AND for 'occasional' portraits, likely more than helpful enough, IF you have the know-how vis exploiting selective focus, without which anything else is likely to be no greater help, and potentially a lot of hindrance.

    So I would REALLY advocate you go get the know-how, not another toy; learn to exploit DoF, learn to take charge of the camera and make it do what you want, rather than relying on the Auto-Focus, and other 'gadgets' to do what you 'hope' for you, by serendipity.

    Selective Focus.. not shallow focus.. technique not toys!
     
    ejm likes this.
  15. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Wow what a reply thank you Mike!
    Lots for me to think about then ... I will be trying that focus technique you mention... I won't be discussing all your points here as there is a lot to take in and I want to re read and take it in properly later today however I did just want to point out the 24-70mm comment I made, i know 85 isn't on that range, what I (admittedly without making it clear what lenses I had to hand) meant was that that lens would fill the void between my 15-30 and 70-300 zooms, so if I did particularly want something at 85 I have that option with the latter zoom, albeit not in prime format haha :)
     
  16. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    824
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'm intregued why you have that gap TBH.
    Interesting you have fish and UWA.... and longer tele, but nothing in the middle... It is so often the 'most used' and most useful framing range.....
    BTW... how do you find the 10.5 Fish? Does it get that much use? Do you wish for more fish? I always felt a little short-changed by my 12 on film, not having the full-fish-dish, prompting the siggy 'Full-Round' for widgetal... That and the UWA tend to get so little 'real' use, I rather resent I spent so much money on either, for the 18-55 kit to be the most used, without an 'obvious' contender for something significantly better or more useful!
    Meanwhile.. I keep checking myself, when I find that the 29mm prime is yet again, back on the front of my all metal, all clockwork, all prime M42 Sigma MK1 film camera.... and I pause for thought " WHAT! Am I lugging this pig-iron around for, when I have my little Olympus XA2 35/35 compact in my pocket ANYWAY!" Lol! 35mm is such a 'great' focal length for 35mm/full-frame, I find.
     
  17. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Tbh Mike I've not had much call for the mid range to date ...
    I've done a lot of landscape related work and track side photos so perhaps my most used lenses are the uwa and the zoom. I had a 50mm which wasn't getting used a lot so I sold it. However since then I've had children and become interested in different types of photography which do call for these lenses :) ... the fish eye gets used occassionally. I always wanted one as I love to experiment and my husband got me one several years ago. No it's not used a lot but it is one I come back too every now and again, usually for fun, it worked seamlessly with my dx and fx and I wouldn't part with it :)
    My uwa is getting less use these days but perhaps I will go back to it ... don't want to make the same mistake I did with my 50, I do wish I hadn't sold that Haha!
    I have a 28mm prime but not 100% happy with that...and no kit lens as I just purchased the body having already got a collection of lenses.
    I'm trying to use my camera more for the children as I've found myself being lazy and just snapping away with my phone ... as you say why lug a huge camera and lens set up plus additional kit when you can carry something in your pocket *shame on me* haha :)
     
    Teflon-Mike likes this.
  18. cambsno

    cambsno

    Messages:
    12,779
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Had the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and used its a couple of hundred so maybe get that and a 1.8 50mm for £150 and you have two good lenses (or even the 1.4). The tamron was good although not the sharpest wide open. I personally love primes, nice and light and great IQ.
     
    ejm likes this.
  19. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Ahhh that's a good idea thanks! I'll look into that tamron ... think I saw a review of it against the sigma 24-70 and the reviewer preferred the tamron :)
     
  20. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    824
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    They get you like that!
    It was the idea of loosing the fish that hindered me switching systems for probably a decade! lol!
    Has now been remounted to M42 for the all-prime 'film' outfit.. so still loath to loose it!
    But BOY!.. getting the Full-Round.... it's like tasting a cordon-bleau wild river trout after thinking Chippy cod was quite nice! The full fish IS very much more demanding to work with... but the "THIS is what I have been missing all these years!" full-fish full 180 FoV is that sort of 'Wow' that may yet beg me to try and rise to exploiting it a bit more!
    Leap into the wider end of Rectalniar UWA have to say, I have found rather underwhelming; still demanding to use and use well.... but oft more frustrating.. probably as expectations higher.
    Intriguing you say you got into them for track-side... it was more restricted access of bike events and shows that initially got me searching for more 'wide'
    Another resonance; before marred life.... no that's not a typo..... lol..... slippery slope 'in' to more enthusiastic photography has left me with a legacy of an enormous number of prosaic feaux-tog-raffy pictures, as I started to do more and more for ts own sake, and shoot stuff I was ever less interested in.....
    KIDS gave me a reason to get the camera out.... and robbed all my chances to set it up properly! lol!
    Photo's I look back on with most affection though; most shot with that XA2 compact, or as they fell into the price range I could afford after buying nappies in bulk! A Digi-Compact! First of them beng a pretty uninspiring 1.3Mpx offering! YET.. with a little know-how, when chance and opportunity arose, to get a 'better' shot, still managed to get some with them... you can do an awful lot with very very little gear and a little know how.
    Probably did more clever stuff with the compacts than I did with the SLR's when I had chance to get one out, and so oft shot with a 'normal range' zoom, wide or the fish on a 'grab'em while I got-em' market stall basis!
    REVERE THE SNAP SHOT
    More interest, more honesty of intent, so much less pretension shown in the genre, if you ca do it with just a 'little' elan, you stand so much chance of making pictures that ultimately have so much more value than yet another prosaic landscape, or picture of a race bike/car/person you have to scratch your head to remember who, where, when!
    If you get them pictures with a camera-phone? So what? You make pictures looking through the camera, not at it, sod the settings, worry about the subject! Pictures your product, that is what will be looked at, that is what will be judged, not the ruddy exif data!

    Can I interest you in a 35/35 film camera? ;-) .... 'ts worth the mention; that little XA2 is point and shoot simple to use and full-frame loveliness! Daughter is an -phone junkie dong her O&A level photo courses; she was 'hooked' when she tried it! She'd spent a year 'mocking' my old antiques and tryig to show me 'how simple' a phone cam is to use.... err... nope.. its NOT! I got lost n the 'aps' and big fingers on a touch screen, looking for 'real' buttons! lol! XA2 compact? Grab, slide the cover open as I lift it to my eye compose, and shoot! That's IT. Accomplished faster than the daughter can put the security code into her smart-phone, let aloe scroll through the aps to get the camera function ;up'! Lol! Oh-Kay... so I have to get the fl developed, and then scan it, before I can post the pics to face-broke... but... I am a little tired of photo's of cups of capachino and 'alerts' saying "Guess where I am?"popping up! TBH..... err.. Costa s the answer... a-g-a-i-n.... how many photos of frothy beverages can you take in one week! And you moan about all my photo's of old motorbikes?!?! at LEAST they are different motorbikes! lol!

    Slight departure, but venture into F&C and have a ponder; you can pick up some cracking 35/35's for stupidly little money if you avoid SLR's. XA2's that have a very solid cult following rarely command more than £25. I have a loverly little true focal length Konika C35, which has a little more manual control with aperture priority AE, and a cracking f2.8 lens, and cameras like that are often £10 cheap! Best of them, like the Rolie or Lieca range finders are rather more desirable, but the tiny Minox 35' 'pop-out', is wonderful high end non SLR that was a £500 camera when new in the 90's, you can still pick up, now, for perhaps £50! That is just as small and easy to use as the XA2, with SLR 'beating'image quality!.... if you fancy tackling something 'different' and a little more engaging than an i-phone, but similarly and potentially more usefully 'propper photography'.. could be worth a look..... big boon that batteries last five or ten years in these things too! You dont have to fret looking at a bar meter they are going to 'die' on you!

    But? Interests, needs, and expectations change..... but a middle range zoom is a damn useful bit of kit and I always find myself coming back to that mild wide range for oh-so-much.....
     
    ejm likes this.
  21. ejm

    ejm

    Messages:
    176
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks everyone for all your replies, certainly lots for me to think about and refer back to. Your answers are all appreciated :)
     
  22. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    19,224
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Mike alluded to this, but I'll see if I can spell it out simpler.

    If you want whole body shots isolated from an OoF background. You don't need a new lens, you need a very large house.

    I'm presuming that's not an option within your budget, which leaves compromise. I'd vote for a 35mm Art and 85mm 1.8 for a reasonable sum, or just a nifty 50 if you're going cheap.
     
    MatBin likes this.
  23. SwissDot

    SwissDot

    Messages:
    92
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I plumped for a 50mm 1.8 (nifty fifty) a few years ago to primarily take portrait shots of my kids... Although I have a crop (APS-C) body so I struggled to fit subjects in the frame. Last year I bought the Canon 40mm 2.8 pancake lens. Obviously not quite as fast but really pleased with it, I find it gives me that bit more room in the frame than the 50mm, but I find it just as sharp. Still gives nice DoF. Build is better also. I find I keep the 40mm on the camera more often than not.
     
  24. Moey

    Moey

    Messages:
    655
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I've been using the Sigma art 50mm and 35mm on a D750 body to photograph my five month old. I have the 24-70, but the images coming out with the Siggys at 1.4 just look some much nicer. 35mm Siggy art is what i'd recommend. Or, photograph them with a blank wall in the background, you won't need to worry too much about blurring it out... :)
     
    Phil V likes this.
  25. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,410
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not gone through all the posts so I may be repeating, but sounds like a 50mm f1.8g would be ideal, or maybe even the Sigma 35mm Art.

    I'd also recommend bounced flash indoors, unless you can shoot with the subject near a bright window.
     
    Phil V likes this.

Share This Page