• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Comparative review - Swarovski CL B 8x30 vs Kowa Genesis 8x33 vs NL Pure 10x42 (2 Viewers)

E_S

Active member
United States
Good day, birders and optics enthusiasts,

The Swaro CL-B Companion binoculars were recently on sale at one of the retailers here in the US, so I decided to try out a pair, to see if I could replace the Kowa 8x33 Genesis I own, with an eye on saving weight. Not to say that the Genesis bins are a heavyweight in absolute terms, but after acquiring the NL Pure 10x42 last fall with which I am greatly pleased, I thought I could get away with something lighter for long hikes as, ahem, a companion instrument. The NLs have made me somewhat of a Swarovski fanboy, so try out I did. I will spare the reader the annoyance of reading the full review, and jump to the conclusion right away: the Companion-Bs are a practically unusable instrument without glasses. This is a deal-killer for me, so I am returning them right away. Still, I will share my impressions of these binoculars in case there are people here who wear glasses always.

I have previously reviewed the other two bins from the current trio over here.

Intro
------

To start, I was quite impressed with the CLs immediately after opening the box. Very slim (too slim, as I learned later!), very solidly built for their size, and very nice to hold. The only flaw that immediately jumped out was that the focus wheel was stiff and uneven. This certainly could be due to sample variation (plus, my copy was a demo version and not completely brand new). In the afternoon sun that day, the Companions seemed very sharp. They did show chromatic aberration, but I thought it was not overly annoying. When focused properly and with eyes set properly, it largely disappeared, though I could still see it in the out-of-focus background when looking through a tree outside. Besides the weight, my other concern with the Kowa Genesis 8x33 was its quite narrow sweet spot. The CL-Bs have a much wider sweet spot although their field of view is narrower than that of the Kowa's.

But then, disaster struck.... I arrived to my home base and I tried out these bins next to Kowa 8x33. As the sun set and dusk set in, I noticed that the image in Kowas is almost an order of magnitude more relaxing to look at. The image in the NLs was better still, but I noticed that I could use either the Kowa or the NL at this hour, while I could not use the CL-B at all. The natural question that arose: why? Do the extra 3mm in the objective diameter really make that much of a difference?

As it turns out, the problem was largely caused by eyecup ergonomics. The eyecups on the CL-B are so narrow it is impossible to press them against the eye-socket -- they end up touching the eye itself rather than the eye socket, which is painful, so the natural impulse is to hold them entirely in one's hands, at a slight distance from the eyes. Now, holding the binoculars like that removes the whatever stability is provided by pressing the oculars against the eye sockets, and it turns out that that extra stability is a big deal, even at 8x power. That, coupled with slightly lower contrast and with slightly smaller exit pupil means that the 8x30 Companion-Bs binoculars are dramatically less usable in the dark compared to a full-size 8x32 or 8x33, while still being uncomfortably shaky even in bright sun. With glasses on, the stability of the Companions improves, but I simply do not enjoy watching the world through so many layers of glass! If the Companions were perfect optically, I might have considered keeping them, but their optics, while good, are not perfect.

Optical observations
--------------------

1. Chromatic aberration. Not overly objectionable, but present at a significantly higher level than the Kowa or the NL Pure. The amount of CA one sees the CLs depends on eye placement. If the eyes are placed perfectly, there is very little CA, but otherwise one sees CA, even in the center of the image. This can get annoying when scanning trees for warblers and similar.

2. Sharpness. The CL-B sweet spot size is impressive, with nearly entire field being sharp. The center sharpness is very good, though the Kowa seems to provide very slightly more detail in the absolute center due to slightly higher real magnification (the AllBinos review listed Genesis' real magnification as 8.2x, and my rough pixel measurements give 8.25x).

3. Contrast. The contrast on the CL-B is slightly lower than on the Kowa. Both optics pale in comparison to the NL Pure (see photos attached).

4. Field of view. The 7.6 degrees on the CL-B is just a bit constraining for me. The Genesis 8x33 has a larger FOV (8 degrees), which I deem satisfactory for an 8-power. In terms of apparent field of view, both pale in comparison to the NL Pures, but I find that the Kowa view is sufficiently wide.

5. Distortion is lower than on the Kowa Genesis, but I could live with either.

6. Color. Typical Swarovski color -- very neutral, with good transmission in the blue side of the spectrum. Some people don't like this, but I like Swarovski colors. I find they allow for good separation of color on the subject when the sky is overcast. By contrast, some binos (like the Genesis here, but especially some Zeisses) are known to compress the color palette to the yellow-greens, reducing the scene to dull-brownish hues under overcast conditions, which is not my preference.

Ergonomics
------------

As mentioned, the narrow eyecups that press against my eyeball are a deal breaker for me. I do not think this is due to my eye sockets being too large or anything like that. My face is quite normal-sized. I believe that these binoculars (as many other compacts on the market probably) are designed for use with glasses, such that one can press them against glass for stability. I find that very unfortunate. In the bright sun, one often wears sunglasses or shaded prescription glasses that hinder the view. In the dusk, one wants every last bit of light, and so one takes off the glasses. But the slim instruments look sexy, so they sell.

Other than the eyecups, the focus wheel has serious problems for a $1,000-priced pair of binoculars. This particular CLs wheel is a disaster. I do not understand why it is so difficult for manufacturers to design a good focus wheel. The Kowa focus wheel is almost perfect -- if only it were less difficult to use one-handed. The NL Pures' focus wheel is a lot more usable with one hand, but my copy has some play (I am reluctant to turn them in to Swarovski for service as I am concerned they could make it too stiff).

Diopter. The CLs have been criticized for their center diopter being difficult to set without removing the eye from the oculars. I managed to do so somehow without much issue (it probably helped that one has to hold them at a distance to begin with, heh). With either Swarovski, I found that setting the diopter is "set once and forget" experience, while the Kowa is more fidgety, likely due to its narrow sweet spot fooling either one or the other eye while adjusting the diopter.

Conclusion
-----------

This experience was interesting for me. I learned that I will probably never own a pair of true pocket binoculars as I simply cannot tolerate narrow eyecups. Also, I learned that, despite what is often said online, a photo through the optics with a simple phone camera (I used an iPhone) actually does provide a good yardstick for contrast, particularly if one takes a picture of the exact same scene in rapid succession through different optics. The "through-the-lens" pictures are generally a less reliable indicator of color (most phone cameras will apply auto white-balance that cannot be turned off), and obviously are not useful at all for things like ease-of-view.

Attachments
-------------
The first three were taken just before sunset (contrast differences visible in the shadows), the other three in the afternoon. Each series is in this order: 1) CL-B, 2) Genesis, 3) NL Pure.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3323.JPG
    IMG_3323.JPG
    2.6 MB · Views: 188
  • IMG_3324.JPG
    IMG_3324.JPG
    2.8 MB · Views: 178
  • IMG_3325.JPG
    IMG_3325.JPG
    3.1 MB · Views: 177
  • IMG_3365.JPG
    IMG_3365.JPG
    2.7 MB · Views: 173
  • IMG_3366.JPG
    IMG_3366.JPG
    2.9 MB · Views: 165
  • IMG_3367.JPG
    IMG_3367.JPG
    3.2 MB · Views: 171
Last edited:
Good day, birders and optics enthusiasts,

The Swaro CL-B Companion binoculars were recently on sale at one of the retailers here in the US, so I decided to try out a pair, to see if I could replace the Kowa 8x33 Genesis I own, with an eye on saving weight. Not to say that the Genesis bins are a heavyweight in absolute terms, but after acquiring the NL Pure 10x42 last fall with which I am greatly pleased, I thought I could get away with something lighter for long hikes as, ahem, a companion instrument. The NLs have made me somewhat of a Swarovski fanboy, so try out I did. I will spare the reader the annoyance of reading the full review, and jump to the conclusion right away: the Companion-Bs are a practically unusable instrument without glasses. This is a deal-killer for me, so I am returning them right away. Still, I will share my impressions of these binoculars in case there are people here who wear glasses always.

I have previously reviewed the other two bins from the current trio over here.

Intro
------

To start, I was quite impressed with the CLs immediately after opening the box. Very slim (too slim, as I learned later!), very solidly built for their size, and very nice to hold. The only flaw that immediately jumped out was that the focus wheel was stiff and uneven. This certainly could be due to sample variation (plus, my copy was a demo version and not completely brand new). In the afternoon sun that day, the Companions seemed very sharp. They did show chromatic aberration, but I thought it was not overly annoying. When focused properly and with eyes set properly, it largely disappeared, though I could still see it in the out-of-focus background when looking through a tree outside. Besides the weight, my other concern with the Kowa Genesis 8x33 was its quite narrow sweet spot. The CL-Bs have a much wider sweet spot although their field of view is narrower than that of the Kowa's.

But then, disaster struck.... I arrived to my home base and I tried out these bins next to Kowa 8x33. As the sun set and dusk set in, I noticed that the image in Kowas is almost an order of magnitude more relaxing to look at. The image in the NLs was better still, but I noticed that I could use either the Kowa or the NL at this hour, while I could not use the CL-B at all. The natural question that arose: why? Do the extra 3mm in the objective diameter really make that much of a difference?

As it turns out, the problem was largely caused by eyecup ergonomics. The eyecups on the CL-B are so narrow it is impossible to press them against the eye-socket -- they end up touching the eye itself rather than the eye socket, which is painful, so the natural impulse is to hold them entirely in one's hands, at a slight distance from the eyes. Now, holding the binoculars like that removes the whatever stability is provided by pressing the oculars against the eye sockets, and it turns out that that extra stability is a big deal, even at 8x power. That, coupled with slightly lower contrast and with slightly smaller exit pupil means that the 8x30 Companion-Bs binoculars are dramatically less usable in the dark compared to a full-size 8x32 or 8x33, while still being uncomfortably shaky even in bright sun. With glasses on, the stability of the Companions improves, but I simply do not enjoy watching the world through so many layers of glass! If the Companions were perfect optically, I might have considered keeping them, but their optics, while good, are not perfect.

Optical observations
--------------------

1. Chromatic aberration. Not overly objectionable, but present at a significantly higher level than the Kowa or the NL Pure. The amount of CA one sees the CLs depends on eye placement. If the eyes are placed perfectly, there is very little CA, but otherwise one sees CA, even in the center of the image. This can get annoying when scanning trees for warblers and similar.

2. Sharpness. The sweet spot size is impressive, with nearly entire field being sharp. The center sharpness is very good, though the Kowa seems to provide very slightly more detail in the absolute center due to slightly higher real magnification (the AllBinos review listed Genesis' real magnification as 8.2x, and my rough pixel measurements give 8.25x).

3. Contrast. The contrast on the CL-B is slightly lower than on the Kowa. Both optics pale in comparison to the NL Pure (see photos attached).

4. Field of view. The 7.6 degrees on the CL-B is just a bit constraining for me. The Genesis 8x33 has a larger FOV (8 degrees), which I deem satisfactory for an 8-power. In terms of apparent field of view, both pale in comparison to the NL Pures, but I find that the Kowa view is sufficiently wide.

5. Distortion is lower than on the Kowa Genesis, but I could live with either.

6. Color. Typical Swarovski color -- very neutral, with good transmission in the blue side of the spectrum. Some people don't like this, but I like Swarovski colors. I find they allow for good separation of color on the subject when the sky is overcast. By contrast, some binos (like the Genesis here, but especially some Zeisses) are known to compress the color palette to the yellow-greens, turning the scene dull-brownish under overcast conditions, which is not my preference.

Ergonomics
------------

As mentioned, the narrow eyecups that press against my eyeball are a deal breaker for me. I do not think this is due to my eye sockets being too large or anything like that. My face is quite normal-sized. I believe that these binoculars (as many other compacts on the market probably) are designed for use with glasses, such that one can press them against glass for stability. I find that very unfortunate. In the bright sun, one often wears sunglasses or shaded prescription glasses that hinder the view. In the dusk, one wants every last bit of light, and so one takes off the glasses. But the slim instruments look sexy, so they sell.

Other than the eyecups, the focus wheel has serious problems for a $1,000-priced pair of binoculars. This particular CLs wheel is a disaster. I do not understand why it is so difficult for manufacturers to design a good focus wheel. The Kowa focus wheel is almost perfect -- if only it were less difficult to use one-handed. The NL Pures' focus wheel is a lot more usable with one hand, but my copy has some play (I am reluctant to turn them in to Swarovski for service as I am concerned they could make it too stiff).

Diopter. The CLs have been criticized for their center diopter being difficult to set without removing the eye from the oculars. I managed to do so somehow without much issue. With either Swarovski, I found that setting the diopter is "set once and forget" experience, while the Kowa is more fidgety, likely due to its narrow sweet spot fooling either one or the other eye while adjusting the diopter.

Conclusion
-----------

This experience was interesting for me. I learned that I will probably never own a pair of true pocket binoculars as I simply cannot tolerate narrow eyecups. Also, I learned that, despite what is often said online, a photo through the optics with a simple phone camera (I used an iPhone) actually does provide a good yardstick for contrast, particularly if one takes a picture of the exact same scene in rapid succession through different optics. The "through-the-lens" pictures are generally a less reliable indicator of color (most phone cameras will apply auto white-balance that cannot be turned off), and obviously they are not useful at all for things like ease-of-view.

Attachments
-------------
The first three were taken just before sunset (contrast differences visible in the shadows), the other three in the afternoon. Each series is in this order: 1) CL-B, 2) Genesis, 3) NL Pure.

I wonder - do you not adjust the position of the eyecups against the eye socket / brow rim each time you switch binoculars? Do you always press the eyecups into your eye sockets?
I use different holding positions for each and every binocular I own (quite a few).

Each and every car seat is different. When switching cars, I adjust the seat and headrest. Don‘t you do the same?
 
Last edited:
I wonder - do you not adjust the position of the eyecups against the eye socket / brow rim each time you switch binoculars? Do you always press the eyecups into your eye sockets?
I drew this diagram which (hopefully) makes it very clear what can be somewhat difficult to explain in words.
 

Attachments

  • eyecup-placement.png
    eyecup-placement.png
    198 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:
I drew this diagram which (hopefully) makes it very clear what can be somewhat difficult to explain in words.
I still think you need to find for yourself a proper holding position for binos with narrow eyecup diameter, possibly different from the one for wide eyecups (there are stable positions even for binos with narrow eyecups), or give up using such binos.
 
I still think you need to find for yourself a proper holding position for binos with narrow eyecup diameter, possibly different from the one for wide eyecups (there are stable positions even for binos with narrow eyecups), or give up using such binos.

I did -- if I squint and hold them against my brow ridge, I get a somewhat more stable view.

Squinting and holding against the brow (while lowering the head and looking up slightly) is not a practical solution, however. Neither for me nor, I imagine, for others who are not wearing glasses. Hence I am returning these.
 
You wrote:
„…Squinting and holding against the brow (while lowering the head and looking up slightly)…“
Just making sure you don‘t think I recommended that … but as I said, there are many useful and stable positions for binos with narrow eyecups, as plenty of users here can confirm.
Your statement that „…the Companion-Bs are a practically unusable instrument without glasses… „ is therefore just plain wrong.
 
I did -- if I squint and hold them against my brow ridge, I get a somewhat more stable view.

Squinting and holding against the brow (while lowering the head and looking up slightly) is not a practical solution, however. Neither for me nor, I imagine, for others who are not wearing glasses. Hence I am returning these.
I'm guessing you must have a higher brow-ridge or larger eye sockets than most. I have no problems holding the small eyecups of the CL 8x25s against the bottom of my brow with the pupils centred and no need to squint. I'd be surprised if the CL-Companions presented most people with a problem, but if they don't suit you fair enough.
 
I can only agree and sympathise with the OP regarding the narrow eyecups on the Swarovski 8x30 CL B, I get exactly the same problem and no, no matter what I do to change position, it simply doesn't help. Besides, I must have longish eyelashes, because with narrow eyecups I also have the problem of my eyelashes touching the rubber rime of the eyecup, which can be really annoying. In short: for me the eyecups of the 8x30 CL B were a deal breaker. The same goes for the 8x30 Habicht, 8x32 Meostar, 7x35 Retrovid. Hard as I've tried to adjust, adopt other viewing positions... it simply does not work. In my opinion is not the same as car seats, it's more akin to shoes: you can have an amazing shoe from your size, made from the best materials by the best artisan... but if it doesn't fit there's a limited number of things you can do. Yes, you can try to stretcht it, you can try this and that, but in the end the usage will be compromised unlike with that kind of shoe were you use it and you feel at home in sleepers, so to speak. I find this such an important part of binocular use (and joy) that I wonder why binoculars reviews don't regularly talk about eyecup diameter and the like. I recently got a 8x25 Zeiss Terra ED, which is very nice, but has narrow eyecups, which is somehow to be expected from a pocket binocular. But then, I measured them... and they're exactly the size of the 7x35 Leica Retrovid... and now I wonder why I found those unbearable.

I'm not saying that my statements are valid for everybody, but this is just my experience (after having many binoculars), and in this particular case, it matches the experience of E_S word by word.
 
Last edited:
ES, post 1,
Your conclusion that the CL Compoanion is practically useless is in my opinion and in my experience complete and full nonsense. I have used the first CL's and the latest ones wthout any problem. I do not use spectacles.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I did -- if I squint and hold them against my brow ridge, I get a somewhat more stable view.

Squinting and holding against the brow (while lowering the head and looking up slightly) is not a practical solution, however. Neither for me nor, I imagine, for others who are not wearing glasses. Hence I am returning these.
A simple solution to the problem of small-diameter eyecups, which worked for me, was to place rubber rims (with a larger diameter) on top of the eyecups in question. I had this problem with a compact Vixen bino, and got a pair of rubber rims for Diamondback 32mm binos from Vortex, which were a perfect fit to the Vixen eyecups (no use of glue was needed). Other DIY fixes, like using rubber from a bike tire, might also be feasible.
 
I have the new CL Companion 10x30 and I do not wear glasses. They are practically very usuable for me without glasses! I do not experience any problems. Maybe bigger eyecups are a bit more comfortable (like the ones on my SLC 8x42).
 
I can only agree and sympathise with the OP regarding the narrow eyecups on the Swarovski 8x30 CL B, I get exactly the same problem and no, no matter what I do to change position, it simply doesn't help. Besides, I must have longish eyelashes, because with narrow eyecups I also have the problem of my eyelashes touching the rubber rime of the eyecup, which can be really annoying. In short: for me the eyecups of the 8x30 CL B were a deal breaker. The same goes for the 8x30 Habicht, 8x32 Meostar, 7x35 Retrovid. Hard as I've tried to adjust, adopt other viewing positions... it simply does not work. In my opinion is not the same as car seats, it's more akin to shoes: you can have an amazing shoe from your size, made from the best materials by the best artisan... but if it doesn't fit there's a limited number of things you can do. Yes, you can try to stretcht it, you can try this and that, but in the end the usage will be compromised unlike with that kind of shoe were you use it and you feel at home in sleepers, so to speak. I find this such an important part of binocular use (and joy) that I wonder why binoculars reviews don't regularly talk about eyecup diameter and the like. I recently got a 8x25 Zeiss Terra ED, which is very nice, but has narrow eyecups, which is somehow to be expected from a pocket binocular. But then, I measured them... and they're exactly the size of the 7x35 Leica Retrovid... and now I wonder why I found those unbearable.

I'm not saying that my statements are valid for everybody, but this is just my experience (after having many binoculars), and in this particular case, it matches the experience of E_S word by word.
The Habicht(s) I am happy with and I have no CL Companions, but I noticed something similar to you and E_S with the Curios, both in regards to eyelashes and small diameter of the eyecups. My solution for those binos is to place my index fingers over the extended eye cups (the silvered aluminium tubes) and then resting them on my eyebrows. This put the eyecups at a distance just beyond the tips of the eyelashes and moves the EPs down far enough to line up with my pupils. This way I can enjoy those fab little binos. Maybe this way of holding could work for others and other binos. The focuser I manipulate with my right middle finger, btw.
 
@Ignatius That's really helpful, thank you. As per your description, I think I've developed a very similar technique with the 8x25 Terra and other that pose a similar problem. In my case, since I use the 8x25 just occasionally, it's a feasible solution, it just gets the job done. However, for a "regular" binocular that I want to enjoy for longer periods of time I find this to be a poor solution. So I've simply moved on from binoculars that don't fit my facial features, or that make me "try too hard" to use and enjoy them. For example, probably the "quirkiest" of my binoculars is the Canon 12x36 IS III, I find the ergonomics appalling, and it has several serious drawbacks, but with time I've learned to live with it, since it provides something no other of my binoculars can match: a 12x view that is more stable than any of my 7x. But for other binoculars... it's simply not worth it: I loved the Leica Retrovid 7x35. I tried everything, installing other thicker eyecups on top of the ones that came with it, rubber bands made from bicycle tyre... but it just didn't work. Otherwise, those would probably be my everyday binoculars. A similar story with these Swarovski 8x30.
 
@Ignatius That's really helpful, thank you. As per your description, I think I've developed a very similar technique with the 8x25 Terra and other that pose a similar problem. In my case, since I use the 8x25 just occasionally, it's a feasible solution, it just gets the job done. However, for a "regular" binocular that I want to enjoy for longer periods of time I find this to be a poor solution. So I've simply moved on from binoculars that don't fit my facial features, or that make me "try too hard" to use and enjoy them. For example, probably the "quirkiest" of my binoculars is the Canon 12x36 IS III, I find the ergonomics appalling, and it has several serious drawbacks, but with time I've learned to live with it, since it provides something no other of my binoculars can match: a 12x view that is more stable than any of my 7x. But for other binoculars... it's simply not worth it: I loved the Leica Retrovid 7x35. I tried everything, installing other thicker eyecups on top of the ones that came with it, rubber bands made from bicycle tyre... but it just didn't work. Otherwise, those would probably be my everyday binoculars. A similar story with these Swarovski 8x30.
I see your point about the Canons. As for me, the Curios are not my regular binos but rather something pocketable to take along which will still provide the top quality view I am used to from my regular binos, my four Habichts, which do harmonize with my face/eyes. I can see no reason to 'upgrade'.
 
You wrote:
„…Squinting and holding against the brow (while lowering the head and looking up slightly)…“
Just making sure you don‘t think I recommended that … confirm.
It seems you assume I am some type of novice user who can't figure out how to adjust binoculars properly. While I'm a new poster here, I used binoculars extensively since I was 14.

but as I said, there are many useful and stable positions for binos with narrow eyecups, as plenty of users here can

My guess is they either 1) always use it with glasses on or 2) have a different tolerance level for image shake or 3) are actually Terminator T800 robots sent from the future with heavy super-steady arm holds thanks to metal bar locks.

P.S. I dug out a thread where at least two users have the exact same complaint as me about the eyecups:
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing you must have a higher brow-ridge or larger eye sockets than most. I have no problems holding the small eyecups of the CL 8x25s against the bottom of my brow with the pupils centred and no need to squint. I'd be surprised if the CL-Companions presented most people with a problem, but if they don't suit you fair enough.
I swear my cranium is perfectly average for a Homo sapiens, never in my life had anyone found any oddities in it or commented about it (other than to compliment me on my looks, of course), might break out the calipers any time now...
 
Last edited:
It seems you assume I am some type of novice user who can't figure out how to adjust binoculars properly.
Hmm … yes, that is exactly what I assume, based on your statement that the CL is unusable without glasses.
 
Hmm … yes, that is exactly what I assume, based on your statement that the CL is unusable without glasses.
Seems quite presumptuous on your part, especially since I am far from the only one to criticize the CL eyecup design -- as evidenced by posters in this and the other thread I linked to.
 
My guess is they either 1) always use it with glasses on or 2) have a different tolerance level for image shake or 3) are actually Terminator T800 robots sent from the future with heavy super-steady arm holds thanks to metal bar locks.
Glasses don't apply to me, and I don't have a high tolerance for image shake (I can only comfortably use some 10x that are particularly well balanced) as to metal bar locks I do have a titanium plated shoulder following a cycling incident, but if anything that reduces my ability to hold things above shoulder height. Maybe one of us has a greater degree of Neanderthal DNA impacting their brow ridge development :)

Are larger eyecups more comfortable for prolonged use? Certainly, and there are clearly some users who can't get on with small eyecups at all, but given the vast number of compact binoculars produced I suspect manufacturers are happy that most people are okay with them.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top