Would adding an external lens allow one area outside the focal plane to be in focus?Focusing an entry-level DSLRDoes changing the focal length change focus?How can a lens with a single focal length focus on more than one plane?Is this sound normal for a Nikkor 55-200 VR?Is the focus plane of a fisheye lens inherently curved?Fine tuning a lens focusWhy are specular highlights sharp when focusing on close object?How to ensure sharp focus when shooting with an open aperture?Getting two subjects sitting across the table in focusAre focus and resolving power optically equivalent?

Wilcoxon signed rank test – critical value for n>50

If a high rpm motor is run at lower rpm, will it produce more torque?

How come I was asked by a CBP officer why I was in the US when leaving?

How can I check type T is among parameter pack Ts... in C++?

Analog is Obtuse!

Does anycast addressing add additional latency in any way?

I played my first (rapid) tournament recently and I wanted to calculate my ELO

MH370 blackbox - is it still possible to retrieve data from it?

How was film developed in the late 1920s?

How should I behave to assure my friends that I am not after their money?

“Faire” being used to mean “avoir l’air”?

Going to get married soon, should I do it on Dec 31 or Jan 1?

Do we or do we not observe (measure) superpositions all the time?

The difference between Rad1 and Rfd1

How to determine what is the correct level of detail when modelling?

Did Chinese school textbook maps (c. 1951) "depict China as stretching even into the central Asian republics"?

Can a US president have someone sent to prison?

Set vertical spacing between two particular items

Do equal angles necessarily mean a polygon is regular?

Are there any vegetarian astronauts?

Find smallest index that is identical to the value in an array

Is there a short way to check uniqueness of values without using 'if' and multiple 'and's?

Confusion about multiple information Sets

Is adding a new player (or players) a DM decision, or a group decision?



Would adding an external lens allow one area outside the focal plane to be in focus?


Focusing an entry-level DSLRDoes changing the focal length change focus?How can a lens with a single focal length focus on more than one plane?Is this sound normal for a Nikkor 55-200 VR?Is the focus plane of a fisheye lens inherently curved?Fine tuning a lens focusWhy are specular highlights sharp when focusing on close object?How to ensure sharp focus when shooting with an open aperture?Getting two subjects sitting across the table in focusAre focus and resolving power optically equivalent?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1















I’m doing high speed scientific imaging. I have a camera mounted in a fixed location with a Micro Nikkor 105mm lens. It’s viewing a fixed subject that has a small mirror oriented 45 degrees underneath it. This allows the camera to simultaneously view the subject from the side and the bottom. Unfortunately, I can’t get both the side view and bottom view in sharp focus at the same time, because the optical path length for the two views is different due to the mirror.



I’ve thought of a few possible solutions to bring both views into focus at the same time, and I’d like to ask about one of them.



If I put a small, separate convex lens in the camera’s view so the side view light passes from the subject, through the convex lens, then into the camera lens, but the underside view does not pass though the separate convex lens. would that, given the right lens and placement, allow me to bring both views into sharp focus at the same time?



Also, if it would work, can anyone point me to the math required to estimate the right focal length for the convex lens?



If there is some other solution you can think of that would solve this, I’d be interested in hearing about that too.



Thank you!










share|improve this question







New contributor



Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • Roughly speaking, what is the geometry of what you are imaging: the object's width, the object's depth, and the distance from the primary face of the object to the lens?

    – scottbb
    4 hours ago

















1















I’m doing high speed scientific imaging. I have a camera mounted in a fixed location with a Micro Nikkor 105mm lens. It’s viewing a fixed subject that has a small mirror oriented 45 degrees underneath it. This allows the camera to simultaneously view the subject from the side and the bottom. Unfortunately, I can’t get both the side view and bottom view in sharp focus at the same time, because the optical path length for the two views is different due to the mirror.



I’ve thought of a few possible solutions to bring both views into focus at the same time, and I’d like to ask about one of them.



If I put a small, separate convex lens in the camera’s view so the side view light passes from the subject, through the convex lens, then into the camera lens, but the underside view does not pass though the separate convex lens. would that, given the right lens and placement, allow me to bring both views into sharp focus at the same time?



Also, if it would work, can anyone point me to the math required to estimate the right focal length for the convex lens?



If there is some other solution you can think of that would solve this, I’d be interested in hearing about that too.



Thank you!










share|improve this question







New contributor



Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • Roughly speaking, what is the geometry of what you are imaging: the object's width, the object's depth, and the distance from the primary face of the object to the lens?

    – scottbb
    4 hours ago













1












1








1








I’m doing high speed scientific imaging. I have a camera mounted in a fixed location with a Micro Nikkor 105mm lens. It’s viewing a fixed subject that has a small mirror oriented 45 degrees underneath it. This allows the camera to simultaneously view the subject from the side and the bottom. Unfortunately, I can’t get both the side view and bottom view in sharp focus at the same time, because the optical path length for the two views is different due to the mirror.



I’ve thought of a few possible solutions to bring both views into focus at the same time, and I’d like to ask about one of them.



If I put a small, separate convex lens in the camera’s view so the side view light passes from the subject, through the convex lens, then into the camera lens, but the underside view does not pass though the separate convex lens. would that, given the right lens and placement, allow me to bring both views into sharp focus at the same time?



Also, if it would work, can anyone point me to the math required to estimate the right focal length for the convex lens?



If there is some other solution you can think of that would solve this, I’d be interested in hearing about that too.



Thank you!










share|improve this question







New contributor



Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I’m doing high speed scientific imaging. I have a camera mounted in a fixed location with a Micro Nikkor 105mm lens. It’s viewing a fixed subject that has a small mirror oriented 45 degrees underneath it. This allows the camera to simultaneously view the subject from the side and the bottom. Unfortunately, I can’t get both the side view and bottom view in sharp focus at the same time, because the optical path length for the two views is different due to the mirror.



I’ve thought of a few possible solutions to bring both views into focus at the same time, and I’d like to ask about one of them.



If I put a small, separate convex lens in the camera’s view so the side view light passes from the subject, through the convex lens, then into the camera lens, but the underside view does not pass though the separate convex lens. would that, given the right lens and placement, allow me to bring both views into sharp focus at the same time?



Also, if it would work, can anyone point me to the math required to estimate the right focal length for the convex lens?



If there is some other solution you can think of that would solve this, I’d be interested in hearing about that too.



Thank you!







lens focus focal-length






share|improve this question







New contributor



Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question







New contributor



Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor



Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 9 hours ago









BrioniusBrionius

1083 bronze badges




1083 bronze badges




New contributor



Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Brionius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • Roughly speaking, what is the geometry of what you are imaging: the object's width, the object's depth, and the distance from the primary face of the object to the lens?

    – scottbb
    4 hours ago

















  • Roughly speaking, what is the geometry of what you are imaging: the object's width, the object's depth, and the distance from the primary face of the object to the lens?

    – scottbb
    4 hours ago
















Roughly speaking, what is the geometry of what you are imaging: the object's width, the object's depth, and the distance from the primary face of the object to the lens?

– scottbb
4 hours ago





Roughly speaking, what is the geometry of what you are imaging: the object's width, the object's depth, and the distance from the primary face of the object to the lens?

– scottbb
4 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














Congratulations — you've invented bifocals! Or, in other words, sure, there's no reason this wouldn't work.



The math should be the same as that from using a front-of-the-lens macro adapter. These are usually given in units called "diopters", the same as for glasses or contact lenses. And because they're simple lenses (as opposed to complex or compound lenses), their "power" and focus distance are inherently linked. Specifically, you find the focus distance for a given lens by dividing 1m (1000mm) by the power in diopters. For example, a +8 diopter lens has a focus distance of 125mm. This is assuming that your primary lens is focused at infinity.



Of course, your "bifocal" arrangement adds some complication, because you can't just focus at infinity. What follows is theory and I don't know how it works in practice. In theory, to figure out the right distance when the lens isn't focused at infinity, you would convert the actual focus distance to diopter power — divide 1000mm by the focus distance. So, if you're working at 500mm, that'd be +2 diopters. In combination with the +8 add on lens above that'd be +10 diopters, so now that'd have a working distance of 100mm.






share|improve this answer

























  • Haha, I guess that is the principle behind bifocals. Thanks for the info!

    – Brionius
    9 hours ago











  • I've added some math on the focus distance for not-at-infinity. I haven't actually done this in real life and some of this is distant memories of two weeks of high school physics, so possibly someone else will need to check my logic. :)

    – mattdm
    9 hours ago











  • Also, there's a general caveat here: when you're using consumer equipment for scientific purposes, be aware that the equipment was designed for making photographs, not for precision measurement. So even assuming my theoretical math is right, you'll want to do some direct observation, measurement, and adjustment.

    – mattdm
    8 hours ago











  • Yep, thanks, we’re characterizing the image/real coordinate mapping function.

    – Brionius
    8 hours ago


















2














Cinematography solved this problem long ago with the split diopter. It's literally just half of a screw-on diopter, just like so-called "close up filter" (although it doesn't filter anything, it's called that because it mounts to the lens like other front-mounted actual filters).



split diopter



Split diopters don't see much use in photography, but they used to be used in film a lot, when the director wanted to draw the viewer's focus simultaneously to a near subject and a far subject. They're still used in film, but with today's CGI and compositing, the effect is now usually done in software with multiple takes, rather than in-camera in the same shot.



This article talks about several classic cinema shots achieved with split diopters.



split-diopter shot from _All The President's Men_
split-diopter shot from All The President's Men



split-diopter shot from _Jaws_split-diopter shot from Jaws






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "61"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Brionius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109114%2fwould-adding-an-external-lens-allow-one-area-outside-the-focal-plane-to-be-in-fo%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    Congratulations — you've invented bifocals! Or, in other words, sure, there's no reason this wouldn't work.



    The math should be the same as that from using a front-of-the-lens macro adapter. These are usually given in units called "diopters", the same as for glasses or contact lenses. And because they're simple lenses (as opposed to complex or compound lenses), their "power" and focus distance are inherently linked. Specifically, you find the focus distance for a given lens by dividing 1m (1000mm) by the power in diopters. For example, a +8 diopter lens has a focus distance of 125mm. This is assuming that your primary lens is focused at infinity.



    Of course, your "bifocal" arrangement adds some complication, because you can't just focus at infinity. What follows is theory and I don't know how it works in practice. In theory, to figure out the right distance when the lens isn't focused at infinity, you would convert the actual focus distance to diopter power — divide 1000mm by the focus distance. So, if you're working at 500mm, that'd be +2 diopters. In combination with the +8 add on lens above that'd be +10 diopters, so now that'd have a working distance of 100mm.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Haha, I guess that is the principle behind bifocals. Thanks for the info!

      – Brionius
      9 hours ago











    • I've added some math on the focus distance for not-at-infinity. I haven't actually done this in real life and some of this is distant memories of two weeks of high school physics, so possibly someone else will need to check my logic. :)

      – mattdm
      9 hours ago











    • Also, there's a general caveat here: when you're using consumer equipment for scientific purposes, be aware that the equipment was designed for making photographs, not for precision measurement. So even assuming my theoretical math is right, you'll want to do some direct observation, measurement, and adjustment.

      – mattdm
      8 hours ago











    • Yep, thanks, we’re characterizing the image/real coordinate mapping function.

      – Brionius
      8 hours ago















    2














    Congratulations — you've invented bifocals! Or, in other words, sure, there's no reason this wouldn't work.



    The math should be the same as that from using a front-of-the-lens macro adapter. These are usually given in units called "diopters", the same as for glasses or contact lenses. And because they're simple lenses (as opposed to complex or compound lenses), their "power" and focus distance are inherently linked. Specifically, you find the focus distance for a given lens by dividing 1m (1000mm) by the power in diopters. For example, a +8 diopter lens has a focus distance of 125mm. This is assuming that your primary lens is focused at infinity.



    Of course, your "bifocal" arrangement adds some complication, because you can't just focus at infinity. What follows is theory and I don't know how it works in practice. In theory, to figure out the right distance when the lens isn't focused at infinity, you would convert the actual focus distance to diopter power — divide 1000mm by the focus distance. So, if you're working at 500mm, that'd be +2 diopters. In combination with the +8 add on lens above that'd be +10 diopters, so now that'd have a working distance of 100mm.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Haha, I guess that is the principle behind bifocals. Thanks for the info!

      – Brionius
      9 hours ago











    • I've added some math on the focus distance for not-at-infinity. I haven't actually done this in real life and some of this is distant memories of two weeks of high school physics, so possibly someone else will need to check my logic. :)

      – mattdm
      9 hours ago











    • Also, there's a general caveat here: when you're using consumer equipment for scientific purposes, be aware that the equipment was designed for making photographs, not for precision measurement. So even assuming my theoretical math is right, you'll want to do some direct observation, measurement, and adjustment.

      – mattdm
      8 hours ago











    • Yep, thanks, we’re characterizing the image/real coordinate mapping function.

      – Brionius
      8 hours ago













    2












    2








    2







    Congratulations — you've invented bifocals! Or, in other words, sure, there's no reason this wouldn't work.



    The math should be the same as that from using a front-of-the-lens macro adapter. These are usually given in units called "diopters", the same as for glasses or contact lenses. And because they're simple lenses (as opposed to complex or compound lenses), their "power" and focus distance are inherently linked. Specifically, you find the focus distance for a given lens by dividing 1m (1000mm) by the power in diopters. For example, a +8 diopter lens has a focus distance of 125mm. This is assuming that your primary lens is focused at infinity.



    Of course, your "bifocal" arrangement adds some complication, because you can't just focus at infinity. What follows is theory and I don't know how it works in practice. In theory, to figure out the right distance when the lens isn't focused at infinity, you would convert the actual focus distance to diopter power — divide 1000mm by the focus distance. So, if you're working at 500mm, that'd be +2 diopters. In combination with the +8 add on lens above that'd be +10 diopters, so now that'd have a working distance of 100mm.






    share|improve this answer















    Congratulations — you've invented bifocals! Or, in other words, sure, there's no reason this wouldn't work.



    The math should be the same as that from using a front-of-the-lens macro adapter. These are usually given in units called "diopters", the same as for glasses or contact lenses. And because they're simple lenses (as opposed to complex or compound lenses), their "power" and focus distance are inherently linked. Specifically, you find the focus distance for a given lens by dividing 1m (1000mm) by the power in diopters. For example, a +8 diopter lens has a focus distance of 125mm. This is assuming that your primary lens is focused at infinity.



    Of course, your "bifocal" arrangement adds some complication, because you can't just focus at infinity. What follows is theory and I don't know how it works in practice. In theory, to figure out the right distance when the lens isn't focused at infinity, you would convert the actual focus distance to diopter power — divide 1000mm by the focus distance. So, if you're working at 500mm, that'd be +2 diopters. In combination with the +8 add on lens above that'd be +10 diopters, so now that'd have a working distance of 100mm.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 9 hours ago

























    answered 9 hours ago









    mattdmmattdm

    125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges




    125k40 gold badges368 silver badges667 bronze badges












    • Haha, I guess that is the principle behind bifocals. Thanks for the info!

      – Brionius
      9 hours ago











    • I've added some math on the focus distance for not-at-infinity. I haven't actually done this in real life and some of this is distant memories of two weeks of high school physics, so possibly someone else will need to check my logic. :)

      – mattdm
      9 hours ago











    • Also, there's a general caveat here: when you're using consumer equipment for scientific purposes, be aware that the equipment was designed for making photographs, not for precision measurement. So even assuming my theoretical math is right, you'll want to do some direct observation, measurement, and adjustment.

      – mattdm
      8 hours ago











    • Yep, thanks, we’re characterizing the image/real coordinate mapping function.

      – Brionius
      8 hours ago

















    • Haha, I guess that is the principle behind bifocals. Thanks for the info!

      – Brionius
      9 hours ago











    • I've added some math on the focus distance for not-at-infinity. I haven't actually done this in real life and some of this is distant memories of two weeks of high school physics, so possibly someone else will need to check my logic. :)

      – mattdm
      9 hours ago











    • Also, there's a general caveat here: when you're using consumer equipment for scientific purposes, be aware that the equipment was designed for making photographs, not for precision measurement. So even assuming my theoretical math is right, you'll want to do some direct observation, measurement, and adjustment.

      – mattdm
      8 hours ago











    • Yep, thanks, we’re characterizing the image/real coordinate mapping function.

      – Brionius
      8 hours ago
















    Haha, I guess that is the principle behind bifocals. Thanks for the info!

    – Brionius
    9 hours ago





    Haha, I guess that is the principle behind bifocals. Thanks for the info!

    – Brionius
    9 hours ago













    I've added some math on the focus distance for not-at-infinity. I haven't actually done this in real life and some of this is distant memories of two weeks of high school physics, so possibly someone else will need to check my logic. :)

    – mattdm
    9 hours ago





    I've added some math on the focus distance for not-at-infinity. I haven't actually done this in real life and some of this is distant memories of two weeks of high school physics, so possibly someone else will need to check my logic. :)

    – mattdm
    9 hours ago













    Also, there's a general caveat here: when you're using consumer equipment for scientific purposes, be aware that the equipment was designed for making photographs, not for precision measurement. So even assuming my theoretical math is right, you'll want to do some direct observation, measurement, and adjustment.

    – mattdm
    8 hours ago





    Also, there's a general caveat here: when you're using consumer equipment for scientific purposes, be aware that the equipment was designed for making photographs, not for precision measurement. So even assuming my theoretical math is right, you'll want to do some direct observation, measurement, and adjustment.

    – mattdm
    8 hours ago













    Yep, thanks, we’re characterizing the image/real coordinate mapping function.

    – Brionius
    8 hours ago





    Yep, thanks, we’re characterizing the image/real coordinate mapping function.

    – Brionius
    8 hours ago













    2














    Cinematography solved this problem long ago with the split diopter. It's literally just half of a screw-on diopter, just like so-called "close up filter" (although it doesn't filter anything, it's called that because it mounts to the lens like other front-mounted actual filters).



    split diopter



    Split diopters don't see much use in photography, but they used to be used in film a lot, when the director wanted to draw the viewer's focus simultaneously to a near subject and a far subject. They're still used in film, but with today's CGI and compositing, the effect is now usually done in software with multiple takes, rather than in-camera in the same shot.



    This article talks about several classic cinema shots achieved with split diopters.



    split-diopter shot from _All The President's Men_
    split-diopter shot from All The President's Men



    split-diopter shot from _Jaws_split-diopter shot from Jaws






    share|improve this answer



























      2














      Cinematography solved this problem long ago with the split diopter. It's literally just half of a screw-on diopter, just like so-called "close up filter" (although it doesn't filter anything, it's called that because it mounts to the lens like other front-mounted actual filters).



      split diopter



      Split diopters don't see much use in photography, but they used to be used in film a lot, when the director wanted to draw the viewer's focus simultaneously to a near subject and a far subject. They're still used in film, but with today's CGI and compositing, the effect is now usually done in software with multiple takes, rather than in-camera in the same shot.



      This article talks about several classic cinema shots achieved with split diopters.



      split-diopter shot from _All The President's Men_
      split-diopter shot from All The President's Men



      split-diopter shot from _Jaws_split-diopter shot from Jaws






      share|improve this answer

























        2












        2








        2







        Cinematography solved this problem long ago with the split diopter. It's literally just half of a screw-on diopter, just like so-called "close up filter" (although it doesn't filter anything, it's called that because it mounts to the lens like other front-mounted actual filters).



        split diopter



        Split diopters don't see much use in photography, but they used to be used in film a lot, when the director wanted to draw the viewer's focus simultaneously to a near subject and a far subject. They're still used in film, but with today's CGI and compositing, the effect is now usually done in software with multiple takes, rather than in-camera in the same shot.



        This article talks about several classic cinema shots achieved with split diopters.



        split-diopter shot from _All The President's Men_
        split-diopter shot from All The President's Men



        split-diopter shot from _Jaws_split-diopter shot from Jaws






        share|improve this answer













        Cinematography solved this problem long ago with the split diopter. It's literally just half of a screw-on diopter, just like so-called "close up filter" (although it doesn't filter anything, it's called that because it mounts to the lens like other front-mounted actual filters).



        split diopter



        Split diopters don't see much use in photography, but they used to be used in film a lot, when the director wanted to draw the viewer's focus simultaneously to a near subject and a far subject. They're still used in film, but with today's CGI and compositing, the effect is now usually done in software with multiple takes, rather than in-camera in the same shot.



        This article talks about several classic cinema shots achieved with split diopters.



        split-diopter shot from _All The President's Men_
        split-diopter shot from All The President's Men



        split-diopter shot from _Jaws_split-diopter shot from Jaws







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 6 hours ago









        scottbbscottbb

        21.6k7 gold badges58 silver badges98 bronze badges




        21.6k7 gold badges58 silver badges98 bronze badges




















            Brionius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Brionius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Brionius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Brionius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109114%2fwould-adding-an-external-lens-allow-one-area-outside-the-focal-plane-to-be-in-fo%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Sahara Skak | Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: SaharaWikivoyage raisfeerer: Sahara26° N, 13° O

            The fall designs the understood secretary. Looking glass Science Shock Discovery Hot Everybody Loves Raymond Smile 곳 서비스 성실하다 Defas Kaloolon Definition: To combine or impregnate with sulphur or any of its compounds as to sulphurize caoutchouc in vulcanizing Flame colored Reason Useful Thin Help 갖다 유명하다 낙엽 장례식 Country Iron Definition: A fencer a gladiator one who exhibits his skill in the use of the sword Definition: The American black throated bunting Spiza Americana Nostalgic Needy Method to my madness 시키다 평가되다 전부 소설가 우아하다 Argument Tin Feeling Representative Gym Music Gaur Chicken 일쑤 코치 편 학생증 The harbor values the sugar. Vasagle Yammoe Enstatite Definition: Capable of being limited Road Neighborly Five Refer Built Kangaroo 비비다 Degree Release Bargain Horse 하루 형님 유교 석 동부 괴롭히다 경제력

            19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу