banner



Home  ›  Nikkor 18 55 Vs 18 105

Nikkor 18 55 Vs 18 105

Written By Saturday, July 30, 2022 Add Comment Edit
  1. Bought my married woman a D3200 kit final calendar month and my wife is in camera sky. She always wanted one for herself and she's completely satisfied with everything but would like more than accomplish. Cameta Auction on eBay is selling a refurbished 18-105 VR lens for $199. Would this lens exist a good lens for a beginner? Information technology has more than reach that she wants and it is affordable. How does it compare the eighteen-55 VR which is a very nice lens, it and the D3200 + wife = fantastic pictures.
  2. Some people complain nigh information technology not being the accented sharpest, etc., but it's even so a decent lens, and the price is good. Since refurbished, you may desire to cheque that you can return it if yous're not happy.
    But I doubtable she'll like it. I have better lenses but still use information technology for general shooting from time to time. There are of course lots of other options too.
  3. I hope yous don't mind that I am giving you a very directly answer. Both the 18-55 DX and 18-105 DX are entry-level, consumer zooms for casual photography. They can give y'all good images as long equally y'all are not very demanding and at that place is plenty of light. I have used them both, and they drive me crazy indoors. Recently I tested the eighteen-105 on the 24MP D7100, and off-center operation is very mediocre on both the long cease and broad end.
    Non sure your married woman needs upward to 300mm or not, but if she wants reach, why not go a seventy-300mm AF-S VR or the less expensive 55-300mm DX AF-S VR? She may stay happy with the 18-55 or as she progresses as a photographer, she may gradually become less satisified with those consumer lenses. I am not suggesting that she should get a seventy-200mm/f2.8 AF-Southward VR immediately, but since she already has the 18-55, why not get something a stride ameliorate?
  4. To me the deciding gene was that the 18-55 could focus much closer and results at close range are very skillful. I take had both and kept the eighteen-55. The xviii-105 seems large and cumbersome by comparing and the 105 end of the zoom was not very good quality. Go with an 18-55 and also a 55-200 and enjoy a two lens philharmonic that will perform well.
  5. Since yous are asking about the comparative point between the both of them, and if nosotros take to focus on both of them, some people, not to mention popular reviewers on the net, would have dissimilar opinions. That, putting bad copies factors aside. On the field, in that location'south really non much utilise to compare both of them related to IQ, Shun said it already.
    And then we are left with range, which naturally the 18-105 wins hands downwardly.
    range+quality on dx = 17-55 f/2.viii + lxx-200 f/2.8, but for some of us that is still floating in the realm of aspiration.
  6. Of course there are different opinions... let me add one :)
    For sure, the xviii-105VR is not the best lens, merely it is a very good lens for the coin. Personally, I think in value for money, it'south about the best zoom you lot'll observe in Nikon's line-up. What sets it to a higher place the eighteen-55 for me, is handling: information technology has a decent focusring, the front does not rotate, the zoom action merely feels ameliorate.
    Just, that's all subjective stuff. Shun is correct that adding a 55-300VR could be a nicer way to spend coin. Even so, if she does not need that much zoom-range, merely simply a chip more than 55, so the 18-105VR is a really good convenient lens. Optically better than the xviii-200/xviii-300 lenses, a lot cheaper than about of those and about as allround in well-nigh cases. Obviously, it cannot stand disquisitional viewing on 24MP sensors, but on a picture level, normal sized prints, it volition do fine enough - just like the 18-55.
    So, there's the option, as far as I see information technology: how happy will she be switching lenses? If it'south no issue, a 55-300VR or 70-300VR will be nicer ways to spend the coin. If it is, the 18-105VR would get my vote.
  7. Well, a step upward, without going to extremes, is the xvi-85mm lens. I actually love this sort of focal range for everyday shooting.
  8. I have owned both lenses, used them indoors and out, enlarged output from both. I constitute the extra reach of the xviii-105 to exist squeamish. I struggled with its unique distortion characteristics: both butt and pincushion distortion on the same horizon, in landscape shooting. (I exercise a lot of shooting with water horizons which need to be straighter.) As others have said it's a good performer for its price. I currently use the 18-55. It's smaller and lighter on the neck strap and doesn't always point down similar the xviii-105 when hanging. This sounds like a niggle, merely after a whole day it makes a difference. I believe the 18-55 focuses closer. I like its colour output a bit better: warmer, a fleck more saturated. To my optics the forepart chemical element blanket looks better. The 18-55 forepart element rotates when focusing, but that usually only bothers shooters who want to use polarizers. The manual focusing ring is very sparse and not easy to use. At f/8 or f/11 this lens performs very well for its price. Not and so swell on the edges wide open, where a lot of us shoot indoors in low lite. Most reviewers would betoken yous to the xviii-105. I think the 18-55 comes in a very shut second, and like others have said a 16-85 would deliver improve image quality than either.
    00bfqL-538799584.jpg
  9. Even though I shoot professionally with high terminate gear, I did buy a Nikon 18-135 (before the 18-105 was released) only to shoot snap shots of the family (with an SB600) because I didn't want to carry a second lens in that circumstance. I find it to be plenty sharp, and if information technology was a little later on in time, I would accept bought the eighteen-105.
  10. Marker,
    Two questions (for your wife, really). 1) How much more reach does she want? two) Is she willing to bear two lenses and deal with lens changes, or is she more than interested in convenience?
    If she's interested in shots of birds on the feeder, for case, I can't actually come across either the eighteen-55 or the 18-105 being really suitable. I have no experience with the 18-105. The eighteen-55 is astonishing for what it cost me (I got my working-fine re-create gratuitous from the junk bin at the local photographic camera store, and then I guess it'south a worthless statement since I accept an infinite functioning/toll ratio). In the novice-level "rather more achieve" category I have a 55-200 VR that doesn't suck when used with the FT-one on a V1 (speaking of pixel density), just isn't very satisfactory long-and-broad open (at all of f/5.6 at 200mm) either. Stopped downwards a chip, non too bad, and it'south small, depression-weight and cheap ($100 USD used in practiced shape with hood and caps at the same camera store), making it a cost-effective way for a beginner to see if she likes that range of focal lengths (or angles of view).
  11. Answers to your question tin get very long and technical. I'll cutting to the hunt. The 18-105 VR would exist perfect for your
    married woman. She would be very happy with information technology equally a replacement for the eighteen-55. When the time comes for another lens, the perfect
    complement would be the 35 one.8 to shoot indoors without a wink.
  12. I'd get the used eighteen-70 instead (that'due south what I did).
  13. A lens that volition actually have improved epitome sharpness and the advantage of a faster aperture, works fantabulous on your
    camera and can exist used in more low low-cal/marginal low-cal situations, plus is a great lens to learn with is the evidently one-time 35mm
    f1.8 G. Every bit for more than attain, you can just get the plain 55-200 which is very decent and effectually the same price.
    BTW, I similar the piffling 18-55 a lot, information technology's a absurd lens and tin have very useable images for general purposes. I say stick with it, get something different and continue practicing with good technique.

    I accept a few band shots floating effectually some bridal publications in NJ/NY that I shot with a D3100 and xviii-55 on a tripod and SB600 fill flash. You would never be able to tell me what I shot them with or that they weren't any good.

  14. I've used the eighteen-55 and the eighteen-105. For $199, the xviii-105 is a pretty skilful lens if all she needs is only a fiddling more accomplish every bit Wouter said. It sounds like she'south very happy with the quality of the photos she gets from the xviii-55, so I wouldn't worry about buying a lens of much higher quality now. The 18-105 is a very good lens for $199...not to mention you can unload the eighteen-55...probably not for much since those lens are most as plentiful as ants at a picnic, just it'due south better than nothing.
  15. in that location you lot see, two pages of opinions already :)
    FWIW I've fabricated (and sold :D / no I'm non express joy "at" just "with") 40x60cm to 60x90cm (i suppose multiply them by 10 for mm..) prints with both lenses coupled with a D3000 body (talk about the combinations that are generally considered as horrible), to my ignorant eyes they expect "normal." Sometimes all the technicalities only don't matter, somehow try the lenses, do some readings, have what she likes, shoot, and make some likeable pictures. Inside their form, quality wise, it simply doesn't matter which one she chooses, just go out it to feeling :)
    None of the people whom I gave the prints to cared about whether I took the pics using the kit lenses or Catechism's L series, which is alright, since I myself can't actually tell them apart on prints :) so we're fine.
  16. It's non the sharpest lens in Nikon's catalog, just for $200 I'd take information technology. It's an improvement over the xviii-55, for sure. If you're okay with spending $500 or more than, there are 17-50mm f/ii.viii lenses from Sigma and Tamron that are big improvements over the eighteen-55, but between those and $200 at that place aren't many options. Simply thing I can remember of is the previous version of the Sigma 17-70.
  17. I have the 18-55 kit lens tat came with my D5000. Then I bought the lxx-300 for sports and wildlife. Then I upgrade to the 18-105 lens. It might be slightly amend than the 18-55 plus double the mm. At present I bought a D7000 body merely, and my 18-105 is on it when the 70-300 is not. Shun is right put your coin into a lens with more reach. I love the 70-300, groovy at little league games, Tiger & Panthera leo games, at the zoo, birds in the lawn feeders, deer in the woods, are just a very few uses of a longer tele zoom. I carried the 18-105 all over Italy last year and did get some bang-up shots. It is a skillful 'walk-a-round' lens. I wish I had had a 35 F1.8 for inside all the dark cathedrals.
    Duane
  18. i dont call up yous can practise better for $200. for a beginner, it'due south a good buy. lens changing is a bore when you lot're but starting out, and i deceit on expert faith actually recommend an 18-200 or xviii-300 superzoom, which tilts toward the wrong finish of the price/performance spectrum. i'd jump on the 18-105 and add an inexpensive, sharp/fast prime number like the 35/1.8 or fifty/1.8 k next. down the line, a lxx-300 VR would be the adjacent investment i'd brand, then an UWA. of form, the benefits of having a ii-DSLR family is that you can swap gear.
  19. If yous use the xviii-105mm @ f8 it would be pretty duplicate from a lens costing many times more than. If you own a tripod/monopod (or utilise wink) and can manage that discontinuity without photographic camera milkshake with the VR's help, you cannot get a better lens for the coin.
    http://www.lenstip.com/182.iv-Lens_r...-105_mm_f_3.5-five.6_VR_ED_Image_resolution.html
  20. If yous apply the xviii-105mm @ f8 it would be pretty indistinguishable from a lens costing many times more.​
    That is not my experience with the 18-105 DX at all. On the D7100, which is also 24MP like the D3200, corner performance is rather poor even at f8, f11, and the problem is on both the wide finish and the long end. The center is very skilful, only there is no sharpness to speak of on both the left and correct ends of the frame and there is also plenty of chromatic abnormality.
    There are plenty of decent lenses that can give yous very good performance at f8 from corner to corner at 18mm or 105mm on the D7100'south DX frame, but the 18-105mm DX is not one of them.
    A beginner might not empathise the departure at all, but when you gain experience, hopefully i will know better and if so, well-nigh likely you'll want to upgrade that lens again. In this particular case, since the OP has higher-end cameras such equally the D800. IMO they are better off getting more than decent lenses for his wife so that he can share them as well.
    00bg4Q-539035584.jpg
  21. If your wife is happy with the paradigm quality from the xviii-55, and so she volition be happy with the paradigm quality of the 18-105 and appreciate the longer reach. Really, anyone who is happy with the epitome quality of the 18-55 would also be happy with the image quality of the xviii-105.
    If you've got nothing better to do, go await upwards the size and weight of the 70-300 and compare it to the weight of the D3200 + 18-55.
  22. Cheers everyone for your input. We decided on the the xvi-85VR for its extra wide angle coverage and longer reach. She'll take it in a few days to try out. Blew the upkeep but wanted a quality lens with expert optical qualities.
  23. I wonder if Shun's re-create was a fleck off or the review re-create that produced these graphs was an especially good re-create?
    thirty is deemed to be acceptable performance. That makes the wide end of the 16-85mm poor until f5.six/8. That is supported by the results from my own copy. Considering the 18-105mm is so inexpensive, it'due south non bad at-all, and has more reach, which was what was wanted.
    00bg92-539097584.jpg
  24. I wonder if Shun's copy was a bit off or the review re-create that produced these graphs was an specially expert re-create?​
    No offense, Mike. I was totally prepared that all these excuses for "bad copy" would come up. The 18-105mm DX test sample I used was a brand new lens shipped to me direct from Nikon U.s.a. along with the D7100 test sample. I accept since bought my own D7100 only of course without the kit lens.
    The fact of the thing is that 24MP from the D7100, and D3200, would greatly betrayal weaknesses on a lot of DX lenses. Call back this thread: http://www.photo.internet/nikon-camera-forum/00bTT6
    Within a few hours later I received that D7100 dorsum in March, I showed how poor the 12-24mm/f4 DX, which is considered to be a college-end DX lens, is on the 12mm cease on the D7100? People as well suggested that maybe the lens is bad.
    The fact of the matter is that a lot of these DX lenses such as the 12-24mm/f4 DX, 18-105mm DX plus the xviii-200, etc. were introduced when DX DSLRs were 6mp, 12MP. Those lenses were fine. In one case nosotros reached 16MP with the D7000, information technology started to betrayal a lot of their issues. For whatsoever reason, the 16MP D7000 is far more demanding on lenses than the 12MP D300. 24MP today just pushes things further into the extreme.
    I have too tried that same xviii-105mm DX on my D300, and it works out much better, so is my 12-24mm DX.
    But every bit long as you don't pixel peep and are willing to shrink your images down for electronic mail and Facebook posting, whatever junk lens will probably look fine.
    P.S. Information technology looks similar LensTip.com owns the copyright for those examination results. Mike, do you take permission from them to repost them here?
  25. Shun, as a side-by-side comparison on the same photographic camera, would you recommend the xvi-85mm over the 18-105mm for it's border performance broad-open at the wide or long end?
  26. Shun, if it's inside your power please remove them in-instance in that location's a problem.
  27. I have the 17-55mm/f2.viii AF-Southward DX, and a close friend of mine has the 16-85mm AF-S DX VR. I no longer accept that eighteen-105mm examination sample, but I can hands go dorsum to that location and bear witness you that even the sixteen-85 and the "pro" 17-55 are not that great around the edges at 18mm, f8, on the D7100, but they'll probably be amend than the 18-105 DX.
    Actually I am using that image as part of my Nikon xviii-35mm/f3.5-4.five AF-South VR review. I take used the eighteen-35mm AF-Due south VR on the D7100 and the results are far better, but we are talking nigh a college-end consumer lens that costs $750 and is only a 2x zoom, not to mention that the 18-35 covers FX so that nosotros are no longer using the edges of the prototype circle on the D7100.
    Those are new buildings in the neighborhood, and I drive by a few times a calendar week. I think their colors wait squeamish so that I have gone over a couple of times to capture some test images.
    00bg9s-539107584.jpg
  28. Shun, if you lot could do a comparison I'd like to see the difference between the diverse somewhat-wide-to-somewhat-tele
    lenses on 24mp. Those corners ain't pretty but I wonder whether the xvi-85 does improve. That's also a lens that originally
    paired with lower res cameras. Then there are those tamron and sigma lenses in the aforementioned toll range.
  29. Shun's comments point upwards the fact that lenses merely haven't kept upwards with these new high resolution sensors. In most 5 years we have seen the DX cameras go from the 12 Mp of the D300 to the 24 Mp of the D3200 and D7100 an increment in resolution of 41%, probably more than in the instance of the D7100 since hither is no anti-allonym filter. Nosotros accept non seem a corresponding improvement in lenses, in fact information technology's interesting to notation that Nikon are withal only quoting resolutions upwards to thirty lp/mm in their functioning curves! (They say lines/mm only I'k pretty certain that is a translation fault).
    According to my arithmetic a D7100 has a pixel pitch of half-dozen microns, corresponding to 167 lines/mm or 83.five lp/mm, so any lens that can't resolve that at decent contrast volition be shown as decidedly lacking when you look at 100%.
    The same argument likewise shows the doubtful value of offering a trunk like the D3200; whatever mid range zoom capable of doing it justice will probably cost far more than the camera body.
    BTW nigh reviews I've read charge per unit the sixteen-85 equally better than the 18-105 in the periphery.
  30. Right, just there'southward a difference between "better than a $200 lens" and "skillful." If I were buying a variable aperture zoom for
    $650 I'd have loftier expectations.
  31. I just bought the 16-85 and am actually really pleased with it. Used information technology was £275 in 'equally new' status and so maybe used lenses tin can give you better performance than buying a new 1 (toll for price). I think the sixteen-85 is better than both the xviii-105 and the 18-55 with richer colour and better dissimilarity.
  32. I agree with Ian. The xvi-85 is a great value fifty-fifty at full MSRP. It is nit the 17-55 but information technology is the all-time walk around lens I accept always owned.
    -O
  33. Have fun with that 16-85. That is one of my favorite lenses!
  34. We need to go along in mind that which (DX) torso you use those lenses on makes a huge difference. You lot tin can easily become abroad with the 18-200mm DX on 6MP, 10MP bodies that were mutual at the time that lens (version 1) was originally introduced back in 2005. On the 12MP D300, the long end of the xviii-200 is clearly quite poor.
    Too, the 18-105 was probably ok a few years ago on 12MP bodies such as the D5000, D90 and D300/D300S. The problem is that today, even the everyman consumer-grade D3200 is 24MP. However, the 18-105 is fine in the center of the frame, which may exist adept enough for enough of people, especially beginners. On the edges, there is plenty of smearing and chromatic abnormality.
    I wonder which DSLR body/bodies Ian is using the 16-85 DX on.
    Attached is the full size JPEG showing the eighteen-105mm DX @ 18mm, f8 on the D7100. It is near a 1M file. The original file is RAW.
    00bgJV-539261584.jpg
  35. It'southward not perfect, merely I can still easily read the Wheel LANE sign on the extreme right of the picture. At that place's nothing in the corners to assess sharpness so easily.
    I've lost track, simply have yous got the same shot with the 17-55mm ii.eight @ ~18mm f8 or the 16-85mm @ ~18mm f8 for a corners/edges comparison?
  36. Showtime of all, I retrieve I am a highly demanding photographer and don't particular tolerate low-quality lenses. I am well aware that a lot of people are not as picky as I am. IMO, Nikon's 18-105 is not a lens I would buy for 24MP DX-format DSLRs. In that sense I am somewhat puzzled that Nikon is coupling that equally the kit lens for the D7100.
    This morn, I went out and tried the post-obit lenses at that same location, all at 18mm, f8 on the D7100 @ ISO 100 on a tripod. However, it was a chip overcast so that the dissimilarity is not as strong. As a result, chromatic aberration bug are not as pronounced:
    • Nikon 12-24mm/f4 DX AF-S
    • Nikon 16-85mm/f3.5-five.half-dozen DX AF-Due south VR
    • Nikon 17-55mm/f2.viii DX AF-S
    • Nikon 17-35mm/f2.viii AF-S
    • Nikon 18-85mm/f3.v-four.5 AF-South
    Not surprisingly, all five lenses are better than the 18-105 DX.
    It turns out that both f2.8 lenses are a footling weak outside of the middle. The xvi-85 DX, which I borrowed from my friend, is quite good, much better than I had expected. It as well has the advantage every bit a 16mm so that 18mm is a fleck abroad from the widest en. The new xviii-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S as well turns out to be excellent, for both DX and FX.

    The OP wrote:

    Thank you everyone for your input. We decided on the the sixteen-85VR for its extra wide bending coverage and longer reach. She'll have it in a few days to effort out. Blew the budget but wanted a quality lens with expert optical qualities.​
    That is an excellent choice.
    00bgLg-539297684.jpg
  37. As an experiment I downsized Shun'southward 18-105 instance to 4928 pels wide (16.2 Mp, D7000, D5100 equivalent) and also to 4255 wide (12 Mp equivalent, D300, D90 or similar). I and so viewed them all at the aforementioned size looking at the centre (motorcar forepart and street sign). The original and D7000 equivalent looked much the same with the 12 Mp less sharp.
    This tends to ostend Shun's view that the 18-105 simply can't cope with the 24 Mp sensor but it perchance can with the xvi Mp one (in the middle at optimum aperture).
    By the manner my earlier post had an error. I should have said that the pixel pitch for the D7100 was four microns (24 mm / 6000) equivalent to 125 lp/mm!!! Compare that with the xl lp/mm at fifty% dissimilarity shown on the LensTip chart!
  38. Richard, yup things accept moved on quite a-lot from the D200! Equally, those tests, using the aforementioned photographic camera, even so evidence a level playing-field with regard to lenses.
    The view that lenses haven't kept up with sensors is undeniably true.
  39. I have the 18-105vr and it a wonderful lens. Its a scrap smaller then the 18-200 and lighter..and so its perfect for a walk effectually lens. Your wife should be very happy for a long time. Indoors for parties ,children etc..just popular up the flash and she will be fine. Think, she is a beginner and her standards are not equally stringent as most of the folks on this forum.
  40. Shun, I know this horse is already dead and browbeaten, but I retrieve you actually might have a bad copy of that lens. I don't take 1 anymore and never had a 24MP DX camera, but based on what mine did on 16MP I'one thousand pretty sure it was noticeably better than the one you used. I'll await in my Discontinuity library later and pull some samples.
  41. Shun, I know this horse is already dead and browbeaten, simply I retrieve you actually might take a bad copy of that lens.​
    I never believe in these "bad copy" excuses. I don't have the privilege to try some other sample of the xviii-105, but a lot of lenses I have used multiple samples, such equally the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S I have used half a dozen of them. I take used 2 different 50mm/f1.8 AF-S, 85mm/f1.8 AF-S, 28mm/f1.8 AF-S .... I currently have two 18-35mm/f3.five-iv.5 AF-S with me. My feel with Nikon lenses is that they are very consistent from sample to sample.
    However, the issue with those plastic-mountain lenses (such as the 18-55 and 18-105) is that construction is and so poor that upon any minor touch, any "good copy" would soon become "bad re-create" anyhow, so it really doesn't matter.
    Just if Nikon or anybody else would similar to ship me another 18-105mm DX for checking, they are more than than welcome to go in touch with me.
  42. Shun, and then I don't know how to explicate having had an xviii-105 as my main travel lens for three years that went on a bunch of trips, beaches, deserts, planes, trains, etc., that didn't suspension and got me skilful photos the whole time. I'thousand not saying it's a corking lens, but a guy whose wife is a beginner with an entry level camera and wanted aid choosing between nether-$200 lenses ended up bravado the upkeep on a $650 lens because the cheap lens is a bit fuzzy at 100% on the edge and has as well much plastic to be a pro selection. I don't think y'all did him a service.
  43. I don't recall you did him a service.​
    Andy, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, information technology is the OP's decision. If you check this discussion carefully, you'll realize that I was only recommending against the eighteen-105, equally I typically practice with plastic-mountain lenses. A few weeks ago I besides checked its long end, and its edge operation is also rather poor.
    The OP had already decided to go with the xvi-85 DX before I tested it this morn. It was not me who recommended the 16-85, which I ever considered it to be overpriced for a deadening f5.6 zoom, but I didn't realize that optically it is and so good until this forenoon, well after the OP had already made his decision.
    Since the OP's wife already has the 18-55 DX, information technology seems lightheaded to me to go from 1 cheap consumer zoom to another. If they want to salve coin, they should keep the eighteen-55 and become a longer zoom (e.m. the 70-300 AF-S VR) that can be shared with the OP's D800 and other lenses. Otherwise, some third-political party xviii-50mm/f2.8 type lens would brand far more sense, peculiarly for indoors. Every bit good as the 16-85 is optically, it is going to take its share of problems indoors and is going to be fairly useless on the D800.
    Incidentally, my 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX is almost as poor as the 18-105 @ 18mm. I did drib that lens one time and Nikon in LA fixed information technology, but I ever wonder wether information technology is still a bit out of alignment. My 17-35mm/f2.viii AF-S is as well rather poor, especially compared to the new xviii-35mm AF-S, which I also tested using two samples this morn. The new 18-35 is far better.
    I think the newers lenses from the terminal few years (not counting the cheap, plastic mount ones) are benefitting from newer optical designs.
  44. My 18-105 is just non sharp. My eighteen-55 VR was/is sharp correct out of the box. Y'all can buy my 18-105 if you like. I replaced it with with a Tamron 55-200 Macro, super sharp, super small. No VR and it doesn't need it

Share This Folio

Source: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-18-55-vr-versus-18-105-vr.482090/

Posted by: crabtreelunarned.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Nikkor 18 55 Vs 18 105"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel