Probably the biggest trend of the past few years is the sheer quality and quantity of lenses we’ve been seeing. There are now seven pretty good mirrorless lens lineups out there – most photographers should be able to find most of what they want in an amazing seven different mounts. Five of them come with very good body choices (from four manufacturers – Fujifilm is in there twice) as well, while there are two lines of lenses where I am much more concerned about body than lens availability (Micro 43 and L mount). Conversely, there is one mount where there are bodies, but few worthwhile lenses (Canon EF-M). Nikon and Fujifilm make photography writers’ lives easier by releasing roadmaps with about half of the next year’s lenses on them (they either add the rest to the roadmap a few weeks or a month before releasing them, or the day after they are revealed). The rest don’t do that – anything we hear about their lenses in advance is just rumor.

In addition to the seven lines, Sigma is producing a lot of excellent lenses in Sony FE and a few in Sony APS-C (they make most of them in L mount as well, but they’re part of the L mount alliance, so they count as a first party on that side). Sigma is talking about a number of other mounts as well, but no solid news there. Tamron is increasingly producing some highly innovative lenses in Sony APS-C and FE as well. Both Sigma and Tamron are making noises about lenses in Canon RF, Nikon Z and Fujifilm X mounts as well. Tamron actually has an 18-300mm travel zoom already released in Fujifilm X, a lens Fujifilm has long avoided making.

I’ve had a lot of Sigma lenses through here, and image quality has ranged from quite good (and a great value) to absolutely superb. Sigma has essentially been working on three lines of mirrorless-specific lenses. The most recent is a nice range of compact primes, which they keep expanding – it’s an FE-mount answer to Nikon’s in house range of f1.8 glass. The second is true mirrorless versions of their famous ART lenses – among the best lenses in the world, and often innovative. The third has been some very good value-oriented telephotos. So far, we haven’t seen a no holds barred mirrorless telephoto from Sigma (hint)…Their build quality has been uniformly very good or better, with quite a few excellent ones. They’ve alI been great values, often around half to two-thirds of what I’d expect to pay for a G-Master or a Canon L lens of similar quality. I haven’t used a Tamron lens in 20 years, and my impressions of their “cheap and cheerful” lenses from decades ago are hardly appropriate to their current designs, which include a bunch of lenses that are unusually fast, long or have unusual zoom ratios.

Here are thoughts on each lens lineup, in order from most to least comprehensive:

Sony FE (and APS-C afterthought):

Sony has the third most complete lens lineup EVER produced, in any format for any type of camera. #1 and #2, of course are Canon and Nikon SLR and DSLR lenses, in some order depending on how you count. Canon is probably ahead if you count AF lenses only, while Nikon has had a few manual focus exotica that Canon never equaled – a 6mm fisheye that actually has an angle of view greater than 180 degrees, so that it images BEHIND the mount, for example (try keeping your feet out of that one).

If you’re looking for modern designs for your mirrorless camera, Sony FE is the most comprehensive line there is, and there are a LOT of excellent lenses in there. A personal favorite is the unique 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 internally zooming lens. There are a lot of 150-600mm lenses on the market, and most of them are cheaper than the Sony, but they’re all “trombone zooms” that change balance as they zoom out, and they tend to be weaker at the long end, while the Sony keeps its balance and performance all the way out. It was 2020’s Lens of the Year, and it’s shockingly cheap for what it is, since it offers a real taste of Big White Lens performance and handling for $2000. It has no right to behave as much like a $5000 lens as it does for the price (no, it’s not quite a $5000 lens, but it’s very close). A $2000 600mm f6.3 this good would be a notable lens – this one also happens to zoom.

Sony’s G-Masters that I have used are also uniformly excellent, if not uniformly lightweight. I’ve had a bunch of G-Master primes through in various lens roundups, and they’ve all occupied the uppermost tier of (non-Otus, non-medium format) lens performance. They tend to be fast, ambitious designs, and that means good-sized, relatively heavy lenses. I’ve never heard anyone speak of a less than excellent G-Master except the oldest zooms, and I’ve certainly never personally encountered one. The one thing to compare closely when looking at a G-Master (or any other fast, ambitious lens that competes directly with a Sigma ART lens) is any Sigma ART competitor. The 85mm f1.4 G-Master is an excellent, even superb lens – but so is the 85mm f1.4 Sigma ART that is $500 cheaper and half a pound lighter. If you own the G-Master, you own one of the best 85mm lenses on the market – certainly don’t sell it for the Sigma – but, if you’re looking to buy, they deserve very close comparison.

Sony’s new lenses this year have broken down to four G-Masters (only one of which competes directly with an ART lens – the 35mm f1.4) and three very compact G-series primes. In the case of the 35mm,where there is a direct Sony/Sigma competition the Sony, while more expensive, is significantly smaller and lighter than the Sigma. The other three G-Masters are a remarkably lightweight 70-200mm f2.8, a remarkably wide 14mm f1.8 (there IS an ART lens, but it’s an old modified DSLR lens, more than twice the weight of the Sony and not as modern a design), and a remarkably fast 50mm f1.2. The three very compact, inexpensive G-series primes are a 24mm, a 40mm and a 50mm, all on the slower side (the 24mm is f2.8, while the other two are f2.5). Why both a 40mm and a 50mm? Give us one of the two and a 75mm or a 90mm, for a variation on the old Summicron trio. 28-50-90mm is the classic old range, but 24-40-75mm may have an advantage with digital, where cropping is much more feasible due to the high resolution.

What holes does Sony still need to fill, and what old lenses could use a refresh? The only significant hole in Sony’s lineup is an odd gap in fast telephotos. You can get to 200mm at f2.8, courtesy of the brand-new 70-200 f2.8 G-Master II. I haven’t used one, but early reviews are excellent. There isn’t a 200mm prime, so there’s nothing faster than the zoom in that range – but a 200mm f1.8 or f2 is a serious exotic, beloved of basketball shooters but uncommon (the only mirrorless version is from Fujifilm, and, since it’s APS-C, it actually serves a different purpose – replacing a 300mm f2.8).

The real issue is that from 200mm to 400mm, there are nothing but f5.6 zooms. The newest and probably best option is the short end of the 200-600mm f5.6-6.3. It’s a great lens, and an excellent value. Unfortunately, that’s a huge, heavy lens to use as a slow 250mm – it’s even very heavy as a 400mm f6.3. It’s really a supertelephoto that zooms down into the telephoto range, not a dedicated telephoto. The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 also covers that range, but it’s an older lens that offers no better image quality than the cheaper 200-600mm, and lacks the long end. If you don’t need the long end, the 100-400mm is a similar-quality lens that is significantly lighter than the 200-600mm (even though it’s faster at the short end, it’s at f5.6 by 200mm, so it’s no more than 1/3 stop faster in the gap). Part of the range is also covered by the (also older) 70-300mm f4.5-5.6, which will be at f5.6 in this range. There’s no 300mm f2.8 (apart from a REALLY old A-mount lens on an adapter), no ~120-300mm f2.8 zoom, no ~200-400mm f4 zoom, and no 300 or 400mm f4. The only newer lens in the 200-400mm range is the short end of a zoom that goes to 600mm. There aren’t any faster Sigma lenses for Sony FE in that range, either (there are a couple of DSLR lenses, but nothing mirrorless). Once you hit 400mm and above, not only does the 200-600mm start being a more reasonable size and weight for its aperture, there are also a pair of excellent exotic primes at 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4. I’d love to see either Sony or Sigma address the 200-400mm, faster than f5.6 range!

Every gap other than this is REALLY exotic. There are no fisheye lenses other than one inexpensive manual-focus curiosity from 7Artisans. There are no telephotos longer than 600mm. The only tilt/shift lenses are from Rokinon and Laowa, inexpensive manufacturers who don’t have the track record of Sony or Sigma. No other mirrorless system has any of these options either, with one very exotic exception, one very slow exception and two lenses announced but not shipping. Canon has a binocular fisheye in RF mount, a weird lens meant for virtual reality. Nikon has preannounced an 800mm f6.3 in Z mount (more about that lens under Nikon), and Canon has a shipping 800mm RF, but it’s f11. Fujifilm has preannounced a tilt-shift lens of unknown focal length in the medium format GF mount.

Since Sony has been in the mirrorless game for a long time, there are a number of older, weaker lenses that could use replacement – most of the other systems are so much newer that essentially all of the lenses are newer designs. In most cases, the weak lens may still be on the market, but there’s a newer, better one as well. There are a breathtaking variety of 50mm and 55mm lenses for FE, and some of them are stronger than others, for example – the best are world-class… The one place where there is a real concentration of weak lenses is in the “standard zoom” range. Neither the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 nor the 24-70mm f4 rises above “fair” on modern cameras, and the 24-105mm f4 is a good, but not great lens. I’ve got the 24-70mm f2.8 G-Master in for review (on the A1) right now, but it just arrived a few days ago, and I don’t have an opinion yet. The one lens I have used extensively and really like in that range is the 24-70mm Sigma ART. Sony could use at least one, and probably a couple of replacements in that range.

The last comment on Sony lenses is their weak APS-C lineup. Sony hasn’t released an APS-C lens since August of 2019. Unless you count the vlogger-focused ZV-E10, they haven’t released an APS-C camera since then, either! As of late January, 2022, they are no longer filling orders from the factory for ANY APS-C camera, with the only possible exception being the eight-year-old a6000 (if they are still filling a6000 orders, they have a bunch of them sitting in a warehouse – they certainly aren’t making them). Do we count Sony out of APS-C altogether, or are they working on some new bodies and lenses?

Fujifilm X

Fujifilm is unique in making a truly high-end APS-C line, with excellent lenses. They make a few lousy lenses, too – but they are kind enough to mark the best with a red badge, the really good ones XF and the mediocre ones XC. They are reliably good for two to five new APS-C lenses (plus a couple of medium format lenses) annually. So far, we haven’t seen much in the way of third-party lenses for Fujifilm, apart from the cheap manual-focus variety – but their lineup is comprehensive enough that there is less need. One possible reason we haven’t seen many quality third-party lenses for Fujifilm is that full-frame designs would stick out compared to Fujifilm’s much more compact native glass. Sigma, for example, couldn’t simply take the ART lenses and move them over from FE and L mount – the unnecessary coverage would make them much bigger and heavier than comparable Fujifilm glass. Tamron did recently release a 18-300mm travel lens in X mount, which is the first lens with a REALLY extensive zoom range in the mount (Fujifilm has an 18-135mm of their own) – it’s shared with Sony APS-C.

I’ve at least liked every Fujinon I’ve used, and a number of them are among my all-time favorites. They really take advantage of their smaller sensor to build lenses that just wouldn’t work on full-frame, and they have a healthy collection of fast lenses that minimize the depth-of-field disadvantage. Their lineup is comparable in completeness to Sony full-frame – all the expected lenses below the long telephoto range, and some extras besides. They don’t have as many “extra” choices at similar focal lengths and apertures, partially because there isn’t a broad line of Sigma lenses overlapping with the manufacturer offerings. This year’s five new offerings are three f1.4 lenses (a brand-new 18mm plus 23mm and 33mm optics that supplement or supplant much older optics of similar focal length), a slightly revised 27mm f2.8 pancake lens and a very compact 70-300mm f4-5.6. Since it’s an APS-C lens, the latter is absolutely tiny for its reach. A pound and a quarter (580 grams) for a very good (if somewhat slow) lens with an equivalent focal length of 450mm!

The telephoto gap is in a slightly different place than it is in the Sony line, and it’s up to each individual looking for exotic long glass which one is more important. Fujifilm has quite comprehensive coverage up to 90mm (135mm in full-frame terms), in both primes and zooms. Above that, there’s a 50-140mm f2.8 (since this is APS-C, it acts like a 70-200mm f4), a 200mm f2 (300mm f2.8 equivalent), and a couple of long zooms on the slower end. There isn’t the big gap with only f5.6 lenses, but there are a couple of smaller gaps, and there aren’t the exotic fast supertelephotos. One gap is that you lose f2.8 equivalent aperture at 135mm, rather than 200mm equivalent focal length (you get to 200mm at f4 with the excellent 50-140mm f2.8). The missing exotic medium-long lens around 300mm f2.8 is filled in by the 200mm f2 (where you’re stuck at f5.6 is the Sony world) – but there’s nothing fast and longer except teleconverters on the 200mm. A 1.4x converter on the 200mm produces a 280mm f2.8 that acts like a 420mm f4, and a 2x is a 400mm f4 (e.g. 600mm f5.6) – both a stop slower (but much cheaper) than their Sony equivalents.

The long zooms are pretty comparable – the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is half a stop faster than the Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3, and covers a similar range – but the sensor size means that it loses about a stop of subject isolation. After all is said and done, it loses about half a stop, and it’s much more compact. Both are great lenses, with slightly different tradeoffs. Fujifilm has promised a truly unique long telephoto – a 150-600mm. At first, that seems like any number of lenses on the market, but remember that it’s an APS-C lens and multiply the equivalent focal length by 1.5. This is a lens that goes to 900mm equivalent (probably at something like f8 equivalent – but it’s 900mm).

Yes, you could use the Sony 200-600mm on a Sony APS-C body or crop an A7r IV or an A1 for a similar effect – but this is a dedicated lens with the baffles set up correctly for APS-C. It may be a bit smaller and lighter than the big Sony, and it’s likely to have slightly better APS-C image quality – the closest will actually be cropping on a Sony FF body, since the best of them have better (and actually denser) sensors than anything in Sony APS-C . So far the only lenses to take advantage of smaller sensors to achieve preposterous focal lengths are Micro 4/3 optics that are hampered by the ancient Same Old Sensor. If Fujifilm can build something really superb that matches their great APS-C sensors, they may have a real advantages at the longest end of the range? It may take the 1.4x converter, too – a real focal length of 840mm would have an equivalent of 1260mm. Yes, it would be a real f8, with an f11 equivalent – but 1200mm+ lenses faster than that tend to cost $100,000. Again, cropping the right Sony FF body with the 200-600mm (and their 1.4x converter) is the alternative.

Again, just like Sony, no “short exotics” – no fisheyes or tilt-shift lenses. Unlike Sony, one of Fujifilm’s strengths is standard zooms – they have everything from an excellent and tiny 18-55mm f2.8-4 that is NOTHiNG like most kit lenses to a much larger 16-55mm f2.8 that easily competes with others’ 24-70mm f2.8s.The zooms are often a stop slower in effect than Sony’s, because their real apertures are similar, but APS-C costs a stop of subject isolation. Many of the primes are a stop faster than comparably-sized Sony lenses to compensate so depth of field Is similar, but there’s often a faster Sony (or Sigma) lens if you’re willing to accept the weight and cost. Fujifilm does offer a 50mm f1.0, to compete with 85mm f1.4 lenses on full-frame (and it’s similarly priced) – but there aren’t shorter f1.0 lenses to compete with 24mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.4 optics. Fujifilm has been in the compact prime game much longer than anyone except Leica (M lenses), Panasonic and Olympus, and while Sony and Sigma are just now releasing tiny primes, Fujifilm has had a lineup from 18mm (27mm equivalent to 50mm (75mm) for years.

Nikon Z and Canon RF:

It was very difficult to decide whether to put Z or RF first in terms of completeness – they’re quite comparable. Both have somewhere over 20 lenses, depending on what you count as “available” – especially in Nikon’s case, release may not be the same as widespread availability. Canon and Nikon released their systems almost simultaneously in the fall of 2018, and have both been filling out their lens lineups ever since. Both have been carefully filling in their initial gaps, and have lines that contain everything common plus a fair number of oddities and an exotic or two.

I personally like Nikon’s lineup slightly better because of the extremely useful f1.8 primes. Nikon has a set of 20, 24, 35,50,85mm f1.8 primes – all under $1000, all superb modern designs with double-digit element counts, including multiple ED and aspheric elements. Canon has nothing like them – they have a bunch of cheap primes and several f1.2 beauties, but no set of superb, modern, affordable lenses. In otherwise comparable lines, I’d rather have the f1.8’s than three much simpler lenses under $400 and a pair of f11 fixed aperture superteles. If you prefer the latter, Canon’s lineup is more comprehensive.

Both Canon and Nikon offer a “trinity” of f2.8 zooms, with only a slight difference. Both have 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 offerings, but their approaches to the widest member of the trinity differ a bit. Canon’s is a 15-35mm, which has the advantage of some overlap with the 24-70, but it loses a millimeter at the wide end (the difference between 14 and 15mm is somewhat significant, in a way that the difference between, say, 200 and 201 mm is not), and it’s a significantly larger and heavier lens than the Nikon 14-24mm.

Both also offer a “second trinity” of f4 zooms, but their approaches differ quite a bit here. Nikon’s is composed of a 14-30mm, a 24-70mm and the brand-new 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 (no, it’s not f4, but it adds a lot of range). I’ve used both the 14-30mm and the 24-70mm f4 extensively, and the 14-30mm is very good, while the 24-70mm is excellent. Both are very compact and lightweight. Nikon now offers a 24-120mm that can substitute for the 24-70mm, adding range without lens changes and eliminating the gap to the 100-400mm. I’ve never used either the 100-400mm or the 24-120mm, both of which are brand-new – but my overall experience with S-line Nikkors has been really excellent. It adds a bit of weight, but is actually somewhat lighter than the older Canon 24-105mm. The 24-120mm is also a notably close-focusing lens (0.39x life size) – not a true macro lens, but similar to a lot of macro zooms.

Canon’s “second trinity” starts with a 14-35mm f4 that is very similar in concept to the 14-30mm Nikkor. The extra 5mm may be welcome to reduce lens changes, and the cost in size and weight is minor. The middle lens is a 24-105mm f4 that is quite a bit heavier than Nikon’s 24-70mm f4, and even a bit heavier than Nikon’s 24-120mm option. There are no less bulky options, and no special close focus. Canon offers a choice for the telephoto end, which Nikon doesn’t There is a very lightweight 70-200mm f4 or a 100-500mm f4.5-7.1. If you don’t notice that the longer lens goes to 500mm, it looks very slow – but it keeps a f5.6 maximum aperture out to 365mm, so it doesn’t get really slow until it’s out in the “extra” 100 mm. It’s very similar in size and weight to the 100-400mm Nikkor (about 8” long and 3 lbs), and, assuming optical quality is similar (I haven’t used either one), 500mm is a nice addition.

Both Canon and Nikon offer a good selection of lenses beyond the high-quality zooms. Nikon is finally entering the telephoto world, with the 100-400mm shipping, a brand-new 400mm f2.8 (not simply a “permanent adapter” lens like the Canon) with a built-in teleconverter released but not yet shipping, and an 800mm f6.3 Phase Fresnel lens pre-announced without full specifications. They’re also promising a consumer-friendly 200-600mm lens and a 400mm slower than f2.8 that’s almost certainly a Phase Fresnel.

The f1.8 primes in the 20-85mm range are a special feature of the Nikon line – they are truly excellent lenses and a very nice matched set. Where Nikon is weak is in lenses faster than f1.8 – they have a 50mm f1.2 and a very exotic 58mm f0.95(!!!), but nothing else. There is a faster 85mm on the roadmap, perhaps an f1.2, but no mention of anything wider and fast. They have two macro lenses (50 and 105mm) and a couple of pancake primes plus one cheap full-frame 24-50mm f4-6.3 zoom for the Z5, a 24-200mm f4-6.3 travel lens and a just released 28-75mm f2.8 zoom (????) – why, when there are already excellent 24-70mm lenses in f2.8 and f4 variants. The new 28-75mm looks suspiciously like a Nikon rebadging of a 2018 Tamron lens that Tamron just released an improved version of? Nikon also offers three DX (APS-C) lenses, all relatively inexpensive zooms with f6.3 maximum apertures at the telephoto end. DX Z mount bodies accept the full-frame lens line, but the bodies lack image stabilization (all full-frame Z bodies have it). Most full-frame Z Nikkors are not stabilized because the bodies are. The result is a weird incompatibility where there’s no stabilization at all with a DX body and (most) full-frame lenses. Given that beginners who will benefit the most from image stabilization are likely DX customers, this seems like a significant oversight.

Nikon Z is a relatively comprehensive lens line. What more does it need? A couple more long primes, especially a 135mm f1.8 (part of the standout f1.8 line) and a 300mm f2.8 would be useful – the latter is exactly the same gap that Sony faces (although the 400mm Phase Fresnel will help – it’ll provide a lens longer than 200mm and faster than f5.6 without breaking the bank). As an alternative to a 300mm f2.8, an exotic zoom like a 120-300mm f2.8 or a 180-400mm f4 could fill in that range. Nikon makes DSLR versions of both.

A couple more f1.2 or f1.4 primes would be nice – 85mm first, then 28mm or 35mm? Beyond that, most of the holes are exotica like fisheyes and tilt-shift lenses. Nikon and Canon actually have a significant advantage over Sony in the real exotics where nobody has native lenses. Both offer rock-solid first-party adapters to their own DSLR lenses with real support, while Sony shooters are stuck with Sony body to no-name adapter to Canon lens (or Nikon lens, but Canons are easier to adapt).

Canon matches Nikon lens for lens in the first and second trinities (both Nikon and Canon are actually stronger than Sony, because of Sony’s weak middle lens – both wide and tele are superb, but the midrange lenses are all older, especially the mediocre slower choices). Canon also has the choice of 70-200mm or 100-500mm telephotos in the second trinity. Canon offers two cheap zooms to Nikon’s one in full-frame – instead of a 24-50mm f4-6.3, their cheap standard zoom is a 24-105mm f4-7.1. They also have a cheap long zoom – a very compact and light 100-400mm f5.6-8 that also happens to focus close. A remarkably useful lens for taking pictures of rattlesnakes in bright desert sun – but that’s not even their oddest telephoto. That title has to go to the 600mm and 800mm f11 pair – inexpensive, light, long and sloooow. Their final long lenses are the 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 exotics – these are “permanent adapter” versions of their latest EF DSLR lenses – the idea of offering remounting (as Sigma does) would make the transition less expensive. Finishing out their zooms are a 24-240mm travel lens and a hefty, exotic 28-70mm f2.

The zooms and long lenses are a little stronger than Nikon’s overall, although there are certainly advantages and disadvantages both ways – and the two Nikon PF lenses arriving will change the balance at the long end if Canon doesn’t add more glass of their own.. Where Canon is weaker is in wide and midrange primes. Their strength is in the f1.2 primes (50mm and two versions of 85mm, with more on the way, all of them generally reviewed as among the best in the world), and macro lenses. The macros include a very inexpensive 35mm, a midrange 85mm (that also serves as a nice 85mm f2 portrait lens) and a very high-end 100mm f2.8 with two special features. The 100mm focuses closer than 1:1 – the only autofocus lens to do that, and the only stabilized one. It has five stops of claimed stabilization on its own, and an amazing eight stops on a stabilized body – that’s VERY worth testing. The other special feature of the 100mm is adjustable bokeh – it has a spherical aberration control that moves lens elements to control the behavior of out of focus areas. There are only two more RF primes, and they’re both cheap, simple lenses – a 16mm f2.8 and a double-Gauss 50mm f1.8.

The only modern Canon 50mm is the f1.2 – the f1.8 is in no way competitive with the Nikkor, the better Sonys or a Sigma ART lens (and, for $199, it’s not meant to be). The 85mm f2 macro is supposed to be a good lens, but the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 is a great one, with the 85mm Zeiss Otus often being mentioned as a comparison in reviews. There are no 20, 24 or 28mm primes at all, the only 35mm prime is the $400 macro, and the 16mm f2.8 prime is a $300 cheapie. Canon is likely to release some wider versions of their gorgeous f1.2 primes, and we might well see some more cheap primes one step above junk lenses – but will they fill in the middle range and compete with Nikon’s f1.8 line? It’s also possible to assemble a very nice set of midrange primes for Sony (possibly with a little help from Sigma) or Fujifilm (in either APS-C or medium format), or even L-mount – although none have a Nikon-style matched set. Canon has a relatively unique weakness in good primes slower than f1.2. They have the usual gap in telephotos between 200-400mm, and they’re lacking exotics – but their adapters bring in the best possible set of DSLR exotics.

Fujifilm GFX

Fujifilm GFX is at least possibly the most comprehensive lens lineup in the history of medium format (the competition is several film-era lines including Hasselblad V and Pentax 67), but it’s still a medium format line. Most lenses you might want for medium format photography are here, including a better selection of zooms than any previous system. What you won’t find is three or four lenses of very similar focal length but different aperture and quality, or very long telephotos. When the pre-announced 20-35mm zoom comes out, the range from 20-200mm (roughly 15-150mm in full-frame terms) will be well-covered with continuous coverage by zooms and a nice selection of primes. Because the large sensor requires unusually broad coverage, quality third-party lenses don’t exist. The Sigma ART lenses would be very welcome (for example) , but Sigma would have to redesign them, rather than simply remount them.

There are presently seven standard-speed primes (between f2.8 and f4), at 23,30,45,50,63,120 (macro) and 250mm. Two fast primes fill in the portrait range at 80mm f1.7 and 110mm f2.0 (both very fast for medium format, and the oversize sensor means that they have more DOF control than they appear to – the 80mm f1.7 is very close to an f1.2 lens in FF). Four zooms cover 32-64mm, 35-70mm (an entry-level lens), 45-100mm and 100-200mm. Upcoming lenses include a 20-35mm zoom, a 55mm f1.7 and a tilt-shift lens of unknown focal length, probably a wide-angle. About the only gap for the usual work of medium format is that I’d love to see a standard-speed lens between 80 and 100mm. The jump from 63mm to the 120mm macro is a bit big to have only the two very fast lenses in, and the 63mm is the longest compact lens.. There is also an argument for a 350 or 400mm, or for something like a 200-400mm (or even 200-600mm) zoom – long lenses don’t tend to have coverage problems, so it might not have to be much larger than an equivalent full-frame lens, especially if it wasn’t terribly fast.

We probably won’t ever see a long, fast GFX prime – the big sensor just doesn’t read out fast enough for sports photography – the GFX 100S is the fastest GFX yet, and it’s somewhere between a single-shot and a 5 fps camera, depending on mode settings. Wildlife, especially in a more contemplative style, would be the use for a long lens, perhaps along with compressing distances in landscape photography.

The sheer number of GFX lenses will probably never come close to the number available for FE, RF or Z mount. The coverage, however, outside of long telephotos, is comparable. There is no need for the $200-500 lenses that make up a significant portion of smaller format systems. Who’d use a cheap lens on a $4000+ body optimized for extreme resolution? GFX also isn’t old enough to have accumulated some of the duplicate lenses that exist in other mounts. In an extreme example, there are nine different 50 and 55mm autofocus primes in Sony FE mount, including six from Sony themselves (and one that a lot of Sony shooters want is missing – there’s no f1.4 G-Master). Fujifilm answers these lenses with one lens – the 63mm f2.8. There is a 55mm f1.7 on the way, but that’s all – there is one standard-speed option, and there will be a fast one soon. Of the 25+ lenses available in Z mount (for example), three of them are longer than any GFX lens, two are faster than any GFX lens (the upcoming 55mm f1.7 is similar to Nikon’s 50mm f1.2, while the 58mm f0.95 NOCT is an ultrafast exotic that Fujifilm doesn’t compete with), two are marginally wider than even the upcoming 20-35mm lens. Five or six are cheap lenses or wide range travel zooms that don’t really make sense in medium format. The only really important coverage differences are long telephotos (any smaller sensor will have much more in telephoto territory) and fast normal/wide lenses – Fujifilm has fast portrait lenses with a fast slight wide angle on the way. The difference in wide angle coverage (once the 20-35mm comes out) is between about 16mm and 14mm equivalent.

Due to the difference in how the formats are used, it’s impossible to say “GFX has more or less options than some other system”. Medium format has never been where photographers turn for the most exotic lens options. Compared to previous medium format systems, GFX has more, and more practical zooms, as well as more fast lenses. A few systems, especially Pentax 645 and 67, have had more telephoto choices. GFX is a very complete system by medium format standards – much like Hasselblad V in its heyday (when you account for the format, the available prime focal lengths are quite similar). GFX’s fast lenses are not matched by the leaf-shutter CF lenses most of us think about, but there was a 110mm f2 for leaf-shutter Hasselblad that offers an angle of view quite similar to the 80mm f1.7 Fujinon.

Practical zoom lenses are a GFX (and Pentax 645) addition to the medium format toolkit. There was only one zoom lens for Hasselblad V, and it was huge and heavy. It was a 140-280mm f5.6 that is similar to the 100-200mm Fujinon, but, at 4 lbs, it was 1 ¾ times as heavy as the already good-sized Fujinon, and as heavy as the 150mm and 250mm Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad combined. It’s not much lighter than a Sony 200-600mm. By contrast, when the 20-35mm comes out, three Fujinon zooms, all practically sized, will combine to cover most of the range of the trinity of FF zooms, although they are slower.(20-35mm, any midrange zoom – 32-64,35-70 or 45-100mm – and 100-200mm). Depending on the weight of the 20-35mm, they may actually be lighter than many full-frame sets (although heavier than “second trinities” of f4 and variable aperture lenses that are closer in speed). The GFX lenses ae optically superb – most manufacturers’ f2.8 trinities are as well, but that’s not guaranteed for second trinities, many of which include a weak lens or two.

GFX has a style of its own – it’s not a blank canvas that works for any type of photography the way a Sony A1 is (for example). If your style matches the GFX style, there are plenty of lenses – everything one would need for landscape, architecture, contemplative portraiture, still life, etc. is there – and Fujifilm is expanding the line in those directions, with an ultrawide zoom, a third fast prime of moderate focal length and a tilt/shift lens being the next three roadmap introductions. One each for the landscape, portrait and architecture photographer? GFX lenses I have used are superb – all of them as good as a Sony G-Master, a Canon L lens, a S-line Nikkor or a Sigma ART lens. I hope they take a risk on one long zoom (I haven’t heard anything about such a lens, and they haven’t roadmapped it), as there’s a certain subset of wildlife work for which the cameras are attractive, but the right lens is missing. Maybe a 150-600 or 200-600mm f5.6-8? Yes, it’s slow, but that’s largely compensated for by sensor size (it’s similar to a f5-6.3 on full-frame, and that’s standard for such a long zoom).

Micro 43 and L-mount

What brings these two together is not Panasonic, but the fact that they’re nice lens lines for which body availability is the question. There are quite a few Micro 43 bodies available – 16 listed at B&H as of January 2, 2022 (a few of which are color variants) – but 10 use the underperforming 20 MP Same Old Sensor first seen in 2015 (and a relatively poor performer even then), four use the even more underperforming Even Older 16 MP sensor first seen in 2010, and one is a dedicated video camera using a 10 MP sensor. The last one is the Panasonic GH6, with a new sensor – but it’s a preannouncement with no details. Similarly, B&H lists eight L-mount bodies, but two are bulky Panasonics that barely sell (the #33 and #35 sellers on B&H’s list of 35 full-frame mirrorless bodies), one is the video specialist Panasonic S1H, two are the extremely unusual Sigma fp and fp L, and two are extremely expensive Leicas.

The remaining camera in L-mount is the attractive Panasonic S5, but is one viable camera enough? Out of 35 full-frame mirrorless bodies at B&H, the eight L-mount bodies are the #16, #19 (video specialist S1H), #24 and #31-35 sellers. The medium format GFX 100S outsells even the Panasonic S5, the GFX 50SII outsells the next most popular L-mount camera (the video-centric S1H) by at least two to one (the body and kit each outsell the S1H), and it is almost certain that GFX as a whole outsells L-mount as a whole. Outsold by medium format is not a prescription for a mainstream camera system – medium format has always been a high-end choice that is a small fraction of the overall market. What would we have thought of, say, Pentax’s chances in the film era if they were consistently outsold not only by Canon, Nikon and Minolta, but also by Hasselblad?

With the significant concern about bodies, both lens lines are decent, Micro 43 lists 57 lenses between Panasonic and Olympus/OM System, which is more than any other line (including Sony full-frame). There are three important caveats to this. The first is duplication – Panasonic and Olympus often release very nearly the same lens, and there are multiple versions of some lenses even within one manufacturer. There are three different 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 zoom lenses (Panasonic, Olympus pancake, Olympus non-pancake), two very similar 14-140 (or 150) mm travel zooms, and nearly identical inexpensive 40 (or 45)-150mm f4-5.6 telezooms. There are also both Panasonic and Olympus versions of various primes, with similar focal lengths, maximum apertures and optical design. Depending on what counts as a duplicate lens, probably about 1/3 of the choices are duplicates.

The second caveat is the prevalence of inexpensive lenses. About 1/3 of Micro 43 lens choices are below $300, and fully half of the options are under $500. Some of that is actually an advantage – smaller-format lenses require less glass, so a $500 Micro 43 lens can be a better lens than a $500 full-frame optic. Another part of it, though, is that there are a lot of kit-type zooms and simple, slow primes – looking through the cheapies for the quality lenses, there are fewer options than the list would indicate.

The third, closely related caveat is that a lot of the lenses are slow. Looking at a selection of f1.2 to f2 primes and f1.7 to f5.6 zooms, this is not immediately obvious – but there is a full two-stop difference in depth of field compared to full-frame, and there is at least a two-stop difference, maybe more, in dynamic range and noise performance. Those f1.2 lenses are really more like f2.4, and the variable aperture zooms that are f5.6 at the long end are behaving like f11 lenses. Even the two very expensive f1.7 zoom lenses are really behaving like f3.5 zooms – relatively competitive (and faster than just about any APS-C lens with a one-stop disadvantage compared to full-frame), but still slower than full-frame f2.8 lenses, many of which are cheaper. Most of the constant-aperture zooms are f2.8, the same as their full-frame cousins – but the two-stop disadvantage means that they really have the speed of a kit lens. Lenses that try and work around the inherent disadvantages of the sensor size and age end up being incredibly expensive because they are much more complex than a lens that uses a larger sensor to assist in depth of field and light gathering.

A dramatic example of what the disadvantage means is that the 42.5mm f1.2 Panasonic Leica lens competes directly with the 85mm f1.8 Z Nikkor. Because the Panasonic lens has such a wide maximum aperture, it is a $1400 lens to the Nikkor’s $700. Its equivalent maximum aperture is half a stop slower than the Nikkor. They are very comparable in weight, and the Panasonic is a bit smaller. The Nikkor (helped by a far superior sensor) achieves a DxOMark score of 49, to the Panasonic’s 30. DxOMark numbers are far from perfect, but they do provide a way of comparing the technical characteristics of lenses in disparate mounts that no real reviewer is likely to have shot together. Unfortunately, for the past year or more, 90% of DxOMark’s time has been spent testing smartphones.

A DxOMark score of 49 is a world-class lens like a Zeiss Otus, while a DxOMark of 30 is typical of a good, but not great zoom lens (and disappointing for a higher-end prime). 85mm lenses are among the best on the market – Sony, Sigma ART, Canon and Zeiss versions are also among the best lenses in the DxOMark database, with scores in the upper 40s. The 42.5mm f1.2 is the best lens made for Micro 43, and it is beaten by most upper-end lenses for other formats – most of this is, of course, the fault of the Same Old Sensor, since DxO tests lenses on a body, getting a result for lens and sensor together – but you can’t avoid the Same Old Sensor, so the result is realistic. $1400 for a moderate-speed (equivalent) portrait lens with a DxOMark score of 30 is extremely expensive. Even the very fast, very sharp, very beautiful Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN ART is cheaper than the Panasonic lens, and, while it’s technically a half stop slower, once you take the sensor size into account, it behaves a stop and a half faster.

Another lens that I suspect will have similar issues is the $7500 150-400mm f4.5 (with its built-in teleconverter that makes it a 187-500mm f5.6). It’s a very similar lens to the Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 – perhaps a slightly higher-end design, but not much – both are internal zooming lenses with 95mm front filters, a bunch of ED elements (in broadly similar places) and generally similar optical designs.. The Same Old Sensor will hold back its performance, and it costs almost four times as much as the Sony. Yes, it’s a “longer” lens due to the sensor crop factor, but if you call it longer, you also have to accept it as slower (if it’s an 800mm lens in full-frame terms, it’s an 800mm f9). If you want the range of the Olympus lens, crop the A1 you’re shooting the Sony on – a crop from the A1 sensor will still outperform the Same Old Sensor, not to mention the far better AF on the A1. Which A1? The one you bought with the price difference between the two lenses!

The one strong suit of the Micro 43 lineup is a nice set of moderate-speed, tiny primes that nothing in full-frame is quite equivalent to. Even there, Fujifilm has a similar set of APS-C primes – not quite as tiny, but still VERY small, for similar prices. Even if the lenses themselves are similar performers, the “Fujicrons” have a huge sensor advantage. Micro 43 also features some exotics, notably a native fisheye, which no other mirrorless system has without resorting to a Samyang/Rokinon/etc. lens.

I’m not expecting much in the way of Micro 43 lens introductions this coming year – the most sensible options would be highly videocentric lenses to go with the upcoming GH6. If the E-M1 IV shows up with a better sensor and extremely quick AF, some compact sports-oriented glass could also make a lot of sense – the problem is that it can’t be four times the price of a similar lens in a different mount. Olympus/OM is claiming that the 150-400mm needs to be compared to lenses like the Nikon 180-400mm and Canon 200-400mm f4 zooms – but those are effectively more than two stops faster. With the sensor size issue, its real competitors are slower supertele zooms for ¼ the price.

L-mount lens selection is excellent below the telephoto range, although with a lot of duplication because Sigma, Leica and Panasonic are all releasing lenses into the same space. All three manufacturers offer 50mm f1.4 lenses, for example, although Sigma’s is an older stretched DSLR lens, not one of their superb new mirrorless designs. All three also offer 24-70mm f2.8 lenses, although that’s cheating – both Sigma and Leica offer the same Sigma ART lens for very different prices (buy it from Sigma, then buy a Sigma ART 14-24mm f2.8 and a couple of filters and memory cards with the price difference). Panasonic has a nice set of f1.8 primes much like Nikon’s .

L-mount looks much like Nikon a year ago in terms of telephoto options. There’s nothing but zooms above 105mm, and the only way above 200mm faster than f5.6 is a $7295 Leica 90-280mm f2.8-4. There ARE 100-400mm f5-6.3 and 150-600mm f5-6.3 zooms, both nice new designs courtesy of Sigma. Any higher-end telephoto would almost certainly be a Sigma, since they’ve made excellent ones over the years, while Leica has never made an AF lens longer than that 90-280, and Panasonic has never made a high-end telephoto at all, excepting their broadcast lenses. The viability of L-mount depends enormously on Sigma, for two reasons. First of all, four of the top five and six of the top ten selling L-mount lenses at B&H are Sigmas. Second, they are the only major L-mount lens maker who is making the same lenses for another mount. Even if both Leica and Panasonic give up, it’s very little work for Sigma to keep making L-mount versions of their successful FE lenses.

Pentax

Probably the most surprising lens story of 2021 is that Pentax managed to release five lenses (four Limited full-frame primes and one APS-C zoom). Given that many people have forgotten that Pentax makes cameras and lenses, and that it takes a good-sized dealer to find one on a shelf, five lenses in a year is a feat. Three of the primes are rereleases of lenses from the 1990s and early 2000s – same optics with updated coatings and diaphragm blades. Even the ancient screw-drive autofocus is unchanged. The truly new 21mm D FA Limited is a modern full-frame wide angle lens. The APS-C 16-50mm f2.8 is an update to an older 16-50mm zoom. It seems to be an excellent lens from the few reviews in existence, but it’s a quixotic lens in a few ways… It’s a $1400 lens that fits only some very unusual cameras that are often used with vintage lenses, and it’s an APS-C lens that is approaching the size and weight of my Fujinon 32-64mm, a medium format lens with a similar focal range (the Pentax has more telephoto reach). A big, heavy, expensive APS-C lens for a mount that few people use isn’t exactly mainstream…

Hasselblad

The question surrounding Hasselblad is whether we ever see another lens (or body) from them. It’s up to DJI, and the signs aren’t good, at least for conventional cameras – no lenses since January 2020, no bodies since mid-2019 . Quite a number of DJi drones are showing up with Hasselblad branding (oddly, their Ronin 4D uber-gimbal-cam is NOT Hasselblad branded, when it’s the single piece on which it would make the most sense).. Hasselblad’s expertise may well have improved DJI’s imaging chops, but will we see pure Hasselblad products anymore?

Dan Wells

February 2022

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.