A year ago, I would not have predicted that the telephoto market would look like this today. I would especially not have predicted who’s on top of the heap, because the current telephoto market leader had no mirrorless-specific lens longer than a 70-200mm f2.8. They were securely behind not only Canon and Sony, but also Fujifilm. Everybody was saying “we like the Z-mount lens lineup below 100mm a lot, but there’s nothing above that, apart from adapted lenses”. Nikon somehow managed to release FOUR telephoto lenses (a 100-400mm zoom and three highly innovative primes, each with a feature no other manufacturer matches) in one year, even amid the supply chain challenges. They even have two more coming, probably in the next few months – maybe even before the one year anniversary of the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 in late October. Six telephotos in a year or a bit more, all new designs, with the four out so far garnering excellent reviews?!? The great mystery of telephotos in general, including but not limited to Nikon. is the fate of the 300mm f2.8. A decade ago, it was the entry to the exotic telephoto realm, and by far the most popular fast telephoto longer than a 70-200mm. It was expensive, but much less so than a 400mm f2.8 or a 600mm f4. It was a great focal length for a lot of sports – most indoor sports plus outdoor sports where photographers can get relatively close. The 300mm f2.8 was always a little short for wildlife, and wildlife photographers tended to buy a longer lens first, supplementing with a 300mm f2.8 if they could. Somehow, the 300mm f2.8 has gotten lost in the transition to mirrorless.

Nikon has been releasing Z mount telephotos right and left – but no 300mm f2.8. Sony’s been making mirrorless telephotos for a long time – but no 300mm f2.8. It was a staple in Canon EF mount – but there’s no 300mm f2.8 in RF mount, either. The closest lens in any mirrorless mount is the Fujifilm X-mount 200mm f2, a close equivalent when effective focal length and aperture are considered. 300mm as fast as f2.8 is not covered by any zoom except a recent F-mount Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8 (the last F-mount lens Nikon ever released) and an older Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 (the most recent version came out in 2012), neither of which has made the mirrorless transition. Nobody even has one on a public roadmap, although there are exotica like 800mm lenses and multiple fast 400mm lenses in the same mount… What became of the 300mm f2.8?

Meanwhile, Sony hasn’t released a lens longer than 200mm since 2019, although they have a decent selection, with the only real weakness being a lack of primes other than the exotic 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4. They have the two top-end primes, along with the superb 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 zoom and older 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 and 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 lenses. The older zooms could use an update, especially the 70-300mm from 2015. The 100-400mm is squeezed between Sony’s own 200-600mm with its longer range and internal zoom and Sigma’s smaller, lighter and much cheaper 100-400mm f5-6.3 Contemporary. The two exotic primes are superb, but at $12,000 and $13,000, they are not exactly impulse purchases. Sony could use some primes a stop or so slower, but much cheaper and lighter than the exotics, hopefully using unusual optical formulae to stay compact and light (e.g. Nikon PF and Canon DO lenses). The 200-600mm is almost certainly the best lens of its kind for any mount (the only possible competitor is the new Fujinon), and it’s a real bargain for $2000.

Fujifilm has only one real telephoto prime, and it’s an interesting one – largely because It’s a kind of lens that used to be common, but hasn’t made the transition to mirrorless. It’s a 200mm f2 – after accounting for for APS-C, it’s a close equivalent to a 300mm f2.8 on full-frame. What makes it interesting is that, as discussed above, it’s the only 300mm f2.8 equivalent in any mirrorless mount. They could certainly use a longer prime or two, ideally both the ”as fast as possible” exotics and slower, easier to handle lenses using unusual glass to be more compact.. Their zoom selection is quite decent, with three “real telephoto” zooms , plus a couple more lenses that seem just short a bit from their specs (but remember that X-mount lenses are APS-C).

If the 150-600mm f5.6-8 pans out, they have a brand-new (if somewhat slow) lens with great features at the longest end. The little 70-300mm f4-5.6 is a great lens for its size and price. Outside of Micro 43 and its attendant sensor woes, there’s nothing else near its reach, size and price. The closest competitor is Canon’s new full-frame 100-400mm f5.6-8. At around the same size, it’s a little longer and a stop slower- both of which are offset by the format difference, leaving similar real capabilities. I’ve used the Fujinon, but not the Canon. From what I’ve read, the Fujinon is probably the stronger lens. Sony has a similar 70-350mm for APS-C, which may well be a stronger lens (I haven’t used it), but that is dependent on having a Sony APS-C body, which have not been great choices. The only real omission from Fujifilm’s zoom lineup is a really long constant-aperture zoom – something like a 200-400mm f4.

Canon has been remounting lenses at both the top and bottom ends of their range lately, and they are losing out to actual new designs – without having seen them in person, the “new” (but really just old EF-M lenses) RF-S lenses look laughable when compared to similar Fujinons, the better APS-C Sony lenses, or even Nikon’s DX kit lenses. The EF-M versions HAVE been reviewed, although not here, and they’re decent kit-grade lenses at the very best – acceptable for the budget EOS-R10, but very disappointing for the much more capable EOS-R7. On the other extreme end of their range, Canon’s 400mm f2.8 RF and 600 mm f4 RF lenses are remounts of (beautiful and frightfully expensive) EF lenses. Since the EF lenses are world-class, so are the RF lenses. The problem for Canon is that Nikon’s new 400mm f2.8 is NOT a remount, and it has an extremely compelling new feature.

Nikon has gone from “no telephotos for Z-mount at all” to the telephoto market leader in the space of a year, which is remarkable. They have the expected pair of zooms – a fast 70-200mm and a slower 100-400mm, with a 200-600mm on the way, probably soon. Their 400mm f2.8 uniquely features a built-in matched 1.4x teleconverter which makes Canon’s decision to remount an EF lens look very conservative. Effectively, Nikon doesn’t need a 600mm f4 – their 400mm f2.8 is ALSO a (nearly) 600mm f4 by flipping a switch! I haven’t seen it, but reviews say it’s a stunning lens (no surprises there – the big, fast telephotos are constantly leapfrogging each other – whomever’s released one most recently is almost always on top of the heap). Early reviewers say that the teleconverter removes the need for a 600mm f4 – and one $14,000, 6.5 lb lens is a far more compelling prospect than a $12,000 lens PLUS a $13,000 lens, both around the same size and weight. Yes, “400mm plus an external 1.4x converter” is an option on the Canon side, but the internal converter has significant optical and mechanical advantages over an external one. Additionally, you can actually stack an external converter on the Nikkor, gaining even MORE focal lengths. The big telephotos are always in the conversation (along with fast portrait lenses, , Zeiss Otii, etc.) for “best still photo lens in the world”. The last piece (so far) of Nikon’s telephoto strategy is an 800mm f6.3 PF. Yes, it’s 1/3 stop slower than the 800mm f5.6 lenses that were ultra-exotics for DSLRs, but it’s also 1/3 the price and ½ the weight. The first reasonable 800mm that’s not f11? It’s still a $6000 lens, but it’s NOT a $15,000 lens.

Nikon’s announced telephoto intentions, most of them already released, include three zooms and four primes – a pair of super-fast exotics at ultra-premium prices (400mm f2.8/560mm f4 and a 600mm f4 that is likely to double as an 840mm f5.6) plus a 400/800 mm pair of much lighter, much cheaper PF lenses (well, technically, the brand-new 400mm f4.5 is NOT a PF design, but it’s also stunningly compact for its specifications, achieved by a different sort of exotic glass), with nearly the same image quality. The zooms run from 70-200mm f2.8 to a 150-600mm (exact apertures not yet announced). Nobody else has all of those long lenses! The only real weaknesses are shared among all the mounts, although Nikon made excellent versions of both in F-mount. The “broken record” requests for all mounts are a longer macro lens and a 300mm f2.8 (or a zoom long and fast enough to reach 300mm at or around f2.8). Beyond these two once-common lenses (both were not only staples of most SLR lines, but even occasionally popped up in medium format), any other telephoto Nikon might release is really exotic (1200mm? a zoom that goes past 600mm or is unusually long and fast at once?). A 600mm PF lens or a PF zoom would be nice additions.

Nikon’s Phase Fresnel (PF) technology hasn’t gotten enough attention – they’ve gone a lot farther with it than Canon ever has with their very similar DO technology, and they’ve produced three lenses that break new ground. The first two were the F-mount 300mm f4 (which really looks like a 24-70mm f2.8 or even a 50mm f1.2), and 500mm f5.6 (it looks like a 70-200mm f2.8). Now they’ve made a reasonable-speed 800mm that’s about the size of a 200-600mm. I’ve used both of the F-mount lenses and they’re truly pro-grade. I haven’t seen the 800mm, but I expect it to be similar.

In addition to all the telephotos, Nikon has a full “double trinity” of excellent zooms, plus an extra choice at both f2.8 and f4 in the midrange (the long member of the second trinity is a 100-400 f4.5-5.6, not a 70-200mm f4 – the latter lens is a minor hole in their lineup). They also have the remarkable set of matched f1.8 lenses from 20-85mm, all superb, that I’ve highlighted before, plus quite a few extras like pancakes, travel zooms and macro lenses. They’ve been introducing half a dozen well-chosen Z-mount lenses a year for the past few years, rarely introducing a mediocre lens, and it shows! There’s still one weakness in Z-mount, and that’s very fast lenses. There are only two lenses faster than the f1.8 set – an exotic 50mm f1.2 that just might be the most complex normal lens ever made and the ultra-exotic 58mm f0.95 NOCT that makes the f1.2 lens look entirely reasonable. There’s no 85mm f1.2 or f1.4 (although a fast 85mm, probably f1.2, is on the roadmap and coming soon). There’s no fast wideangle, and no roadmap nor even solid rumors of one… Nikon needs to either release some fast primes below the telephoto range or give Sigma (who have some excellent ones in E and L mounts) their mount specifications (or both). Still, from “Z-mount lacks lenses” to this lineup in a couple of years is quite remarkable…

Canon also has an impressive collection of telephotos, although I personally like Nikon’s approach better. Canon has four top-end exotic primes, all with similar light gathering capability (they’re a stop apart in aperture and at roughly a 1.4x ratio in focal length). The first two are standard exotic telephoto focal lengths and apertures – 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4. Where Canon has innovated is that they keep going up that scale to 800mm f5.6 and 1200mm f8. A 400mm f2.8 and an 800mm f5.6 both require a 143mm front element, while a 600mm f4 and a 1200mm f8 need slightly more light with a 150mm front element – still awfully close. These four are all, of course, very expensive lenses – the 400mm f2.8 is $12,000 while the 1200mm f8 is $20,000, with the intermediate focal lengths in between.

Leica once made a series of telephotos where one lens head attached to rear element sets of different magnifications. The focusing mechanism was in the rear elements – the head was just the big, expensive light gathering elements. It feels like these four lenses could either take that approach (all of them would work with a 150mm head), or be two lenses each with a built-in, switchable teleconverter, or more radically, even be a single zoom lens. How much bulkier would the zoom actually be than any of the primes? How much more expensive?

Another interesting piece of optical trivia is that the 400mm and 600mm lenses are both 17 elements in 13 groups. The 800mm and 1200mm lenses are 26 element/18 group designs. Coincidentally (or maybe not), Canon’s latest RF mount 2x teleconverter happens to use 9 elements in 5 groups, and it adds just about the right amount of length and weight to make up the difference between the 400mm and the 800mm, or the 600mm and the 1200mm. Canon has mentioned in official publications that the 800 and 1200mm lenses use a “magnification optic” (otherwise known as a teleconverter) at the rear of the lens.

Everything in front of the “magnification optic” is the same between the 400mm and the 800mm, and between the 600mm and the 1200mm. The 800mm is $5000 more expensive than the 400mm, the 1200mm is $7000 more expensive than the 600mm. The “magnification optic” appears to be the same in the two lenses, although it does not appear to be identical to the RF Extender 2x that Canon sells for $599 – it does seem to be a design optimized for very long lenses. It also includes a Super UD element that the stand-alone teleconverter does not. Still, $5000-$7000 seems like a lot of money for a teleconverter (and why does adding the teleconverter to the 600mm cost $2000 more than adding it to the 400mm)? Could they build the teleconverter as a $2000 external unit? Even a $2000 price tag is giving them the benefit of the doubt that the optics are much more expensive than in the existing RF Extender 2x, plus a converter that is exclusively for expensive superteles will sell in much smaller numbers than one that also works on more common lenses.

Looking at the diagrams, there is another interesting similarity – the actual elements in the 400mm and the 600mm are at least nearly (if not absolutely) identical – the difference is in the element spacing. The same is, of course, true of the 800mm and the 1200mm, since they are simply the shorter lenses with a magnification optic (e.g. a very high-quality 2x teleconverter) permanently dropped in. If the difference is actually in the spacing, well, that’s what zoom lenses do – they vary the spacing between elements. Canon appears to have gotten no less than six lenses out of one (admittedly superb) set of optics. Starting with the EF 400mm f2.8 L III, they added some spacing to make the EF 600mm f4 L III. Versions of those two lenses with built in RF mount adapters (Canon freely admits the EF and RF versions are optically identical) are the RF 400mm f2.8L and RF 600mm f4L. Add an internal 2x teleconverter to those lenses to create the RF 800mm f5.6 L and RF 1200mm f8L.

It would be easy enough to build a lens that zoomed between the 400mm and 600mm configurations, remembering that the identical optics mean that it is already effectively a zoom lens, albeit one with the barrel fixed in a different position depending on which focal length you buy. Even if the optics are only NEARLY identical, it shouldn’t take much of a redesign to make it zoom. It’s also easy enough to make the teleconverter switchable. With a bit of mechanical engineering, but no new optics, one lens might serve the purpose of all four of these lenses. One odd feature of such a lens would be that, while it would have a range from 400-1200mm, the range wouldn’t be continuous (there’s no way to set it anywhere between 600 and 800mm, since it only goes to 600mm fully zoomed in and the minimum focal length with the teleconverter is 800mm). Use a 1.5x switchable teleconverter instead of the 2x and it becomes continuous (600mm is achievable either fully zoomed in without the converter or fully zoomed out with it). A 400-900mm f2.8-6 is a pretty impressive lens… Alternatively, if the zoom elements can somehow reach an 800mm configuration, it becomes a native 400-800mm f2.8-5.6 or a 400-1600mm f2.8-11 if it includes a switchable 2x teleconverter. Even if it’s a $25,000 lens, it’s cheaper than any two of the four lenses it comprises, and would be much lighter than any two of them as well. Beyond the four (or is it one) exotics and two quixotic f11 telephotos at 600mm and 800mm, both under $900, but also both diffraction-limited wide open (and they’re always wide open, since they don’t have an aperture diaphragm) on most bodies, Canon has a nice collection of telephoto zooms. The RF 100-500mm is a particularly interesting lens, because it is the size of a 100-400mm lens, but has an extra 100 mm of reach. Like all 100-400mm lenses, it’s a trombone zoom. I use the term trombone zoom to mean any externally zooming lens that grows enough longer to affect its handling at the telephoto end of its range – the stricter definition only covers cheap push-pull lenses that we rarely see any more.

The specifications look less interesting at first because of the f7.1 maximum aperture at the long end, but when you note that it’s actually slightly lighter than the current Sony or Nikon 100-400mm lenses, it becomes more interesting. The slow apertures are mostly in the “extra” 100mm – it’s a f5.6 lens out to 363mm, then it’s f6.3 all the way out to 472mm, hitting f7.1 only in the last few mm. It’s effectively a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 with some bonus reach that comes at very little cost. Anything else that reaches 500mm is one size and weight class larger (and often reaches 600mm – Sony and Fujifilm internal zooms and several Sigma and Tamron trombone zooms). Reviews show that it’s a legitimate L lens, comparable in performance to other top-end 100-400mm lenses and the Sony 200-600mm, in an unusual form factor.

In addition to reengineering the exotics to take advantage of the similarity, giving photographers a more versatile lens or two instead of four big, very expensive lenses that are (too?) closely related, Canon needs to focus on mid-priced telephotos (and non-telephoto lenses, as mentioned in a companion article).. There are three long Canon lenses under $1000, all slow (of course) and of good but not great optical quality. There are no less than four exotics over $10,000 – but there is ONE lens between $1000 and $10,000 – the excellent (by reputation) 100-500mm f4.5-7.1. Nikon has two primes and one, soon to be two (probably – I don’t see how the 200-600mm could be under $1000 unless it’s REALLY slow) zooms in that important price range. Sony has two zooms (and no primes, which is a weakness), and Fujifilm has a prime and three somewhat redundant zooms.

Somy has a number of places they could go, filling out their already pretty good range. 200mm (ish) macros used to be relatively common lenses, often around f4. That would be the least expensive of the possibilities, since a 200mm f4 GM Macro might sell for around $2000. They are somewhat low on macro lenses anyway, with a relatively cheap 50mm f2.8 from 2016 and a well-regarded 90mm f2.8G from 2015. If they introduced a 200mm f4 GM Macro. possibly while also upgrading the 90mm f2.8 Macro to GM status, that would be a worthwhile addition that might sell a fair number of copies. They could also release some mid-priced, compact long primes. The 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 (literally) covers a lot of ground in this range, but something like a compact 400mm f4 or f4.5 would be a very interesting compliment.

The other medium telephoto exotics would be much more expensive than a macro lens or a medium-speed 400mm, although they are at least arguably more common focal length/feature combinations. One would be a 300mm f2.8, or a zoom in the 100 or 120-300mm f2.8 range (throw in a built-in teleconverter if they want to). I discuss the “lost 300mm f2.8” above. The second is a longer fast zoom – something in the 180 or 200-400mm f4 range, possibly with a built-in teleconverter. These are much more expensive lenses, in the $6000+ range, possibly exceeding $10,000 for some of the zooms, especially if there’s a built-in teleconverter, but they’re relatively common focal lengths.

They could also go into the REALLY exotic telephoto range above 600mm, with an 800mm f5.6 or f6.3, or even with something weirder than that. Nikon just released a reasonably priced (for an 800mm lens), relatively compact 800mm f6.3, and Canon released a new version of their ultra-exotic 800mm f5.6 in RF mount. Sony could release an 800mm, hopefully more in the range of the $6500 Nikkor than the $17,000 Canon – that has to be the most expensive third of a stop in history… If Sony really wanted to make it exotic, they could release a zoom that long – something like a 500-1000mm f5.6-8? It wouldn’t actually be the longest zoom ever built. Nikon had a 360-1200mm f11 decades ago, and even made a tiny number of 1200-1700mm f5.6-8 lenses, incredibly large and heavy things that had to be mounted to trucks or fixed piers because they would collapse most tripods.. A few cheap T-mount zooms get REALLY long, but at maximum (and often only) apertures around f14.

A 500-1000mm f5.6-8 would be a big lens, but not necessarily a huge one (it needs a 125mm front element, while a 600mm f4 is 150mm). The front element is actually slightly smaller than Nikon’s new 800mm f6.3, and that’s relatively compact. Think substantially bigger and more expensive than the 200-600mm f5.6-6.3, but smaller, lighter and cheaper than a 400mm f2.8 or a 600mm f4. Maybe $5000-$8000 and 6-7 lbs? Sony (or anyone else who makes one of these) would answer a lot of wildlife photographers’ dreams – it gets REALLY long without messing with converters, picks up where your next longest lens leaves off, and the aperture is OK given how high an ISO is usable on today’s sensors.

Would anyone have guessed a year ago that the best selection of telephotos in any mirrorless mount would belong to Nikon? When they finally got around to releasing any long glass at all, their decision on how much to release was “all of it”. At the same time, Canon released four exotic telephotos (or are they all really the same lens?), but has a gap between the inexpensive lenses and the exotics. Sony could fill out their lineup, and their decision not to release roadmaps leaves us wondering what’s next. Fujifilm could use a few more long primes, while Canon could certainly use long primes below the $10,000+ exotics and above the f11 collapsibles. Every maker could use a 300mm f2.8 and a 200mm (or so) macro lens, although how high a priority they are depends on how full the rest of their range is. For Nikon, they’re about the only place left to go once the roadmap lenses are released, except for really extreme exotics (over 1000mm or long, fast zooms). Everyone except Nikon has other holes as well, which vary by maker, but often involve chasing Nikon’s compact, medium-speed primes.

Dan Wells

September 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.