What Makes Exotic Lenses So Special?

This is a part two to my “why are some lenses so expensive?” article that I wrote yesterday. I already explained the difference between consumer and professional-level lenses in the first post, so now it is time to talk about exotic lenses. With so many exotic lenses on the market today, some of which seem to be in relatively high demand (at least judging by their lack of availability), one might wonder about what makes them so special when compared to everything else. This post is not meant to be technical or basic – I think you can get most of that from the first article. Instead, I want to focus on craftsmanship, price, perceived value and niche marketing – the main drivers behind exotic lenses.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4 vs Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 vs Rokinon 35mm f/1.4

NIKON D800E + 85mm f/1.4 @ 85mm, ISO 100, 1/200, f/5.6

I once had a conversation with a photography veteran, who was trying to convince me that the new Nikkor and Canon lenses lack “soul”, with their plastic barrels, rubber focus/zoom rings and industrial “mainstream” designs. I disagreed, because I was blown away by the performance of new generation lenses and I just did not care about everything else. Plus, the notion of a lens having a soul just disturbed me and I remember thinking how ridiculous it was even to think about such things. But as time passed by and I got a chance to experience some of the rare and older optics, I started to understand what the photographer was trying to tell me. Most modern lenses do feel as if they are just taken from a conveyor line, where thousands of other lenses are made exactly the same way with little intervention. Older lenses were hand-crafted, one by one, and each lens was unique in its own way. And that was the beauty of it, because you never knew what you got – it was a game of random cards.

With all the latest advancements in technology, it has become our nature to seek perfection. Overtime, the notion of hand-crafted, imperfect, but unique in their own way, started to disappear. People got replaced by machines and things like computerized / automated testing, QA / variance thresholds and SLAs started dictating the manufacturing process. Products started becoming more and more mainstream and consistency became one of the biggest expectations in consumers. We cannot stand variance anymore – we expect everything to be perfect and consistent across the board. But with such expectations and robotic mentality, we are now dealing with identical products that lack that “soul” the veteran photographer talked about. It is that same feeling you get when you walk into a furniture store and see dozens of plastic chairs stacked on top of each other, all looking exactly the same. We rarely see beautifully hand-crafted chairs that have a certain character, a certain personality attached to them anymore. Today, imperfections and inconsistencies are simply not tolerated or welcome. And that’s what gave rise to places like IKEA and Walmart, since they know how to sell that same consistent experience to their customers.

The same analogy can be drawn with cars as well. When you walk into a Toyota, Honda, Nissan or Mazda dealerships, you generally see the same type of product over and over again, maybe with a slight variance in features and color. Performance, efficiency, consistency and short term experience is what those brands sell and they are quite successful at it (and I am not saying that they are bad by any means – I own a Toyota myself and I love it). That’s why we are so keen on buying a car, driving it for several years, before wanting to replace it with a new model that comes with more horsepower, features and gadgets. Short term products are designed and marketed to have a short lifecycle. Why should a company sell you a product that will last forever, if they can sell you the same thing over and over again every two to three years? There is a lot more money to be made in a product with a short lifecycle and that’s the nature of the modern world of manufacturing and sales. Cheaper and better is what we are after today as consumers and we are constantly looking for a way to save and get the best “bang for our buck”.

Now compare that same short term experience with driving a classic Porsche, which was built to last for years to come. That’s what companies like Zeiss, Leica and Schneider are all about – they do not chase after peak performance, mass production and impressive specifications (although standing out from the crowd never hurts). They do not want to be the Toyotas and the Nissans of the world. They want to build something that lasts, something that has a personality and uniqueness, something that will inspire a person today and continue to inspire 20 or more years from now. The word “mainstream” is not something they want to add to their vocabulary or be associated with. Take a look at the below video, where a Zeiss engineer shows how lenses are tested for shock and extreme temperatures:

Then watch the below video on how Leica makes its lenses:

With this much care and attention given to each produced lens, no wonder why companies like Zeiss and Leica charge more for their lenses. Cost of manufacturing is not the only reason for high prices though – see my comments on “Perceived Value” and “Rarity” below.

Nikon and Canon were also that way for many years, with their legendary high-end pro lenses. If you have been shooting with Nikkor glass for a while, you probably remember the all-metal legendary AIS lenses – some of which are still in demand today, because they are so rock solid and built to last for ages. A number of all-metal AF-D lenses were also excellent in quality. With the transition of AF-S lenses and the rise of the consumer DSLR market, Nikon started to cut corners and move away from metal to lighter, plastic parts. That was a welcome move for consumer lenses due to weight concerns, but some of those plastic parts started making their way into professional lenses as well. With Nikon and Canon making most of their money from cheap consumer lenses, there has been a gradual transition from high quality optics to high-demand, mass produced lenses. Can’t blame the manufacturers though, since that’s where the customers and the money are. As a result, we are now seeing more cheaper, plastic parts used even in higher-end gear. While plastic can potentially deal with extreme weather better than metal (plastic expands / shrinks less than metal) and is easier to handle with bare hands in very cold or hot temperatures, it can scratch, break and even wear off overtime. I have been somewhat lucky with my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, but others had their zoom / focus rings peeled off, autofocus motors going bad and zoom rings going too lose overtime. I don’t know if these issues have to do with poor quality assurance controls or use of more plastic parts, but in my opinion, both Nikon and Canon have seen declines in overall quality ever since they have been selling to the masses. In addition, with all the electronics and motors that go into those modern lenses, they are more prone to fail or malfunction than manual focus lenses. Hence, they might have a shorter lifecycle than the classics.

That’s not to say that all of Nikon and Canon products have gone downhill though. In fact, the optical quality of lenses has gotten clearly better, since those companies are able to invest more money coming from consumer sales on R&D. That’s how lenses like Nikon 35mm f/1.4G are able to surpass exotics like Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 in optical quality (and in my experience, the same goes for Nikon 50mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 and Nikon 85mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4). However, as I have pointed out above, Zeiss is not just about optical quality – its craftsmanship is at least a head above its competition. Both Nikon and Canon also make extremely well built lenses such as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II / Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and most super telephotos (in a way, those can be considered “exotics” within the brand line).

Nikon 70-200mm vs Nikon 200-400mm vs Nikon 300mm

NIKON D700 @ 50mm, ISO 200, 1/100, f/4.0

At the same time, Zeiss has been exploring more markets for a while to help fuel its future growth. It has been licensing its lens production to such companies as Cosina and Sony for a while, which might not have the same quality standards as Zeiss lenses made in Germany (although Zeiss says that the high standards are the same). Recently, Zeiss introduced a new line of “Touit” lenses for the mirrorless Fuji X and Sony E mounts, with a potential to add more popular mirrorless mounts in the future. If its lenses prove to be successful for the mirrorless mounts, there comes the same threat of becoming a mainstream company one day, similar to what Nikon and Canon went through in the past.

Perceived Value, Niche Marketing and Rarity

As I have shown above, manufacturing exotic lenses is not cheap. However, production cost still does not explain why some of the rare exotics are priced so highly. Do you really think it costs 3 times more to make the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux (priced at $10,995) compared to the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux (priced at $3,995)? Of course not. Perceived value can be a very powerful thing. When you snatch an f/0.95 lens and it is a Leica, it must be good and it must be pricey! It is an amazing lens for sure, but is it really worth $11K? Not for me personally, but for some people it really is. The same goes for the new Nikon 800mm f/5.6 VR lens (a full review is coming within the next 2 weeks!) – at $18K that Nikon is asking for it, is it really $8K more expensive to make than the Nikon 600mm f/4 VR? No matter how many fluorite elements there are within the lens, it is still definitely not $8K more than what Nikon wants people to pay. But it is a product that has its own audience, a niche market that is willing to pay that kind of money. For a professional wildlife photographer, the 800mm f/5.6 is a highly-desired, dream lens.

Lastly, there is the matter of rarity, something that can potentially become a collectible one day. What’s the chance of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G lens becoming a collectible in the future? That’s right, close to none, considering how many of those lenses are made and sold every day. In contrast, a German-made Zeiss or a Leica lens has a very high chance of becoming a rarity/collectible in the future, increasing its future sale value.

In summary, in addition to their unique and beautiful design, attention to detail and solid craftsmanship, there is perceived value and rarity, which all collectively play a role in making exotic lenses special…

I would love to hear from our readers that own exotic lenses. What was the main reason why you decided to buy your first exotic lens? Did you regret your purchasing decision at any point, or was it worth it?

And a question to those that do not own any exotic lenses – are you considering purchasing one in the near future? If yes, what is steering you towards this decision?


  1. July 21, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    I guess Nikon’s 14-24mm f/2.8 would not be considered “exotic”, but it is the best ultra wide angle lens I’ve ever used, and my absolute favorite lens. It’s just sheer joy to use, and the world looks so big through it, and yet at the same time subjects become inconsequential and lost in their environments if you aren’t careful. That dichotomy always astounds me.

  2. 2) Peter G.
    July 21, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    Back in 1990, I waited for 4 months to get my 800mm f5.6 .

    BTW, I have a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 and its magic. Recently, I received the Lucroit Filter Holder and a graduated filter for it.

  3. 3) Martin
    July 22, 2013 at 12:12 am

    Dear Nasim, I like your article. I own some of the professional Nikon lenses and I admire the craftsmanship. Of course to touch and use these lenses is very different and they receive best care. On the other hand it is a working instrument and I need good results and reliability. I loved to watch the Zeiss testing video as I understand German and I could see and hear how proud the German engineer was. Look at watches: from few dollars to some ten thousand dollars: they all give you the same time but in a totally different casing and craftsmanship one that makes the owner to distinguish himself from the others and gives the owner the feeling of being outstanding.lenses: well some of the crafted ones unfortunate are far away to give you absolute optic results, the result a chronometer would give you. And lenses are tools for creativity and to create new impressions: maybe there is no 1:1 relationship between the quality of the lens and creativity, there is only a certain relationship. I will test the nikkor 800mm by the end of the month. I also guess there is no 1:1 relationship between price and results. I will post the pictures on Nikon image space. Thank you for your ongoing contributions to better photography

  4. July 22, 2013 at 1:22 am

    An insigful article, as usual Nasim.
    Can I argue that the ‘mass produced’ Nikkor & Canon also have some soul. At times as you use a lense with a particular body, over a period of time the performance and image quality improves. Could argue that the photographer is getting better with using the equipment but I get the impression that the lens and body seem to better understand each other. Happened a few times to make me believe this. I tend to keep the same lense on the same body these days, until I am ready for a complete change.
    Possibly just my imagination.

  5. 5) Bob A.
    July 22, 2013 at 6:45 am

    Hi Nasim,

    I have been enjoying your articles for about a year now. I own three Leica lenses. I guess that you would consider them exotic. There is a pride of ownership with them do to their exceptional build quality. The Leica lenses fall into the Snap-on tool quality. They are pieces of manufacturing art work that will last a lifetime. I have no buyers remorse with them.

    After returning from an African safari where I used a Sigma 150 – 500 mm zoom, I purchased a Nikon 500 mm F 4 and a Nikon 300 mm F 2.8. The Nikon 500 mm blows away the Sigma in image quality the way a Porche blows away a Toyota in performance. There is nothing wrong with the Sigma or Toyota. They both serve a purpose. If you have the opertunity to drive on a racetrack, or go on safari, you will appreciate the better equipment.

    I have an order in for the Nikon 800 mm F 5.6. That exotic puppy has given me some sleepless nights over its over the wall price. I am looking forward to reading your review on the Nikon 800 mm. Keep up the good work.

    • 5.1) Peter G
      July 22, 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Bob A.,

      You seem to have been following my purchases :-) I have a Nikon Nikon 500 mm F4 AF-I ( pre-runner to the AF-S), Nikon 300 mm f2.8 AF-S, and 800mm f5.6 ( manual)

      If you can’t wait for the AF-S model, there is a nice lightly used Nikon 800mm f5.6 ( manual) sitting here. :-)

      One thing that I found many years ago, when I first started shooting with the 800m f5.6, was that, on very hot days, there was image degradation due to the heat effect between the subject and yourself over the ground.
      You don’t see it when you are shooting, but, when I received my trannies back ( KR64), it was noticeable. It may pay to carry a nice white towel to put over the lens on a hot day as well.

      • 5.1.1) Bob A.
        July 23, 2013 at 1:34 am

        Hi Peter G.,

        Thanks for the information. The white towel idea sounds good. I take it from your photo that you fly for an airline? I am a GA pilot. Air to air photography is a whole new field. I was fortunate to get some decent air to air shots in a formation flight between Cayman Islands.

        Thanks for the tips. I will let you know how the Nikon 800 mm works out if it ever arrives.

        Bob A.

        • Peter G.
          July 23, 2013 at 2:03 am

          Bob ,

          Thanks for the comments :-)

          No, I don’t fly for an airline, but, used to travel in Asia a lot. I lived in Japan for almost 5 years, and did pick up a lot of gear when I lived in Tokyo. ( Yodobashi Camera is Japans’ # 1 Camera chain ).

          I used to shoot a lot of motor sport, and still have my 300mm 2.8 AF-S , 500mm f4 AF-I, 800 mm f5.6. Even have the Nikon ” Drop-In ” Circular Polarising Filters for those lenses

          I have a Nikon 8mm f2.8 full circle fish-eye. I was bored one day in Tokyo, and the lens was on the shelf :-)

          Now, I am out of motor sport, but, have done quite bit of travel in Asia , and have found the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 to be invaluable. Just received my Lucroit Filter Holder and Format HiTech filter for the Nikon 14-24. That lens is just magic.

          ( You can find me on Facebook ~ Peter Geran )

          All the best ………… Peter.

        • Peter G.
          July 23, 2013 at 2:47 am

          Ahh..I realised you saw the profile photo. Back in the good old days when you could get a look see in the cockpit. I was lucky enough to get up there on a number of occasions when I was flying from Australia to Tokyo. Even did a few landings and take-offs in the cockpit of the Boeing B747-200.

  6. 6) David
    July 22, 2013 at 6:47 am

    Nasim, Would you address what seems to me as a lowering of Nikon’s quality control standards? It seems like more and more of the products are having problems that need fixing. I am talking about my D800 (I needed to send mine back 4X for focus issues), my 70-200f/2.8 VRI that had a defective VR system, extremely poor focus on a 50mm f/1.4G, and more. Are there more quality-control problems with Nikon these days then in the past? Perhaps I am just more aware. Of course, online reviews probably don’t help matters either – when one person posts a problem, it seems to reach lots of Nikon owners.
    Thanks for any insight you have regarding this. David

  7. 7) Tom
    July 22, 2013 at 8:02 am

    Hi Nassim, very well thought out and well written article. You’ve mentioned you really like the Nikon 50mm 1.4 lens. Would you consider this a more higher quality (built-wise) lens than the Nikon 50mm 1.8? Thanks, Tom

    • 7.1) Ankur Puri
      July 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm

      Hi Tom,

      If I may, I’d recommend you check out the Nikon 50mm 1.8 unless Nikon decides to make a f/1.2 version with build quality similar to that of 24-70mm or 70-200mm. The 1.8 performs better, for the price. And isn’t inferior in quality comparing with f/1.4 that much. The choice comes down to – If you get enough paid gigs, get the better build quality for the unexpected abuse your lenses might have to go through, or pick the 1.8 if your handling is decent enough to not kick it with a bat. Just my 0.2! Cheers!

  8. 8) Samuel Adhikari
    July 22, 2013 at 8:28 am

    I use a Nikon D3200 camera with its 18-55 mm lens and try hard to get the background blurry with all the aperture settings that i found in the net but i hardly get any results. Can i get some suggestions how can i get the background blurry with this kit of mine and further i am an amateur in digital photography and m hoping to take it as a profession so can you help me what lenses should i buy further.

    Your valuable suggestions are highly awaited and shall be highly appreciated.

    Thank you
    Samuel Adhikari

    • July 22, 2013 at 11:08 am

      It is difficult to achieve great bokeh on a crop sensor camera with a kit lens. It’s easier with a cheap 50mm f/1.8 as the aperture is much, much wider. Here are some tips though: shallow depth of field is best accomplished at wide open apertures, the smaller the number the better (f/4, f/2.8, f/1.8, etc.). This puts kit lenses at f/5.6 at a disadvantage. Second, the longer the focal length, the less depth of field at any given aperture. 300mm at f/5.6 will have a very shallow depth of field when 50mm at f/5.6 will not. So that too is working against you with your 18-55mm lens. Try a longer lens if you have one, like 55-200mm. Lastly, bokeh is largely distance related between your subject and background. If you can, position the subject close to the lens so it is not focused at infinity, and place the background far, far behind the subject. Even 50mm at f/5.6 can get some blurry background if the lens is at its closest focus and the background is far away. Hope that helps!!!

      • 8.1.1) Samuel Adhikari
        July 27, 2013 at 12:11 am

        I tried taking some portraits with the settings that you’ve given me but the portraits came out with very much of white patches in it. i tried decreasing the shutter speed but it didn’t work. Could you help me once again.

        • unkil doelan
          July 29, 2013 at 4:56 pm

          As just a reader of this article i would strongly recommend you to get either the 50mm /1.8g or the 55-200mm lens as they only cost around 200 euros (or pounds or dollars or what ever). these lenses are always a good buy because they make the whole photography experience better.

  9. 9) Sunil Sharma
    July 22, 2013 at 9:06 am

    Hi Nasim, excellent article!! I still own Nikon 28mm 1.4 D and absolutely love it, i think i can totally relate to the soul part missing in the new lenses. Though the old 28mm 1.4 D is a bit slow at time but the quality you get out of it cannot be matched with the new one….

    I even owed Hasselblad 500cm ,xpan and old leica lenses which were sheer joy to use. New lenses are good but once cannot train any machine to see for what an experienced craftsmen will look for while working on optics.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


  10. 10) Mahler
    July 22, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    Dear Nazim.
    Could you also make some comments on other brands like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. Personally I’m very satisfied with some of these like Tamron 90mm 1:2.8 Macro 1:1 SP Di, Tamron SP 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC and Tokina 11-16 F2.8 IF DX used with the folowing cameras: Nikon D2Xs and Nikon D7100. So my question is: Would you think the original brand Nikon is to be prferred for my cameras? I’m of course thinking of the price.
    Kind regards

  11. 11) Rick
    July 22, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Hi Nasim. Over the last several years I have purchased 3 Zeiss lenses for my Nikon .. the 21 f2.8, the 35 f2 and the 100 f2. I do have some Nikon and other brands also. I like and use them all, but what attracted me to the Zeiss is how beautifully they are made and how well they perform. The 100 has absolutely beautiful bokeh. They focus so smoothly, which is really nice with video. My batteries last longer on holidays because I’m not using power to constantly focus and they are really built to last. They will be around long after my other lenses. But to be honest with myself, it’s 50% about image quality and 50% about the enjoyment of having them … just like if you bought yourself a nice watch. I enjoy using them and that makes me want to get out and take more photos. I can’t say that about my other lenses. They are just lenses. However, as we all know, great photos come mostly from skill and creativity and the equipment is secondary.

  12. 12) Ankur Puri
    July 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm


    While it maybe true to some extent the way lenses are produced today have an impact on the overall image quality, but I believe it also has a little to do with its pairing with the camera body, specifically in the case of Nikon D800. Many nice lenses that were being used daily by consumers/pro across the board started showing signs of aging, in terms of optical bench marking and like you said we’re just getting used to the idea of consistency with minimal room for error. Also, with the way it’s trending it maybe just another couple of years before we start to approach medium format on a regular basis – which makes me wonder majority of the pro lenses people use today will deliver sub-par quality equivalent to that of kit lenses.

    It’s my understanding that just the way any user wants to maximize “bang-for-the-buck”, similarly manufacturers are driven to minimize their cost of investment in hopes of generating enough value that retains talent to sell updated products yet again. Thanks for sharing this article!

  13. 13) Jim Ballantyne
    July 23, 2013 at 12:08 am

    Hi Nasim,

    Thanks for another excellent article.

    Forty years ago a student colleauge was perfectly happy going around taking “photographs”, with no film in his camera, he claimed he could not afford the film as he spent it all on the camera. The handling, setting the exposure and clicking the shutter was all he needed to satisfy his interest. I occasionally imagine him these days, the proud owner of much exotic equipment and still no photographs.

  14. 14) whisky
    July 24, 2013 at 8:10 am


    just a couple of observations about nylon and plastic. AF-S often requires light weight for fast focus. the lighter the weight, the faster the focus. by testing the quality of components first in consumer lenses, nikon knows which plastic components are most effective for an exotic design.

    another thing is sturdier materials may survive beyond their best-service by date, but affect regular maintenance intervals. the net effect is one where a lens may appear to perform well, but may actually be performing sub-par. the old “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” axiom. by using components which will sufficiently degrade in line with it’s service schedule, Nikon assures that lens will perform as originally spec’d, and possibly avoid much more costly repairs down the road.

    finally, Zeiss and Leica must position their products with longetivity and craftsmanship in mind, as they have demonstrated they cannot or will not compete in the faster paced high technology arena.

  15. 15) Cecilio
    July 24, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    I have discovered your web recently and I am impressed for the quality of your posts, but easy to understand. I just wanted to thank you for your effort.
    Regards from Spain.

  16. 16) Spy Black
    July 25, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    It’s interesting that exotics have avoided auto focusing. One unfortunate problem I see with using manual focus lenses is that modern camera bodies have terrible viewfinder magnification. For some reason modern bodies on average have .7x magnification. This make it very difficult to focus accurately manually.

    I have many classic Ai lenses that I’ve used all my life. I have no problems focusing them on the groundglass of my F and F2 bodies, sans using the focusing aids. My D600 and D5100 bodies are very difficult with the same lenses. The electronic focusing aids are no real help in my opinion. I know there is a different finish on the surface of modern focusing screens, but that’s not really the problem, the eyepiece magnification is the real problem. Unfortunately you can’t get effective eyepiece magnifiers to bring the magnification back up to 1x. I will have to look into having a custom magnifier made.

    I have no problems shooting in manual focus, as I’ve been doing it all my life, but I can’t help but think manufacturers like Canon and Nikon are deliberately doing this so you purchase their modern optics. It’s understandable on one hand, but why make the bodies backward-compatible if you’re going to make it difficult to use the old lenses?

  17. 17) Ravi R
    January 6, 2014 at 9:48 am

    There is also another way to look at their *rarity*..

    German lens manufacturers were stagnant they just made the glass and none of the technological improvements of Auto Focus or SWM or USM etc…

    They hence became a niche product with a niche market. You would be hard pressed to look at a picture and tell “This must have defenitely been shot with a Zeiss”… Can you?

  18. 18) Eric
    January 6, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    A few things I would like to say in regard to this article about build quality/craftsmanship. In decades past, Nikon and Canon’s lenses did not have the complexity of optical design that todays lenses have. Plus, while things like internal motors can wear out in modern bodies, again this was an aspect of lens production that Nikon or Canon’s engineers did not have to be concerned with. Lenses had glass elements, a barrel, focusing helicoid, an aperture, and a lens mount.

    A question for pro owners? How many of you really have had issues with things other than internal motors failing? I’m talking about pro (not consumer) lenses falling to pieces (not just things such as outer rubber focusing bands snapping/coming loose) or having significant problems? How common is this in comparison to decades past? I understand perfectly well the aesthetic and tactile preference for lens barrels made primarily out of metal. However, I think in the real pro world, the supposed “advantages” of metal barrels versus modern plastic is vastly overrated.

    Also – one more thing – in regard to Zeiss lenses. What percentage of Zeiess lenses (for cameras for pro use) are actually still produced in Germany? Last I heard, Zeiss Germany is essentially a design firm, and a great deal of their production is actually performed in Japan (Nikon ZF lenses are for sure).

  19. 19) kalpeshbjoshi
    January 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    Hi Nasim
    Thanks buddy for your excellent article It `s gave me lots of information over lenses
    I am going to buy Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G so it is very useful article for me

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *