Lenses and Optics

Finally, Some m4/3 MTF Testing: 25mm Prime Lens Comparison

This blog is a little different. It’s geekier than most, of course. Also, I don’t use it to make income, and that makes it a bit scattered. A mainstream blog has to cover all the hot topics. I get to cover what I’m interested in at the moment. More importantly, I don’t have to cover everything, so you rarely see me writing about stuff I don’t understand.

Another benefit is I get to watch with great amusement as various Fanboys speculate on why I don’t write about their favorite product. The actual reason is usually that the company hasn’t released lenses that interest me (Nikon in 2017, for example) or I don’t have mounts to test them (Fuji and Pentax).

Micro 4/3 is a bit different. I can test most of them (the m4/3 mount we have can’t handle linear electromagnetic focusing lenses, but can handle all the others) but it requires taking time to set up the machine differently. Since most of our contract testing is for full-frame lenses, that makes it a little inconvenient to do m4/3, and because I’m old and grumpy, I tend to avoid inconvenience.

25mm Micro 4/3rd shootout

But now it’s the holidays, we don’t have any contract testing lined up, so I am going to test some of the more interesting m4/3 lenses. So now you m4/3 shooters are getting equal opportunity to read too-long articles full of charts and graphs just like everyone else. Like they say, “be careful what you ask for, you might get it.”

As we start looking at these, I want to emphasize a couple of things, because many m4/3 users will be new to this blog. First, we’re testing the lenses with no camera involved; all we’re evaluating is the optics. My interest is in the lenses, and the lenses only. Making lenses for a smaller imaging circle has some distinct theoretical advantages. Whether the lensmakers use those advantages for good and make better lenses, or for evil to cut corners and raise margins, well, that interests me quite a bit.

When you take a picture, you’re using the system (the camera and lens each add their limitations). Despite what many self-described experts say, it is very, very rare that just the lens or just the camera limit the output of the system. In practical terms, unless you have a really horrid lens, or a 4 megapixel camera, both camera and lens contribute to the final output. (If you have both a horrid lens and a 4 megapixel camera then you don’t need to be reading this.)

One other point: with m4/3 lenses you can’t make broad generalizations about the name on the outside, because that doesn’t necessarily reflect who made the components on the inside. So if the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 is pretty awesome (it is), for example, don’t take that to mean all Olympus lenses are pretty awesome (they aren’t). The name on the outside means “We paid the people who designed the lens, made the different components, and assembled it. Some of them actually work for us, some don’t, and the ones who did this lens didn’t necessarily do that other lens.”

Let’s Meet Today’s Players

We have several lenses that meet the criteria of being 25mm primes and being testable on our machine.

Notably missing from this list is the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, because, as its Fanboys will probably tell you shortly, everyone knows it’s far better than all the others, and I wanted to keep that a secret. Or because it has an electromagnetic focusing motor and we can’t test it on the optical bench. Take whichever theory best suites your degree of paranoia.

I’ll also mention that while we usually test 10 copies of each lens, but when we get into m4/3 mounts, ten copies can be hard to come by. For that reason we’ve only tested five copies of the Voigtlander, that’s all we had in stock.

The Olympus 25mm f/1.2 ED Pro

We start with this lens because it’s considered an excellent new design that has been very popular. It’s by far the most expensive of this group at about $1,200. It contains multiple low dispersion and high refraction, as well as a single aspheric element. On the other hand, 19 elements make this a very complex lens, which made us wonder what copy-to-copy variation would be like.

Courtesy Olympus.com


Olympus Digital 25mm f/1.8

The other extreme is the little Olympus Digital 25mm. At $249 it’s the bargain lens of the bunch and it’s also the smallest. It doesn’t have as wide an aperture. It has two aspheric elements, but at this price range, we expect those are molded. So, we started with low expectations, but at this price, just a decent showing would make this a lens worth considering.

Olympus. com

Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH

At $600 this lens has a reasonable price, it’s not very large physically, has an f/1.4 aperture, and despite what I consider the stupidest hood design in all of photography history, has a fairly rabid following who love it. It has two aspheric elements and the simplest design of all the lenses we tested. Plus, it says Leica and Summilux on the front, and we all know what that means — they paid Leica to put ‘Leica’ and ‘Summilux’ on the front. In case I wasn’t clear, I went into this test a little cynical about this lens. It’s an older design, and I expected the newer design of the Olympus might have passed it by.


Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton Type II

I maintain complete impartiality when it comes to lenses. Except I despise all things Voigtlander. Not because their lenses are bad, but because customer service is nonexistent and repairs nearly impossible to obtain, at least in the U. S. But at f/0.95 and a reasonable (for that kind of aperture) price tag of $800, this lens has to be considered for those who are willing to focus manually. Plus it has an all-metal construction which provides two advantages. First, it weighs a lot more. Second, you can describe it as ‘built like a tank’, which, of course, means ‘I don’t know anything about lens construction, but this one sure is heavy.’

Courtesy Voigtlander


MTF Results

These results are all taken at widest aperture, so it’s not a direct comparison optically; a smaller aperture gives a better MTF. They’ll all improve stopped down a bit (more on that later). These MTFs are the average of 10 samples for all except the Voigtlander, which is the average of 5 samples.

Olympus 25mm f/1.2 ED Pro

This is actually very good for an f/1.2 lens, much better than the Canon 50mm f/1.2, for example. It maintains excellent sharpness in the center half of the image. It’s still quite sharp, although with some astigmatism, out to the edge.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Olympus Digital 25mm f/1.8

Here’s my first surprise of this testing batch. The little Olympus is really quite good. It falls off and has some astigmatism in the outer 1/3 of the image a bit, but not badly.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH

The Panasonic was a bit disappointing. Even though it’s tested at a smaller aperture than the Olympus Pro, it doesn’t resolve nearly as well in the center. This is especially true of the higher frequencies (green, blue, and purple lines) which are critical for fine detail resolution on cameras with smaller pixels. It does maintain good resolution out to the edge of the frame, though.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton Type II

This one was also better than I expected. It resolves decently in the center and falls off at the edges. But at f/0.95 that’s unavoidable. I was impressed that it could do this well. Lenses with apertures this wide are rarely this good. Right in the center, it resolves as well at f/0.95 as the Panasonic does at f/1.4.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Stop-Down Tests

We picked an average copy of the Voigtlander and Olympus 25mm f/1.2 to retest at f/1.4, to get a little more even comparison. (And used an average copy of the Panasonic for comparison, so we weren’t comparing single lenses to a group of lenses.)

Panasonic – Olympus

The Olympus was clearly better at higher frequencies (blue and purple lines). If you’re shooting with (or looking at a test done on) a 12-megapixel camera, the high frequencies are less important.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018


The Voigtlander surprises me yet again. It can match, perhaps slightly exceed, the Olympus in the center 1/2 of the image, although it can’t (like all ultra-wide aperture lens designs) keep up in the outer 1/3 of the image.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2014

Olympus 25mm f1.8 and Olympus 25mm f/1.2 Pro at f/1.4

I didn’t test the Pro at f/1.8. To be honest, I didn’t think there would be enough competition that I’d be interested. So I’ll have to compare the Pro at f/1.4 to the Digital f/1.8 at f/1.8. Not really fair, since the Pro would do better at f/1.8. On the other hand, you can buy 4 of the little Digital f/1.8 for the price of one Pro, so . . . . .

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

It’s kind of shocking to me that the Digital f/1.8 is significantly sharper in the center. Things even up away from the center, but still, that’s impressive. Really. Impressive. Good job little-inexpensive-lens.

Comparisons at f/2.8

Because sometimes people stop down.

Olympus vs. Olympus

At f/2.8 the Pro is definitely superior in the outer 1/3 of the image, but the baby Olympus still impresses me with its performance at f/2.8.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Panasonic Leica vs. Olympus Pro

At f/2.8 there’s not a lot of difference between the two. The Olympus is a bit better at the edges of the image, but it’s a small difference.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Voigtlander vs. Olympus Pro

Not surprisingly, the Olympus is now a tiny better than the Voigt in the center, and far better in the outer half of the image.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Field Curvature (MTF vs. Field vs. Focus)

For those of you who don’t read our technical articles very often, the field curvature may be the most useful thing we give you. This is NOT distortion; rather it’s how the plane of best focus curves. The tangential and sagittal fields often curve differently; when they do you know, there will be astigmatism in those areas.

There’s other information you can get from field curvatures and if you’re interested here are some background articles: Fun with Fields of Focus 1, Fun with Fields of Focus II, Field Curvature and Stopping Down. I should mention these are done at f/5.6 because that gives a nice, clear picture of the field. Stopping down (or opening up) doesn’t change the curvature significantly. Keep in mind that when you’re shooting at a wider aperture, the field is much narrower.

We haven’t done these on many m4/3 lenses, so I had no idea what to expect. Because there’s less side-to-side distance to cover, it seemed likely that the field curvature would be less apparent.

Olympus 25mm f/1.2 ED Pro

There’s a gentle curve with this lens, but note that the sagittal field (right side) curves differently than the tangential field (left side). This means that while the overall field is flat, there is going to be some astigmatism off-center. The MTF graphs above reflect that.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Olympus Digital 25mm f/1.8

Here we see a more dramatic curve, but more of a tendency to be in the same direction. At wide apertures, though, the edges of the image are not going to be in focus at the same point that the center is. With this one, the field will truly curve. This also explains that the MTF curves above drop off at the edges, not because the lens is weaker, but because the field is curving away.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH

Here we have two very different curves. The sagittal is almost perfectly flat; the tangential is in a W shape. This lens will have some mid-field astigmatism that will clear up near the edges, but will be pretty flat otherwise.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton Type II

Here’s yet another surprise to me. I really expected the ultra-wide aperture lens would have severe field curvature, but it’s not too bad. There will be edge astigmatism (where the U-shaped tangential curve continues up, while the M-shaped sagittal curve turns down). There will be a slightly curved overall field.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Copy-to-Copy Variation

Micro 4/3 lenses, in general, have a lot of sample variation. Why this is I can’t say. What I can say is it’s not the fabled “QA check” that people imagine happens. Optical tolerance is done during the design of the lens and the assembly line, not by running a test at the end of manufacturing. Micro 4/3 lenses, as a rule, don’t have any compensating adjustable elements, so what you get at the end of the assembly line is what you get unless something is broken inside.

With these lenses, I wasn’t sure what to expect. The Olympus Pro is a complex lens; complexity and wide aperture tend to create a lot of variation. The Panasonic Leica and Olympus Digital f/1.8 are much simpler designs.

I’ve added the Variance Number to these graphs, although I want to point out that a number is a blunt tool; it’s not nearly as useful as looking at the graphs. As a rule, we consider prime lenses to be acceptable if the Variance number is less than 40, and random crap shoots if it’s over 80. So here are the graphs and variance numbers for the three lenses we could run them on. (We don’t consider five copies enough to comment on variance, so we skipped the Voigtlander in this part of the post.)

Olympus 25mm f/1.2 Pro

It looks better than the variance number suggests, but there’s some significant variation particularly in overall sharpness (notice how even in the center, there’s a fairly thick area).

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Olympus 25mm Digital f/1.8

The variance number says it’s quite good, but the widening as you go away from center shows that there’s likely to be some difference in one side or the other on a given copy. The current variance number doesn’t take this into account as much as I would like it to.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018

Panasonic Leica Summilux f/1.4

Any way you look at it, there’s a lot of copy-to-copy variation, more in overall sharpness. This is getting close to the point where your copy and Bob’s copy are probably noticeably different.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2018


So What Did We Learn Today?

Well, there are several good choices if you’re interested in a 25mm prime lens for your m4/3 camera. There’s not a bad choice in the bunch; I think most people would be happy with whichever one they have.

If you absolutely need an f/1.4 or wider aperture lens, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 Pro is probably the best overall lens, although it comes at a hefty price. If you want the widest aperture possible and are willing to manually focus and realize you probably can’t get it repaired, the Voigtlander Nokton Type II is much better optically than I had expected.

The Pansonic Leica Summilux is a good lens, and at 2/3 the price of the Olympus Pro is a reasonable choice for a lot of people. It’s certainly not better, and the copy-to-copy variation makes me hesitant to recommend it very highly. On the other hand, as I said to start with, I’m a little cynical about that lens so maybe that’s affecting my judgment. It’s still a good lens at a reasonable price.

Me personally, though, I love a bargain, and in this case, I’d be willing to give up some aperture to get it. The little Olympus 25mm f/1.8 isn’t as wide an aperture as the others. Even stopped down, it’s not quite as sharp at the edges as either the Olympus Pro or the Panasonic Leica. But at that price and that small size, it’s a great bargain and a really good lens. This one surprised me in a very positive way.


Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz


January, 2018


Note: It’s been a while since we did an m4/ test. For those of you m4/3 Fanboys and Detractors who are so vocal in some forums, this isn’t those forums. We welcome informed discussion and opinions. We do not allow snide, or ugly personal comments to other posters. I’m not a poster; you can be snide and ugly to me if you like.

Author: Roger Cicala

I’m Roger and I am the founder of Lensrentals.com. Hailed as one of the optic nerds here, I enjoy shooting collimated light through 30X microscope objectives in my spare time. When I do take real pictures I like using something different: a Medium format, or Pentax K1, or a Sony RX1R.

Posted in Lenses and Optics
  • Thank you, lunic. First, I’m assuming a molded aspheric, I don’t know it is for sure.

    A ground polished aspheric is milled from optical glass like the other elements. These are generally considered the highest quality and usually what is found in lenses like Canon L, Leica, Zeiss, etc.

    A molded aspheric softened glass is pressed into an aspheric mold and allowed to cool. This is less expensive. It’s supposed to, with recent technology, be nearly as good, but nobody will say exactly what nearly is.

    The least expensive is a hybrid aspheric where a plastic molded aspheric piece is glued to a glass piece. These are of lower quality.

  • Brandon Dube

    Some more specifics:

    > Can I compare the V in this post with the values in your blog post “Measuring Lens Variance”

    Please do not. Very different formulas, completely incomparable numbers.

    There are no normalizations or reference image sizes in the formula. Metrics that have those tend to smell funny.

  • David Bateman

    Wow this great, thank you for starting to test M43rds lenses. I was surprised not to see requests for lenses below in the comments, but I bet soon people will want all of them tested and compared.
    Since I own the Panasonic 25mm f1.4, I will agree that the hood is crazy. But glad to see it hold well to the newer Olympus 25mm f1.2. At what feels like half the size, weight and cost, it looks good.
    The other complicated issue with M43rds lenses is 2 companies doing things a little different. My Panasonic GM5 does not transmit any under 410nm light to the sensor. So all UV is lost in the filter on the sensor. Olympus on the other hand, I find only about a stop less uv transmitted, then a full spectrum converted camera. So I suspect Panasonic designs lenses knowing the narrower light transmission and has different in camera corrections than Olympus. Thus the purple blobs people find in Olympus cameras with Panasonic lenses and other CA issues. This may also play out in your lens tests, or not.
    Sad to see so much variation in the lenses, but interesting to see that its easily possible to a have a weak Olympus 25mm and a strong Panasonic 25mm, which would explain some side to side single len reviews, were the Panasonic tested better.
    Thank you for starting testing. I look forward to more tests when you have the chance.

  • lunic

    Thank you for this great review. It is very interesting that the Leica DG 25/1.4 shows better curve than the M.ZD 25/1.8 @F2.8. According to this review, now I’m safe to say that 25/1.4 is better than 25/1.8 when stopped down. But it seems that you used 25/1.7’s construction diagram. the right one for 25/1.4 is: http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/25/summilux-25mm.jpg
    And one question – what means the ‘molded’ aspherical lens on M.ZD 25/1.8?

  • Carleton Foxx

    Nothing is equivalent in this life. If you don’t believe me, ask your wife or life partner if s/he’d mind if you traded him/her for your next door neighbor’s wife or life partner. Everyone winds up with an equivalent spouse, everyone’s happy, right?

  • SpecialMan

    Hey! Don’t hate on we 100 percenters. I shoot a lot of people of a certain age who appreciate it when I diminish the look of their wrinkles. For me it’s easier to make my work undetectable when I am at least 100 percent. Sometimes I have to go to 800 to get

  • I’ve seen some centering elements in them, but no other adjustments. At least some are simple stacks (element, spacer, element, etc.) with no compensations at all.

  • The V calculation is rather a blunt tool. TMI – the number looks at the slope of Monte Carlo statistical analysis of the lenses at several positions. It weights difference between copies heavier than difference within a copy.

    To your more specific questions: Should it be half of FF? No, because it’s weighted to difference between copy sharpness. Should it be a little less? Yes because it’s not measuring as far off axis.

    The graphics are much more informative than the number, it lets you know if center sharpness is varying or off axis, or both. But I understand it doesn’t have a number and we all love a single number.

  • Claudia Muster

    It might be a deliberate design decision. Olympus designed the 1.2 lens for an extra smooth bokeh (their buzzword for it is “feathered bokeh”). They achieve this by not fully correcting the spherical aberration. Which inevitably diminishes the peak sharpness. At least that’s what Olympus themselves say on their site: http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/mlens/f12pro/

  • James Murray

    Please help me understand V, the variance number. Can I compare the V in this post with the values in your blog post “Measuring Lens Variance”?

    Also, is sensor size a factor in how we should interpret V? That is, should we “hope” that m43 lenses show half the variance that is tolerable in FF because when considering prints of the same size we are magnifying the m43 image more? Or is that already part of your calculation?

  • Phillip Reeve

    Regarding Cosina Voigtlander lenses in general: Do you see a general trend in regard to variance and do at least some have compensating elements?

  • Phillip Reeve

    Thanks for your analysis 🙂

    I wouldn’t have thought that it is harder to design a f/1.2 lens for a smaller format than a f/1.8 lens for a sensor with twice the diagonal.

  • Brandon Dube

    Better and easier optical design — f/1.8 is a lot easier than f/1.2, but the olympus lens also has a very complicated design. The light is squeezed down towards the middle (elements 1-5), pushed back up (6-8), slowly made to be converging again (9-15), and finally focused (16-19). This is the technique used by photolithography lenses to flatten the field (get rid of field curvature and astigmatism). The requirements of those lenses are sub-nanometer field flatness, so they really need it. For a camera lens? Well, not even the Masterprimes or Summilux-C lenses do that (at $40,000/ea). You can see Olympus leveraged it here to produce a very flat field, pretty high resolution (in absolute terms…) design at the expense of making the lens very complicated and expensive to produce.

    The Sony lens also has 3 aspheres (maybe 4 aspheric surfaces) vs 1 in the olympus. If they had opted for 3-4 aspheres and 6 fewer lenses in Olympus’ design, without this field curvature correcting technique, they probably could have produced a superior design.

    So I would say that the Sony lens, whoever designed it, was done more cleverly and the result is better. The Olympus lens, whoever designed it, is probably a good optical designer (the product is pretty good and utilizes some advanced design techniques) but didn’t stop to ask ask “should I” before betting on “can I.”

    As an aside, the A7rIII has 4.5 micron pixels and can “see” up to 110 lp/mm. None of the spatial frequencies shown on these plots really show “pixel level” detail. We show down to more like 2-4 pixel level of detail, which is probably about how close you want to look at your pictures unless you’re posting 100% crops online or using them to measure things.

  • Phillip Reeve

    Question to Brandon: How can it be that the OM 1.2/25 is so much less sharp than the FE 1.8/55 (in relative terms comparing 10 LP/mm (FE55) to 20 LP/mm (OM25) and 20 LP/mm to 40 LP/mm) at their widest aperture? The OM should have all the advantages: It is massively more complex (19 vs 10 elements), more expensive, heavier and it has a smaller aperture. Yet the Sony has a much higher contrast in that comparison .

    Thanks 🙂

  • Gov

    I think every lensreview should consist of a sample of 5, may be 10 copies. It is pretty useless if a lens has such sample variation that in reallife a lens could be either much better or much worse due to sample variation. I love the very objective way this is tested and the authors honestly about his prejudice towards one or two of the lenses, which he then explains and I have to say I agree with his reasoning here too. No customer service to speak of? That is pretty bad. A big thank you!

  • offtheback

    Always fun+informative to read your pieces Roger.Thanks for being the reasoned voice in this crazy photo world.

  • There are a few that do, but I can’t think of which ones off hand. I don’t have any evidence that it’s more or less accurate than other methods.

  • Claudia Muster

    I see. Thanks.

  • Paul

    Crikey – a guy goes out of way to use his expensive optical bench to spread light on the performance of some lenses that don’t often get evaluated in such detail, and all you can do is point out some minor spelling/grammar mistake! What value does your comment bring to the world compared to Roger’s efforts?

  • Shawn Wright

    That explains the rattle my 25/1.7 had. Could it also explain some of the focus issues reported with this lens, especially on Olympus bodies, or would that just be wild speculation? I’m speaking of reports of front or back focus, which really shouldn’t happen with CDAF as I understand it. Do any Olympus lenses use linear electromagnetic focus?

  • The others are a mixture of piezo, ring USM, etc. but all have a focusing element that remains in the last position it is placed in when the electronics is removed; those can be set to infinity focus and then tested. The linear motors, when there’s no electricity, just fall back to the bottom by gravity. You can generally tell by turning the lens upside down and right side up — you’ll hear the focusing group slide back and forth.

  • Caerolle

    Great to see some results for mFT, thanks Roger! 🙂

    Funny, I have used the Olympus 25/1.8, and own the Panny 25/1.4, which I like better, though not totally based on optical quality. I love the 50mm angle-of-view, and the 25/1.4 is one of my fave lenses, warts and all (clicking aperture, CA, obviously soft at 1.4, HORRID hood).

    I hopefully have at least a decent copy, as I got it used from LensRentals; in fact, I buy all my lenses that way. My rationale is that while the used lenses from here cost about as much as a new lens from a dealer, I don’t have to worry about getting a bad one, or even testing for decentering and all that. I figure LR tests them and fixes or replaces the worst, so I don’t have to deal with convincing a dealer that I have a bad one or whatever, just makes life simpler, which is how I like it, lol.

    Thanks again, Roger!

    Carol 🙂

  • Claudia Muster

    Thanks. So basically an ordinary linear motor. But how do those other lenses which you could test move the focusing element? I guess their drives are also somehow linear. Piezoelectrically?

  • DrJon

    Still maybe one day you could answer the age-old (err, -ish) question on whether you get a better result by designing a lens to optimise its cost/performance but need geometric distortion correction in-camera vs. lenses that do it optically? So is the software correction actually producing a better result for the same money, or just a better profit margin?

  • Brandon Dube

    Well, today we finished upgrading our spectral bench to handle big aperture lenses nicely, so that’s half the battle down. For the F/# part of T/#, we’re falling back to using image-based wavefront sensing to measure it, which is as complicated as it is sophisticated.

  • Claudia, see: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/
    Basically the focusing element travels up and down a rail on an electromagnetic. If there’s no power applied, it slides back to the bottom. So we have to have an electronic mount to hold the focusing element in position. We have this for the Sony bench because most FE lenses use that system. With Fuji and m4/3 only some lenses use that, many use standard focusing motors.

  • Claudia Muster

    I don’t understand the part of the “linear electromagnetic focusing lenses”. What is “linear electromagnetic focusing” and why can’t you handle it?

  • Speeding

    The only other (conveniently available) source for transmission data is DxO, but they employ an un-validated custom “rig” that yields varying T-stops depending on the camera it happens to be mounted on at the time. APS-C, for example, yields a higher T-stop than the same lens on FF. Hard to make heads or tails of the actual properties of the lens. They also say it is “ISO dependent” which is a head-scratcher.

  • Speeding

    Thank you for putting time and effort into this. I enjoyed the read and bookmarked it for future reference.

  • umad?!

    If I had the kind of money I’d sent you a six figure sum, to test the Fuji medium format lenses. Would be interesting to see.

    Great work you are doing, thumbs up!

Follow on Feedly