Nikon 58 mm F/1.4

The Kildare Track

A
The Kildare Track

  • 9
  • 3
  • 86
Stranger Things.

A
Stranger Things.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 56
Centre Lawn

A
Centre Lawn

  • 2
  • 2
  • 61

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,909
Messages
2,782,958
Members
99,745
Latest member
Larryjohn
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
Why is a calibrated AF system harder to achieve on the F6
pentaxuser

It is not any harder at all with the F6 than with any other film AF SLR.
But it is harder compared to the recent digital SLRs. Film SLRs haven't had inbuilt AF fine-tune capabilities. But the recent DSLRs have that feature (older DSLRs don't have it, too).
Therefore it is not a F6 specific topic, but a 'former film SLR versus current DSLR' topic.
It's a feature we all would like to see in a future/potential F7 or Canon EOS 1V Mk. II, or a new Pentax film SLR etc..

Best regards,
Henning
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,513
Location
Maine!
Format
Medium Format
Why is a calibrated AF system harder to achieve on the F6 and what does Nikon do to calibrate the 58. Is this a calibration that doesn't apply to other lenses and when Nikon calibrates the 58 to a specific Nikon F6 I take it that this does not make the F6 worse for other lenses?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The 58mm is notorious for requiring AF calibration if you want to shoot often at 1.4-2.0 (which if you are buying a 58G, that's the whole point). I'm not sure what Nikon does to calibrate the lenses with the F6 but it does not effect other lenses. Presumably they have a software interface that can work with the 58 to bring it closer to a 'zero' position than they at the factory feel is necessary.

The above is just a guess...but whatever they do, it works.
 
OP
OP

MultiFormat Shooter

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
569
Format
Multi Format
This lens has a different design concept than the other Nikkors in that focal lens class....

It’s not just for portraits, and it’s earned a spot in my don’t ever sell list. “Poor Man’s Noct” isn’t too far off in my opinion, and well worth the price to me.

Henning and Larry, thanks for the detailed information and examples in the linked thread. "Poor Man's Noct" is one of the things that I like about it, specfically (i.e. reduced/eliminated coma and flare).

The 58mm is notorious for requiring AF calibration if you want to shoot often at 1.4-2.0 (which if you are buying a 58G, that's the whole point).

Northeast Photographic, did you have Nikon tune your copy to your F6? Is so what was turnaround time? I found one for a price I could live with, and decided to, in the words of the late Fred Picker, "Try it!"

Thanks to everyone who responded to the thread!!
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
This lens has a different design concept than the other Nikkors in that focal lens class: The main subject in the middle of the picture should be separated in an optimal, three-dimensional way. The picture should get a certain, more visible "depth". Or often called "3D-Pop".
To reach this goal one important measure is to give the lens a significant amount of field curvature (curvature of the sharpness field). Normally field curvature is considered a design flaw in lens design, and lens designers try all to avoid it as much as possible (to get "plan" lenses). Because most customers want an even sharpness across the whole image.That is not possible when a lens has significant field curvature. That is also the reason why this 1.4/58 G Nikkor lacks sharpness at the borders in normal lens tests: In these tests plan, flat test charts are photographed. And that is the main reason why pixelpeepers don't like it.
But if you evaluate this lens in real field testing, using it for the subjects it is designed for, things look very different and much better.

Hi Henning,

This is an excellent post that gives interesting information to me. As an avid Canon, Nikon and Pentax MF lens collector, I have some Canon FD lenses that have stellar performance on classic lens tests, yet exhibit only 'neutral' or 'plain' bokeh/rendering/3d/etc. Not ugly, just plain. (I think, from some literature on the net, this is linked to Canon's preference (on the FL/FD days) to prioritize the reduction of astigmatism)

While certain specific 60s Nikon lenses** have fantastic bokeh/rendering/3d yet are not the ultimate in test chart performance. I also understand -despite not owning any Rokkor- that Minolta lenses often were engineered with "lens rendering" on priority #1.

I knew this was related to choice on how to balance lens aberrations, but didn't know it was linked to specifically field curvature. This is a new piece for the puzzle.

** won't disclose which, i don't want prices to rise!
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
I knew this was related to choice on how to balance lens aberrations, but didn't know it was linked to specifically field curvature. This is a new piece for the puzzle.

Flavio, lens design is not only extremely complicated and a "science of its own", it is also a kind of an "art". Because as a lens designer you always have to make compromises: If you improve the parameter "A", you get worse performance on parameter "C" at the same time and vice versa. And you have dozens of different parameters to consider, and all are interacting with each other.
I am happy that I am not a lens designer, it would drive me nuts......:D.

A certain kind of field curvature is only one factor which can be used for such "3D-Pop". But that alone without other factors is also not sufficient. I have some older lenses with significant field curvature which have only a little amount of "3D-Pop". And visibly less than the 1.4/58 G Nikkor. For example you also need high (micro)contrast and good resolution in the middle of the frame, and that at open aperture, or at least at one stop down.

And there are lenses which have very good to excellent sharpness across the field, but also have some "3D-Pop". In my Nikon lens arsenal e.g. that is valid to the Zeiss ZF 2/50 and the AF-D Nikkor 2/105 DC. And a bit less to the AF-D 2.8/180 and AF-S 4/300.
In my Mamiya lens arsenal the Sekor A 2.8/150 has this nice rendering, too.

Best regards,
Henning
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
And there are lenses which have very good to excellent sharpness across the field, but also have some "3D-Pop". In my Nikon lens arsenal e.g. that is valid to the Zeiss ZF 2/50 and the AF-D Nikkor 2/105 DC. And a bit less to the AF-D 2.8/180 and AF-S 4/300.
In my Mamiya lens arsenal the Sekor A 2.8/150 has this nice rendering, too.

Best regards,
Henning

Wow, didn't know Zeiss made a 50/2 in ZF guise. I'll have to hunt for one!
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
specfically (i.e. reduced/eliminated coma and flare).

More than "reduced flare" it has less "sagital coma flare", so less coma.

This refinent is probably obtained from the two aespheric elements included, as coma is an effect from spheric aberration, and aespheric surfaces when included usually correct better spheric aberration.

Of course, you will notice that coma abscence mostly in the corners, if you have bright points there, and only when shooting wide open (other lenses also avoid coma when the lens stopped), so this lens is ideal to shot wide open at night if avoiding coma is wanted. Beyond that particular situation you won't get much a substantial benefit compared to the 50mm f/1.4G.

Surprisingly to me, this 50mm lens has remarkable barrel distorion, that can be corrected by the digital camera itself or in post, but that distortion is not nice for film. It was surprising to me because this lens has 9 elements, and that high element count (for a 50mm range "unit focus" prime) may allow to correct well distorion, but it looks the design has other priorities.

A bit like the 50mm f/1.4 AFD vs 50mm f/1.8 AFD, the cheaper 1.8D has lower distortion than the more expensive 1.4D and the 1.8D is slightly sharper, but the 1.4D avoids focus breathing, which the 1.8 has from its "unit focus" comfiguration.

Interestingly the 58mm f/1.4 is also a "unit focus" lens like the 50mm f/1.8AFD, this means that image grows when you focus closer, in theory this is a flaw for shooting videos as when you move focus from an actor to another one then the image magnification varies, delivering what usually is an undesired effect. Anyway "unit focus" usually contributes to good performance, for example the cheap 1.8 AFD has very good performance combined with low distortion in a low element count lens thanks to the "unit focus" configuration, not having to spend resources for the "internal focusing" configuration.

As the 58mm is unit focus, and not correcting much distortion, we can say that the 9 elements in the design are intensively devoted to remove coma in the large apertures, as the high priority of this design.

About the 58mm sunstars, diafragm is very circular not delivering much sunstars effect in the bright points. So all that money is mostly to conserve bright points without coma in the corners when shooting wide open.

Well, this is an expensive glass to get a modern emulation of the Noct Nikkor, for people wanting an expensive glass in the 50 range, with the benefit of delivering small bright points also in the corners, but "sporting" barrel distortion and focus breathing.

The regular 50mm 1.4G also delivers distortion, even more than the old 1.4AFD. Perhaps today correcting distorion is not a priority in the design, as electronics in the DSLR easily compensates that, and allowing some distortion then other factors can be better corrected.

IMO, beyond coma wide open, the 58mm 1.4G is not much better or worse than the 50mm 1.4G, but it's quite more expensive.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
Wow, didn't know Zeiss made a 50/2 in ZF guise. I'll have to hunt for one!

Flavio,
it was first introduced as Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF and ZE. About 1.5 years later it was upgraded to the ZF.2 standard with integrated CPU for the Nikon F mount (ZE remained unchanged of course).
In 2015 it was upgraded to the Milvus standard, with the complete new barrel design and full weather sealing. It also got new coating technology.
It is an excellent lens, one of the best 50mm lenses you can get for Nikon F. It is especially an excellent all-round lens, as it is not only very good as a macro lens, but also oustanding the whole range up to infinity. Often macro lenses are weaker at longer distances, but not this Zeiss Makro-Planar.
It is my most used 50mm lens on my Nikons, as it even surpasses all my (very good) Nikkor 50mm lenses.

Best regards,
Henning
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
Surprisingly to me, this 50mm lens has remarkable barrel distorion, that can be corrected by the digital camera itself or in post, but that distortion is not nice for film.

In theory, by correcting digitally you're losing resolution as well.

I don't like lenses with distortion and sadly it seems that in general Nikon lens designers don't want to correct too much for distortions... Even some of their PC-nikkor lenses, which are intended for architecture, show some residual distortion...
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
In theory, by correcting digitally you're losing resolution as well.

Yes... this is true. But this is less painful today, we have sensors generally outresolving the lenses so a very slight quality loss is only noticed from expanding the cropped region, but as the sensor neatly outresolves the lens there is little loss from the pixel manipulation. It was more painful when sensors had 12 MPix.

Anyway that distortion is not good news for film usage, of course for hybrid we can correct it in Ps, but if wanting to print the image in the darkroom then it cannot be corrected much. Many scenes won't notice it, but when buildings are there it's easier to see the flaw, as with the 50mm 1.4G.

To put numbers, the 58mm 1.4G requires a +2.5 correction factor in Photoshop, while the old 50mm f/1.8 AFD requires +0.2: this is +2.5 vs +0.2

Still, it would be interesting to know what performance increase was traded for allowing that distortion in the 58mm, but only a good specialized optician analyzing well the design would be able to tell it, sure that Nikon designers had good reasons to allow that distortion, but "perhaps" they could add one or two additional elements to that $1500 glass to remove distortion, I say "perhaps" because, at all, I don't have the level in optics to make a guess.
 
Last edited:

Huss

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
9,058
Location
Hermosa Beach, CA
Format
Multi Format
Flavio,
it was first introduced as Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF and ZE. About 1.5 years later it was upgraded to the ZF.2 standard with integrated CPU for the Nikon F mount (ZE remained unchanged of course).
In 2015 it was upgraded to the Milvus standard, with the complete new barrel design and full weather sealing. It also got new coating technology.
It is an excellent lens, one of the best 50mm lenses you can get for Nikon F. It is especially an excellent all-round lens, as it is not only very good as a macro lens, but also oustanding the whole range up to infinity. Often macro lenses are weaker at longer distances, but not this Zeiss Makro-Planar.
It is my most used 50mm lens on my Nikons, as it even surpasses all my (very good) Nikkor 50mm lenses.

Best regards,
Henning

It's my go to lens on my F3P. Only bummer is that it does not handle flare well, which is surprising considering how deep set the front element is, and how my other Zeiss lenses are excellent in that regard.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
Hello Flavio,

I don't like lenses with distortion ......

I don't either, but in this special case with the 1.4/58 G it is not much of an issue. If you use the lens as intended. This lens is not designed as a "general all-round" lens, and it is especially not designed as a lens for architecture, where distortion really is an issue (and where also the field curvature of this lens is clearly visible).
This lens is designed to isolate the important subject in the middle / centre of the frame, and to separate it from the backgound in a three-dimensional way. Subjects like people, animals, flowers, trees etc. And it is doing that job very well, look at the example thread on the FM forum.
And in theses cases for which this lens is designed for, its level of distortion is no real problem at all.

Best regards,
Henning
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
This lens is designed to isolate the important subject in the middle / centre of the frame, and to separate it from the backgound in a three-dimensional way.

IMO this lens was simply designed to minimize spheric aberration and thus coma in the corners when F/1.4 wide open. This is an impressive challenge that took a top notch manufacturer like Nikon, total 9 elements, 2 aespheric elements in the design and allowing distortion and focus breath. All that traded to minimize spheric aberration in the difficult F/1.4 to 2.8 apetures, from 4 and up any cheaper lens minimizes spheric aberration and coma.

At all it won't separate the subject from the background better or worse than the regular 50mm f/1.4G (beyond focal difference), but it will deliver coma free corners wide open. If you defocus background then usually corners will be OOF, and not a single $1of this overcost will be much worth to spend. Also if you stop a bit the lens (2.8 or 4) you have no single benefit over cheaper designs at same aperture.

The 58mm is technical marvel because it avoid coma at F/1.4, not many glasses do that. For the rest it's like the 50mm 1.4G but with the drawbacks of slightly larger distortion and delivering focus breathing.


Here we see general sharpness vs aperture:

SP32-20200801-125709.jpg


Also it's quite interesting to see here: https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikk...4G-mounted-on-Nikon-D800E---Measurements__814

The Sharpness/Field section, field at different apertures.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
But this is less painful today, we have sensors generally outresolving the lenses

Sorry, but that is of course completely wrong, and has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of physics! I am testing lenses for about 30 years now. And had never the case that a sensor has generally outresolved a lens in 35mm and medium format photography. It has always been the other way round, lenses have outresolved the sensors.
Resolution of sensors is limited by the Nyquist frequency. You need at least two pixels to record a detail (the detail itself and its surrounding for the differentian from the detail). E.g. with resolution test charts you need at least two pixels, one for the white line (underground), and one for the black line.
Good lenses are limited by diffraction, and the diffraction limits are much much higher than the Nyquist frequency limits of 35mm / mediumformat sensors. When I want to explore the resolution limits of lenses I use film, because all current 35mm / MF sensors limit the resolution because of their Nyquist frequency. The limits are about 125 lp/mm with 60 MP 35mm sensors. More is simply not physically possible with these sensors.
Just put higher resolution film in the camera and your lens will show its real resolution performance:
Even with my old Nikkor AI-S 1.8/50mm (long barrel version) I've reached the diffraction limit at f5.6 with 240 lp/mm on ADOX CMS 20 II. About 165 lp/mm with Agfa Copex Rapid, 135 lp/mm with TMX and HR-50, just to name a few films, there are more which surpass sensor resolution.
Even with my simple Nikkor 28-105 AF-D amateur zoom I've got up to 195 lp/mm on CMS 20 II.
At Carl Zeiss there have been done resolution tests with their 25mm Biogon for the ZM / M mount cameras with SPUR Orthopan film (technically identical to ADOX CMS 20 first version): They have reached the diffraction limt of that lens at f4 with 400 lp/mm (!!).

Best regards,
Henning
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
Sorry, but that is of course completely wrong, and has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of physics! I am testing lenses for about 30 years now. And had never the case that a sensor has generally outresolved a lens in 35mm

First these are lab tests, while a glass may peform exceptional in a test it happens that in real photography with subjects in the 3D scene the "on sensor" projected image is outresolved in practice, this is what counts.

Second, those are values at contrast extintion, MTF close to 0%, so of no pictorial usage, useful to compare glasses, but comparing at not useful yield.


Nikon D850 has 45 MPix, and a Prime good lens is only able to resolve 17 to 25 effective MPix.

An exceptional lens like the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G delivers 35MPix Effective on the D850, the 300mm is another case were the glass is near to challenge last model DSLRs, (beyond pixel-shift, that will outresolve the lens quite more), but most of the glass around, even the Pro expensive one, is quite far to outresolve today's Pro sensors.


I've reached the diffraction limit at f5.6 with 240 lp/mm on ADOX CMS 20 II.

I'm a devoted user of the CMS 20, yes... it takes what lens is able o deliver, 800 lp/mm (high contrast) capability...

but... sure those 240lp/mm were well measured ?

_________________________


Anyway, concerning to the discussed subject, allowing the camera to correct the distortion, (because of the today's pixel density) there is not much a noticable quality loss, when sensors, when in the past a quality loss could be better perceived because of the lower pixel density.

We were discussing if the in-camera correction of the distortion in the 58mm was to worsen the image, answer is not with today's pro sensors.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
At all it won't separate the subject from the background better or worse than the regular 50mm f/1.4G (beyond focal difference),

Those who have used this lens extensively and compared it to the normal 1.4/50mm Nikkors in their vast majority are convinced it does. That is the reason why this lens has its user base. Just look at the thousands of example given in the thread on the FM forum. Go over there and tell all the users of this lens that it does not work in the intended way.
Your opinion may differ, but that is totally irrelevant to those who are using this lens and are satiesfied with its performance.

Best regards,
Henning
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
Sorry, but a Nikon D850 has 45 MPix, and a Prime good lens is only able to resolve 17 to 25 effective MPix.

That is complete BS!! You are again spreading stupid lies here!! As so often. You haven't understood lens and resolution tests at all.
In contrast to you I am doing such tests for decades.
I have thousands of examples here proving your ridiculous statements all wrong. Come here, I invite you to visit me.

And my results have been confirmed by lots of other reliable resources, including Carl Zeiss. Leica, SPUR, ADOX just to name a few, there are more. E.g. Zeiss had published their results over the years in their "Camera Lens News" publications. I can sent you copies if you want.
And in the "film era" it has been common knowledge by photographers who have tested their lenses that a good lens has to surpass 100 lp/mm resolution. To get 100 lp/mm with a 35mm digital sensor, you need a sensor with more than 35 MP effectively.

Best regards,
Henning
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
Hello Huss,

It's my go to lens on my F3P. Only bummer is that it does not handle flare well, which is surprising considering how deep set the front element is, and how my other Zeiss lenses are excellent in that regard.

well, yes....and no :wink:.
I've made more than 10.000 photographs with that lens in over a decade. And I had only in one situation with two shots a problem with flare.
But I always have the lens hood mounted on it. And in general I avoid the critical "flare constellation" (in which lenses most often suffer from flare) with the sun in one corner and the light way slanting / transverse to the optical axis. That certainly has helped that I have had so few and negligible problems with flare with that lens.
But it can be an issue when the critical factors come together, that is right.

The new Milvus version has improved coating afaik. Would be interesting to see how it performs concerning flare. I will probably know sometime in the future, as I intend to add the Milvus version to my lens line-up :smile:.

Best regards,
Henning
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
That is complete BS!! You are again spreading stupid lies here!! As so often. You haven't understood lens and resolution tests at all.

Sorry, good bye. I'm not to debate with somebody like you. If it is not covid age stress, then visit a doctor. :smile:
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
Sorry, good bye. I'm not to debate with somebody like you. If it is not covid age stress, then visit a doctor. :smile:

As you are not interested in facts, physics, scientific tests, proven data by the best companies and lens designers in the industry, and has refused my invitation (which was seriously meant), please be consequent and put me on your ignore list. Thanks.

Regards,
Henning
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
As you are not interested in facts, physics, scientific tests, proven data by the best companies and lens designers in the industry, and has refused my invitation (which was seriously meant), please be consequent and put me on your ignore list.

I not interested in speaking with somebody saying Complete BS! , spreading stupid lies , You haven't understood , so needing some soap for the mouth. Thanks for the recommendation, done.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
"138S":
Your statements here over a very long time have been often so extremely far away from physics and the facts that a clear wording which took it to the point has finally been necessary.
Lots of other very experienced users have also tried to give you the facts. But you have unfortunately never really listened and continued with spreading huge misinformation.
We have lots of new members here, with no or very little knowledge in film photography. They need reliable information and proven facts. And not the same totally misleading myths which are spread on many other places on the internet.

Regards,
Henning
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,963
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
I not interested in speaking with somebody saying Complete BS! , spreading stupid lies , You haven't understood , so needing some soap for the mouth. Thanks for the recommendation, done.
No surprise here. Henning is known for his passive-agressive style, maybe it has to do with the fact that English is not his first language, I don't know, however his account over at APHOG NEXT (the largest German analogue photo forum) has been blocked. I wonder no more why. Anyway, I decided too not to participate in conversations with him any more for the same reasons as well as for the fact that he tried to challange me for things I've never said. And I completely understand your reasonings: no one has the right of accusing people of BS, spreading lies, being completely wrong on smth and to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward fellow forum members.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,193
Format
Multi Format
No surprise here. Henning is known for his passive-agressive style, maybe it has to do with the fact that English is not his first language, I don't know, however his account over at APHOG NEXT (the largest German analogue photo forum) has been blocked.

You don't know what you are talking about, because you don't know any of the reasons what happened long ago over there in the German forum. You are spreading misinformation, because it has not have anything to do with my writing style at all!
Some people over there have had personal economic interests, and are involved in distributing products with questionable qualities. That was revealed and discussed by several experienced photographers there over the years. Those with the economic interests have finally asserted themselves, and several experienced photographers have been blocked to protect those with these interests. I have been only one of many which were affected.
Furthermore to justify that some stupied lies were spread, e.g. that I and member D. Ventzke are the same person, or in other words, that Mr. Ventzke does not exist at all. Completely ridiculous, as D. Ventzke is one of the most well reputed scanner operators in Europe, running an outstanding drumscan service for years serving professionals, museums and archives around the world:
www.high-end-scans.de.

And in general concerning discussion style here:
If someone is claiming that the earth is flat, and others are giving again and again the proven scientific facts that it is wrong. But that flat-earther nonetheless is continuing saying that the earth is flat.
Then it is just stating a simple fact that this flat-earth claim is a lie. That is just the correct term for it. Period. And covering this fact by using lots a diplomatic terms isn't helpful at all.
And such claims here by "138S" that "sensors generally outresolves lenses" and that "lenses are only to resolve 17 to 25 effective MP" have the same truth level as the flat-earth claim:
No truth in it at all.
And unfortunately there have been much more of such claims by him here in the past. Enough is enough.
In my opinion photrio should be a place for exchange of proven scientific facts.

And all of you here attacking me are hiding behind a pseudonym, neither showing your real name nor your face.
I am showing my face, I am here under my real name, I am publshing in photo print magazines, I regularly talk to many different manufacturers and are visiting their factories, talking to the engineers presenting and discussing my test results from my independent non-profit scientific test-lab. I regularly organise photographer meetings, and so on. So I stand with my name and face for my test results.

Regards,
Henning
 
Last edited:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom