# Which 50mm prime?



## [email protected] (Dec 25, 2010)

Looking for a new 50mm on My 5D2 for a budget under $800. 
Want pretty bokeh, good general use~ won't mind to try out manual focus.

Canon F/1.4?
Sigma F/1.4 EX DG HSM?
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE?
Other option?

Please help to chose~~

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Norkusa (Dec 25, 2010)

I bought the Sigma because all the reviews said the Canon was too soft @ 1.4 - 2.0. I'm using it with a 7D and pretty happy with it. Those were the only two 50mm's I looked at though so I don't know about any others.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 25, 2010)

I only have the Canon f/1.4 so I can't comment on the others. I am happy with mine but have felt the usual urge to want the better f/1.2 model. The f/1.4 is great for its price and I don't think you will be disappointed unless you need pro-grade stuff. Then only the f/1.2 will satisfy.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 25, 2010)

I have owned and used the Canon 1,4 extensively and I now have the 1,2 L, and the main difference is that the AF is 100 times better on the 1,2, color contrast sharpness between 1,2 and 2,0 is superior. However, it does have a rep for having shift-focus, which would throw many off it (that and the price). BUT you don't buy a 1,2 lens to use at f4, and shift-focus is only an issue between 2,0 and 4. The other thing is that it's quite a bit less sharp at mfd than more normal distances. I have the 35 L and 85 L also, so I can use which one is best for what type of photo. The 50 L has, without ANY doubt, the superbly best AF of the three. And what good does great IQ have to say, when your low-light image is oof?

If you want the best handling lens from canon, the only of three mentioned that is weather sealed, the best AF on a 50 and will use it around normal distances at 1,2-f1,8 the 50 L will not dissapoint you, but it isn't perfect for everybody.

The 50mm f1,4 have had some af issues, and I did with mine, and my gf with hers. I have heard good things about the 30 f1,4 and 50 1m4 from Sigma, make sure you get a good copy!

All this being said, I really like the 50 1,4 from Canon, but you can forget mf at these apertures, if not on a tripod and shooting a chessboard  You need a camera that can focus in low-light, because the 1,8 and 1,4 from Canon doesn't impress in that way. 

If I had 800 usd to spend on lenses, I would get a used 50 f1,4 and a used 85, 1,8...


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Dec 25, 2010)

I have an excellent 50 F1.4 which is wonderfully sharp at 1.4. However, it is falling to bits and really needs a major overhawl (the price I have been quoted actually means I will probably just replace it). It is not a robust lens, but I love the images it produces.

I recently tried the Zeiss and was very tempted, but I don't think I could realistically live with only MF. Sharp, nice bokeh and built like a tank.

I have tried maybe seven new and used 50 F1.2s. I have an 85 F1.2 II and just love it; on my 5DII it is really sharp at F1.2. [However, I recently bought a 60D and it is nothing special on that]. If I found a 50 F1.2 that was sharp at F1.2 I would buy it in a heartbeat. But so far, none of them has been as sharp as my F1.4 below F2.

Early on, I bought and returned a couple of the Sigma 50 F1.4s. Despite what everyone else seems to say, mine were nowhere near as sharp as the Canon 1.4 at F1.4. I am told the QA has improved since launch.

All the 50 F1.2s I have tried have been soft up to F2 and I have *almost* given up hope of finding a really good one. I might still buy one just for the bokeh and colour though. 

But if I had to pick one, based on my experience, I would have to vote for the Canon F1.4. But I would also second Viggo's vote for the excellent 85 F1.8 - a tremendous lens in every way. Just not *quite* as amazing as the 85 F1.2


----------



## Viggo (Dec 25, 2010)

To TheAshleyJones: Have you tried calibrating the 50 1,2's? I sent mine in, and also adjusted +2 with microadjust, and also, beware of distances. Often people try lenses at mfd when they want to check them out, which is where the 1,2 really suffers from not having the floating elements like 85 L does have. IQ wide open at 1,2 and up to f2, nothing beats the 85, it really is in a class of it's own. BUT for me, absolute sharpness at 1,2 isn't what I value most, being able to af in low light, weather sealing, color and contrast, handling, build and last, but certainly not least, bokeh, is much more important to me. (Absolutely not saying the 50 L has the same insane bokeh as the 85 L, but compared to other 50's)

Here's the best tip for 50 L: Get the 2010 edition!! You know it is when the Canon code on the rear mount says "UY". It's said to be much better, and the two I have tried, one was 08 and mine is 2010, and that one is a lot better.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 25, 2010)

Thanks again everyone for the time to share.

I do have the 85 F/1.8 and love it and it does live on my camera a big chuck of time. I just found that at a lot of times I am too close and a 50mm would have been better fit in those occasions.

I guess the Canon 50 F/1.4 would be my choice unless I don't mind the size and the extra $ and the time to find a good copy of the Sigma. Read some about Canon 50 F/1.2 L, seems "magical" and should save up more to upgrade...

Still very tempted to the Zeiss.... but guess MF is not as easy as it sounds... 

Merry X''mas!~


----------



## revup67 (Dec 25, 2010)

Here's a few links to help you further decide on the 1.4 over the 1.2. Unquestionably, the 1.2 is built better but if you look at the F/4 ratings on these two charts to 1.4 is actually a bit sharper @ 3740 - see (LW/PH section). Be sure to check out some of the sections in the articles below as both lenses are somewhat disappointing as compared to their equal competitors

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1 <1.4 lens showing higher resolution on LP/PW chart

Here's the chart for the 1.2
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1 <1.2 showing under 3740 @ 3584 F/4

I wound up getting the 1.4 and overall am quite happy but rarely if ever shoot at the 1.4 unless absolutely necessary. As you can see from the links F/4 is the lens sweet spot


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> but guess MF is not as easy as it sounds...



MF is not hard - but if you're using a lens faster than f/2.8 you will need the Eg-S focusing screen.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 25, 2010)

To "revup67"; Why would you be interested in f4 on 1,4 or 1,2 lens? Just get the 24-70 and use it mid-range one stop down and you'll have the same IQ and a much more versatile lens... I don't think I have ever used any of me three 1,4 and 1,2's at anything above f2. I realize not everyone shoots wide open all the time, but comparing f4 on the 50 is quite frankly pointless.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 25, 2010)

Viggo - I do understand your point and it is well taken but I disagree for a few reasons. My reasoning is this: when I choose a lens I consider all factors however sharpness and resolution is one of the most important. In each lens I have selected I seek out its best F stop with respect to the latter. On this lens, F/4 provides the best resolution. I work around it with ISO and shutter but try and stick with F/4 when shooting this lens (not for all scenarios of course such as extreme depth of field) but then again if I'm looking for extreme depth of field I'll opt for a different lens with a smaller F-stop. The lens you recommend 24-70 F/2.8 is a great lens it is also about 4x the cost and heavier. Plus I am trying to compare apples to apples not to oranges (sticking with the creators original inquiry which is 50mm prime). Lastly, the lens you offer has its shortcomings as well and does not outperform the 50mm prime in resolution at approx the same distance. In general, most primes beat zooms in sharpness. The lens you speak of reaches its max. sharpness at F/5.6 @ 40mm (3514 LW/PH and then begins to drop off). The 50mm 1.4 reaches 3740 LW/PW @ F4. In essence, the 50mm with a wider aperture out perfroms (sharpness wise) the 24-70 according to this chart and previous charts I had posted 
Canon 24-70 L 2.8 lens - go here: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1


----------



## Gothmoth (Dec 25, 2010)

one word about the focusing and focus shifts with f1.2 and f1.4 lenses.

we get a few fast lenses back each month because noobs (thought i donÂ´t call them noobs at our store) focus and then *recompose*. thats a nono with f1.2-f1.4 lenses at these wide apertures.

you wonÂ´t believe how many "im photographing for 20 years boy" people donÂ´t know this. 

most of the time i can show them that the lens is focusing just fine and the user behind the lens is the problem.

http://www.mhohner.de/recompose.php?lg=e


----------



## Viggo (Dec 25, 2010)

If you want the highest possible resolution and nothing else, none of the 50's should even be considered. 

I said the 24-70 as an example- You don't buy a standard zoom for bokeh and shallow depth and fast aperture. But that's why one normally buys a 1,4 prime. To buy a 50 to use at f4 because it gives best sharpness, for what? What type of things do you shoot? In studio with a plain background it makes sense, but then you would get a better lens.

Ths shift-focus of the 50 L has nothing to do with recomposition though. It's how it is constructed , it lacks the floating elements other fast lenses, such as the 85 L, has. But it is true that you can't recompose at these wide apertures, I have my camera permanently set to Ai Servo, because the smallest movement back and forth throws the image oof.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 25, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > but guess MF is not as easy as it sounds...
> ...


Or Live View - it's probably a bit more laborious than using a focusing screen but you can zoom in, very helpful when isolating a single part of the image at f/1.4 (which is very often how it's used anyway).

The f/1.4 unfortunately can't be mistaken for a macro and I feel it is very soft on APS-C below f/2.0, which combined with higher sensitivity requirements can make an image somewhat unpleasant. Good for portraits though where you're putting the subject across the whole frame.


----------



## Flake (Dec 25, 2010)

You should be aware that the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has a bit of a problem on Canon cameras. The lens suffers focus shift on stopping down, so it focusses wide open, you press the shutter and the focus point changes. Because Canon autofocus works at f/5.6 and f/2.8 if you have a fast enough lens, the focus becomes even more critical.

The Canon f1.4 50mm is probably the best of the bunch, but its micro USM motor is not as reliable as the ring type of other lenses. As someone has said, there's not much difference between the image quality of the 50mm f1.4 and the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 so if you're not buying it for the wide aperture then the zoom is a better choice, even if it does cost four times as much !


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 26, 2010)

TheAshleyJones said:


> I have an excellent 50 F1.4 which is wonderfully sharp at 1.4. However, it is falling to bits and really needs a major overhawl (the price I have been quoted actually means I will probably just replace it).



Canon has a flat rate of about $95 to overhaul the 50mm f/1.4. What rate did they quote you? That is quite a bit less than the price of a new one.


----------



## Sinsear (Dec 26, 2010)

I recently got a Sigma 50mm after trying to decide for several months. I guess you could say I got a "good" copy, as I don't have any issues whatsoever with the focusing. My friend lent me his Canon 50 1.4 for two weeks to try, and, after using it, I was pretty disappointed, by its image quality, AF, and build quality. The only complaint I had with the Sigma was that the focusing ring was a bit stiff. I sent it in to Sigma for calibration and I received it a week ago. The focus ring is now very smooth, almost matching the quality on my 16-35mk2. The lens is a bit soft wide open, but then again, so are all lenses. Overall, for the price, I would give the lens an 8.5/10.


----------



## unruled (Dec 26, 2010)

from what Ive read online in reviews about the canon 1.4 and the sigma 1.4, the sigma is clearly better, although not by a huge amount. slightly sharper wide open and better bokeh as well as AF. so are you guys really convinced that the canons are better? or is it a case of just better quality checks on the canon line?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2010)

unruled said:


> from what Ive read online in reviews about the canon 1.4 and the sigma 1.4, the sigma is clearly better, although not by a huge amount. slightly sharper wide open and better bokeh as well as AF. so are you guys really convinced that the canons are better? or is it a case of just better quality checks on the canon line?



I think there may be some design issues with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Roger Cicala (owner of lensrentals.com, and therefore someone who's seen many copies of a particular lens), states, "On full frame cameras and to a slight extent on crop frame cameras, the lens exhibits what I will term â€œschizophrenic autofocusâ€, i.e. when closer than 5 feet, it will front focus, further than 20 feet it will backfocus. This is not a calibration issue, itâ€™s just how it is."


----------



## jhanken (Dec 27, 2010)

I went through the same challenge to pick a 50mm for my 5D classic, and I went with the Sigma. I like it, maybe love it, it is clearly well constructed and the bokeh is a compelling feature, almost perfectly round and dreamy. I have found I almost always shoot it wide open (I reach for this lens when I want short DOF), and I have noticed that when photographing two subjects at once, it does favor the front object, so you need to be on top of the manual adjustments.


----------



## unruled (Dec 27, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> unruled said:
> 
> 
> > from what Ive read online in reviews about the canon 1.4 and the sigma 1.4, the sigma is clearly better, although not by a huge amount. slightly sharper wide open and better bokeh as well as AF. so are you guys really convinced that the canons are better? or is it a case of just better quality checks on the canon line?
> ...



that sounds really bad. Does it just happen ocassionally or often? shame...


----------



## Flake (Dec 27, 2010)

Perhaps you should read the Photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff

_The new Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM showed pretty impressive results in our APS-C review. However, it's not quite as convincing on full format cameras. The center quality of the lens is certainly fine and even great from f/2 onwards. Unfortunately the border & corner performance is rather disappointing. It's downright soft at large apertures and never really better than good even at the very best setting (f/8). The amount of vignetting is quite heavy at f/1.4 but that's rather typical for such lenses. If you stop down to f/2.8 this will not be a real issue anymore though. The lens produces moderate barrel distortions which is a tad more than the standard in this lens class. Lateral CAs are very well controlled and not really field relevant. The bokeh is quite decent although not perfect either. 
A real highlight of the lens is certainly its build quality. Unlike most 50mm f/1.4 it features a metal body and a good focus ring. The HSM AF drive is very fast and virtually silent. Unfortunately the lens suffers from residual spherical aberrations (focus shifts) when stopping down so accurate focusing can be tricky. _ 

The focus shift is the main reason why this lens should be avoided especially for FF. I do wonder when people say that they have a good copy, or they cannot see a problem, if they are used to inspecting their (RAW) images at 100% and know what to look for?


----------



## unruled (Dec 27, 2010)

Thanks for the link. That reading to me seems to suggest that the sigma would be fine for APS-C, however if you upgrade to fullframe later, you will have problems.

as I've decided only to get EF lenses from now on, exactly for the sake of upgradeability... I guess that means I should stick to the canon. Im not in a rush though.. wonder if canon will make any revisions to the 50mm primes.


----------



## traveller (Dec 27, 2010)

unruled said:


> .. wonder if canon will make any revisions to the 50mm primes.



I think a lot of people have been hoping for an upgrade to the EF 50mm f/1.4, but the latest rumours don't seem to be good: 

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/12/70-300l-more/

The difference between Canon and Nikon is that Canon has the 50L sales to protect, unlike Nikon who needed to release a new 50mm to maintain compatibility with their motor-less entry level cameras. 

The dilemma for Canon, if they were to release an updated 50mm f1.4, would be how much to improve it. They could go the whole hog and give it ring type USM, aspherical elements, 8 rounded aperture blades and perhaps UD elements as well. But this would kill a load of 50L sales, as it would most likely make it a sharper and faster focussing lens. If they simply upgraded the AF motor and tweaked the optics, it would mean sinking a lot of investment developing a lens that would struggle to command a premium price and may not sell any better than the current model. 

I am starting to wonder if Canon's f/1.2 primes are still an asset to the EOS system, or if they are starting to become a millstone. Nikon and Sigma have now both released f/1.4 lenses in the 50-85mm range that are faster to focus, cheaper and maybe sharper. Could it be time for Canon to replace the f/1.2Ls for new f1.4Ls in this focal range, like they did with the 50mm f/1.0L?


----------



## Flake (Dec 27, 2010)

Canon appears to have 'issues' with non 'L' FF lenses so the possibility of a new 50mm f/1.4 seems remote. 
The micro USM motor is not reliable, it's rumoured to be the most unreliable lens in Canons range, so it would be nice to see it replaced, but the 85mm has a ring type motor and doesn't seem to steal sales from the 'L' version so why should a revamped 50mm?

The 'L' 50mm has poor resolution at the borders & corners, it's a deliberate decentering to make the Bokeh more attractive, it's a specialised lens only really suitable for portraiture, the f/1.4 is much more suited as an all rounder.

Much as I'd like there to be a new 50mm I just can't see it happening.


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 28, 2010)

Flake said:


> Perhaps you should read the Photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff




Since he is getting it for a 5D MK II, you should refer him to the FF review on photozone rather than pointing him to the crop camera review. 

On FF, the Canon lens is about the same sharpness as the Sigma in the center, but the corners and edges are much better. It clearly shines on a 5D MK II.


----------



## alsoforum (Dec 30, 2010)

Sinsear said:


> I recently got a Sigma 50mm after trying to decide for several months. I guess you could say I got a "good" copy, as I don't have any issues whatsoever with the focusing. My friend lent me his Canon 50 1.4 for two weeks to try, and, after using it, I was pretty disappointed, by its image quality, AF, and build quality. The only complaint I had with the Sigma was that the focusing ring was a bit stiff. Sandalerlooking forI sent it in to Sigma for calibration and I received it a week ago. The focus ring is now very smooth, almost matching the quality on my 16-35mk2. The lens is a bit soft wide open, but then again, so are all lenses. Overall, for the price, I would give the lens an 8.5/10.




I just wanted to thank you for posting this message about this and I hope it helps some of the others on the board as much as its helped me. Many thanks for the help!!!


----------



## revup67 (Dec 30, 2010)

Adorama article on which 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) just released and good reasons why this is not the same as just buying a zoom lens which covers the same 50mm range:

http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?alias=50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14&utm_source=ET&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=EmailALC122910


----------



## revup67 (Dec 30, 2010)

Viggo said:


> If you want the highest possible resolution and nothing else, none of the 50's should even be considered.
> 
> I said the 24-70 as an example- You don't buy a standard zoom for bokeh and shallow depth and fast aperture. But that's why one normally buys a 1,4 prime. To buy a 50 to use at f4 because it gives best sharpness, for what? What type of things do you shoot? In studio with a plain background it makes sense, but then you would get a better lens.


Viggo - The 24-70 was a misleading example. The article (below) illustrates why one would want a 50mm prime instead of a "zoom". It also points out that yes, some people are sticklers and shoot the middle apertures for sharpness (it's just a preference the same way you may have unique preferences from everyone else in this forum) have you not heard of aperture priority?. By getting the zoom you recommend in your example you lose sharpness over the 50mm across the board and also must shoot at a smaller aperture to get anywhere near the crispness the 50mm shoots at a larger aperture. Get a better lens for what purpose? the LP/PW on the 50mm prime beat out some of the L series zooms with respect to sharpness. I suggest you go here for starters and learn more about primes vs. zooms.

http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?alias=50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14&utm_source=ET&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=EmailALC122910


----------



## BogdanSandulescu (Feb 1, 2011)

The Sigma version is mutch expensive than the Canon; the bokeh are ~ the same, focus speed are the same, so why you think at Sigma? I saw Sigma dropping the price recently for 70-200; if they drop the price for 50mm, maybe than...


----------



## Camerafreak (Feb 2, 2011)

Some time ago I got Canon EF 50 1.8 II because it was just that cheap and I did not have anything against giving it a try. For this money this lens just shines, however I strived for a serious player and researched the net for what could become my 50mm prime.

I must say I didn't fluctuate long when I saw the Carl Zeiss 50mm Planar ZE 1.4, checked the pictures it makes, read about it in comparison to others etc. I do not tend anyone for this lens - it is just absolutely the best out there for me. Some claim it beats any 50mm prime available out there for Canon (except probably 50mm Distagon by the same Zeiss =) ). The build is rock solid and it's a pleasure to hold it in hands and work with it. It makes a very custom bokeh.

Subjective drawbacks: it's manual focus only so if you're an AF guy, look elsewhere. Focusing on APS-C is sometimes problematic also, you definitely need a FF here (focusing screen will make it even better). In video this lens absolutely shines. The focusing ring is just THAT smooth. 

Also, fully open it produces somewhat soft image that I nevertheless like very much.

So give it a try - it is absolutely unique lens in all the aspects. To like it or not - up to you to decide.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 3, 2011)

Camerafreak said:


> Some time ago I got Canon EF 50 1.8 II because it was just that cheap and I did not have anything against giving it a try. For this money this lens just shines, however I strived for a serious player and researched the net for what could become my 50mm prime.
> 
> I must say I didn't fluctuate long when I saw the Carl Zeiss 50mm Planar ZE 1.4, checked the pictures it makes, read about it in comparison to others etc. I do not tend anyone for this lens - it is just absolutely the best out there for me. Some claim it beats any 50mm prime available out there for Canon (except probably 50mm Distagon by the same Zeiss =) ). The build is rock solid and it's a pleasure to hold it in hands and work with it. It makes a very custom bokeh.
> 
> ...




Post some of your photos, particularly low light ones, thats one of the areas where f/1.4 comes in handy.


----------



## S P (Feb 3, 2011)

I picked up a 50/1.8II for my 5D2 and it's a nice little lens. Got it because I wasn't sure if the 1.4 or 1.2L were worth it for me, and as it turns out I just didn't like the 50mm FL as much on full-frame as I thought I would. I think I like 50mm better on an APS-C as a short tele more than I do as a normal lens on FF.

After taking a close look at the 35/1.4L and the 35/2, I decided to go with none of the above and picked up the tiny but absolutely excellent Voigtlander 40mm f/2 lens. It's manual focus, but has outstanding optics that are sharp across the full frame even at larger apertures. It's limited by your ability to accurately focus. Bokeh looks a little funny, but the way I use it I don't get a ton of bokeh. Zero coma, so it works great for astronomical and Christmas light type shots too. Love the tiny size too. Manual focus feel and precision are excellent, and fortunately my eye sight is good enough to get decent results manually focusing. AF sensors and confirmation beep still function so that helps too. Comes with a closeup adapter that gets you from about 1:7 repro down to 1:4 repro which is pretty nice. Overall a great lens and I like it quite a bit. A very nice alternative to the 50's and 35's out there if you wanted something just a little bit wider than 50 for a normal lens that also has outstanding optics and isn't super big and heavy.


----------



## logaandm (Feb 4, 2011)

My 2 cents:

I have used the following on my 5DII:

Canon f1.8, Canon f1.4, Canon f1.2, Sigma f1.4, Zeiss f1.4, Nikon f1.4 AIS

Each has it's own character. Each (except the f1.8) is very sharp at f2.8 or smaller aperture and there are no significant differences.

Canon f1.2. Very nice and predictable bokeh. Still pretty sharp at f1.2. Nice contrast and colour. I debated with myself for three months to buy this lens. Simply amazing when used at night. I don't regret it. Hood sucks.

Sigma really more like 45mm. Lots of light fall off wide open and not as sharp wide open as the others. To my eye the best bokeh of the bunch. Good bokeh and lack of tack sharpness often go together. This lens has a very pleasing character. I prefer the Canons because they are brighter and sharper at f1.4., but compared to the f1.4 this wins easily in the bokeh department. I can see why people may prefer this to the Canon f1.4. 

Canon f1.4. The only major difference between this and the f1.2 is the quality of the bokeh. The f1.2 is just nicer. Sharpness differences are minimal.

Zeiss 1.4. A very sharp lens especially at f2.8 and smaller. A "busy" type bokeh wide open. Excellent manual focus. This is probably a very good lens for doing video because of the manual focus.

Nikon f1.4 AIS. Very sharp. A distict bokeh which can be unpleasant at times. Less light fall off than the Sigma but a good, small, manual focus lens. Used with adapter.

Canon f1.8. Maybe my copy wasn't good. I didn't find it very sharp wide open. Can't recall the bokeh. It is inexpensive, however.

Just for giggles... Leica Sumilux f1.4 - beats them all for sharpness. Quality of bokeh is slightly better than the Canon 1.4 and slightly worse than the Canon f1.2. 

Lenses matter more than cameras. Buy good lenses and you will be happier with your pictures and spend less time in Lightroom.


----------

