The Phoblographer

We’re streaming daily on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, and Spotify! You can also listen to it right here on The Phoblographer.

There are still photographers who hate electronic viewfinders (EVFs). They just can’t get used to them. But sometimes, I think that it’s part of just not adapting and embracing what’s possible. I myself love electronic viewfinders. They’ve revolutionized how much easier it’s become for someone legally blind (me) to use a camera. But at the same time, I keep them functioning like optical viewfinders. Technologically, they’re superior to optical viewfinders. They’re also better if you understand them. So I’m going to help some folks understand electronic viewfinders better.

It Might Be the Wrong Camera

First off, not all electronic viewfinders are created equal. The best ones we’ve tested tend to be on Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and Leica bodies. Fujifilm’s are alright. Sony’s aren’t always there, or they tend to be small with a small amount of magnification. Panasonic’s tend to be so good that I sometimes don’t need my glasses to shoot with them because of the diopter. So overall, you have to just try various electronic viewfinders.

Probably the best one I’ve used is on the Canon EOS R5.

Disable Exposure Preview

This is a big one! Always disable exposure preview with electronic viewfinders. Lots of folks will say you’re then throwing away a big advantage. And in some ways, you are. But if you know how to meter to begin with, you won’t need to worry. Keeping exposure preview also slows the camera’s autofocus. That’s why manufacturers are pushing to make their cameras autofocus down to the lowest and darkest situations possible. The darker the scene is that your camera sees, the harder it will be to focus on the subject.

Set the electronic viewfinders to instead have a constant readout.

Disable White Balance Preview

Here’s another big one; disable the white balance preview. I sometimes like to keep white balance preview on because I shoot in Tungsten or Daylight. But in this case, electronic viewfinders are better with a neutral setting. Some cameras, like Olympus cameras, have a simulated OVF mode. Try that!

Maximum Refresh Rate

One big complaint about electronic viewfinders is that there’s a lag in the refresh rate. That’s easily fixable. You have to set the refresh rate to the maximum or something that doesn’t make you lose your mind. Sometimes it can appear like there’s tearing going on. But that’s not all the time.

This has become significantly better with cameras made after 2017.

Consider a Viewfinder Magnifier

Lastly, maybe the viewfinder is just too small. This happened to me many years ago when it became really tough for me to see my camera’s viewfinder. So, I prolonged the life of my camera by using a DSLRKIT viewfinder magnifier. It’s sometimes harder to get them for mirrorless cameras, but they’re not impossible to find.

Kits like this are adaptable. They fit around the camera’s viewfinder and then magnify exactly what’s in the viewfinder. Sometimes you need to recalibrate the diopter because of this. But it’s worth it. If you have bad eyes and your camera’s diopter isn’t doing it, then grab these. They’ll really enhance electronic viewfinders.

We’re streaming daily on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, and Spotify! You can also listen to it right here on The Phoblographer.

Years ago, photographers stopped using UV filters on their lenses. It affected image quality way too much, and we often didn’t need them. UV filters originally protected the image quality from UV rays. But lens technology became so good that they were no longer needed. So, they evolved to become protective filters. Essentially, if the front of your lens took a ding, the UV filter would protect it. In the past few years, photographers stopped using them. Indeed, when I started my career 14 years ago, I swore by UV filters. I remember them protecting my camera as it took a major tumble. But these days? Not so much. And believe it or not, clear filters can affect your image quality.

Glass vs Plastic: Scratches?

Yes, there’s a difference. One would think that glass would give more protection vs. plastic, right? Well, that’s not always the case. It depends on the type of glass, and it depends on the type of plastic. I learned this especially in the watch world. There are a few different types of crystals. Some of the most popular ones are sapphire, acrylic, and ceramic. Sapphire glass won’t get scratched and will survive a lot of abuse. But it can shatter if there’s a hard enough hit to it. Acrylic and ceramic are good at not being shattered. But they’ll scratch.

More or less, the same thing applies to photography. I think most photographers will reach for glass each and every time. They’d much rather not have their lenses or their filters scratched. How much does it affect image quality, though?

But What About the Quality?

The quality depends a lot on your lens. As we wrote in 2017, vintage lenses often need UV filters and clear filters:

Newer lenses made after 2007 typically don’t need a UV filter when mounted to digital cameras. After this year, the manufacturers started making filters with higher quality glass and metals/plastics. This is due to the advancements in lens coatings which help filter out and negate the effects of UV filters. This is also why, since around 2011, the entire industry of optics has advanced so much. Zeiss started making the biggest splash with their Otus lens lineup but then Sigma did as well with the Art lineup of lenses.then Tokina, then Tamron, then all the primary camera manufacturers.

Of course, this is all debatable. Some folks use older lenses because they want that imperfect look. If that’s the case, embrace it! But if you’re using an older lens because of funds, then grab a UV filter. It’s pretty essential in this case. And here’s another question that we brought up in 2014 worth asking yourself: do you have insurance on your gear?

So how does it affect image quality? We’ve done this test a few times over the course of the site’s history. Just last year we put a B+W filter through a torture test. We concluded:

So, can damaged protective lens filters still serve a purpose? Possibly. It all comes down to how you shoot and the scenarios you’re shooting in. You’re not likely to notice any effects in your images when using a damaged filter if you’re the type of photographer who tends to shoot wide open. If you are shooting into a light source, you may notice some flaring if the scratches on your filter catch the light at the right angle. Even then, the shallow depth of field you’re shooting in will render them barely noticeable.

On the other hand, the effects resulting from a damaged lens filter become much more pronounced when you’re shooting in scenarios that require you to stop down. This is particularly apparent when shooting directly into light sources as demonstrated in the above images. This doesn’t necessarily mean that damaged filters are destined for the scrap heap though.

Of course, even earlier on, we did another test that didn’t involve pixel peeping. And almost no one could tell the difference. So, do you pixel peep?

What Brands A...

I’ve looked around. Of any significant photography publication, we’re one of the few that actually still cares about and actively reviews printers. Standard consumer printers are exhausting. They can scan, fax, email, print, cook for you (not really), etc. Lots of them have this idiotic thing that genuinely doesn’t make sense. It ultimately ends up just making the printer useless. And in the end, it’s a justifiable reason as to why everyone hates them.

I know I’m talking about consumer printers, but I’ve heard of this issue happening with others.

Why is it that when a color ink cartridge is done, I can’t print a black and white photo or document, etc.? How does that make sense? I needed to print a document the other day, and my Epson printer was telling me that I needed to refill the color cartridges to print a black and white document. So I canceled the printing order and switched the print setting to just black and white. Even though the black cartridge was full, Epson still prevented me from printing the document without requiring color.

Why?

Now let’s relate this to families. Lots of families will probably only have one, all-in-one printer in the household. I have lots of friends who are suffering after Hurricane Ida and have wanted to scan negatives and print them at home. So if a family wanted to print all those scans in black and white, they’d need to fill up a magenta ink cartridge. Why? How is this sensical?

Somehow or another, I don’t think printer companies get it. Last year, Canon put out a professional printer without a BlueTooth feature in it.

It feels like printer companies don’t want us to use their products. Why would you create a product that a consumer doesn’t want to use? And why would you set yourself up to have an angry customer?

I think the printer space needs to stop making so many things so difficult. Before COVID, I had a neighbor who had to buy a new printer and was dreading it. I sat and listened to her about the setup and how awful it is to do it all. While some issues are minor annoyances, I agreed with her about how stupid a lot of it is. It’s idiotic when a printer stops printing because it doesn’t have ink that wouldn’t be needed in the print anyway.

What’s more is that there are tons of printer companies out there. On the higher end, this doesn’t happen. I’ve been a Canon Prograf-1000 user for many years. I still am. Is it perfect? No. And years ago, when I reviewed it, Canon basically balked at my questions. However, I only use it to print high-end images at large sizes. And it’s never failed me. When ink gets low, it won’t let me print. And I understand why in that case. However, if I just want a black and white print, it never stops me.

Why do more consumer-level printers do that? I could easily imagine a family doing an Office Space scene to a printer when they were annoyed by it. Maybe folks would enjoy printing again if it wasn’t such a complex and anxiety-inducing process. Hey printer manufacturers, you’ve had years to work on it; stop making silly mistakes.

For more stories like this, please subscribe to The Phoblographer.

It’s easy to see why photographers keep making the switch to Fujifilm. The X-System brings nostalgic joy back to photography. Their film simulations let photographers be photographers again, and their lens roadmap keeps expanding. The new Fujifilm 18mm f1.4 LM WR lens provides the classic 28mm equivalent focal length paired with a fast aperture. It’s an ideal focal length and is speedy enough to take anywhere, making the system even more enticing.

It’s weather-sealed, and the linear motor provides even quicker autofocus. We spent the last few weeks with this lens to see if it measures up to our first impressions. It does. It may even surpass them. Keep reading to find out why.

Table of Contents

Too Long Didn’t Read

The Fujifilm 18mm f1.4 LM WR lens provides the classic 28mm equivalent focal length with a fast aperture. The linear motor delivers even more impressive autofocus, and it’s weather sealed. Images are beautifully sharp with painterly bokeh, gorgeous colors, and solid contrast. The film simulations make editing a breeze and get you back to shooting in no time. It is a lens that you can and will want to take with you everywhere.

Pros And Cons

Pros

It’s quite sharp

Swift autofocus

Lightweight and ergonomic

Withstands the elements

Great for a variety of applications

Beautiful optics

Cons

Minimal chromatic aberration when shooting backlit

Vignetting is a con if you don’t appreciate it, although it’s easily fixed

Gear Used

We tested the Fujifilm XF 18mm f1.4 lens with the Fujifilm X-T4 body. We also used the StellaPro CLx-10 LED light.

Tech Specs

Summarized from the listing over at LensRentals.

Weather sealing

f1.4 aperture to f16

Linear motor

62mm filter thread

Optional metal lens hood

9 aperture blades

370 grams

15 elements in 9 groups

3 aspherical elements

1 ED element

$999

Ergonomics

Fujifilm prime lenses are known for their superior ergonomics and this lens doesn’t disappoint. The Fujifilm 18mm f1.4 LM WR lens is lightweight and fits perfectly in your hand. It’s a joy to shoot with all day.

The first thing you see is the classic textured aperture ring. It also has an A-setting to control the aperture through the camera. Next is the focusing ring with a texture that provides an ergonomic grip. On the other end of it, the aperture ring has an A-setting. The A-setting lets you control the aperture through the camera body.

Unlike the 16mm f1.4 and the 23mm f1.4, the Fujifilm 18mm f1.4 LM WR doesn’t have a snapback. So if you want to focus manually, you need to do it through the camera settings.

Build Quality

This lens feels solid. The WR in the name of this lens means it’s weather-resistant. I spent a few days with this lens in varying elements up in the mountains. It performed effortlessly through dense smoke from wildfires, dusty mountain winds, and light rain. I also sat it underneath a sprinkler and then took some images of my cat playing afterward. The Fujifilm 18mm f1.4 LM WR lens had no trouble keeping the dust and moisture out.

Autofocus

This lens performs like you hope it will, if not better. The Fujifilm 18mm f1.4 LM WR lens provides snappy and quiet autofocus thanks to its linear motor. I tend to prefer shooting with a chosen focusing point, and this lens delivered time and time again. I experimented with wide-zone focus, AF-C, and face detection. (There were even a few times that it detected my cat’s face.) I even put it on the continuous shooting mode and blasted a few frames at a time while playing with my cat. Seeing that he is the most difficult subject I’ve ever photographed, I was pleasantly surprised by some of the results.

The manual focus of this lens is also delightful. The barrel glides smoothly, and achieving focus is quick. The only time I found manual focus to be faster than autofocus was when I was shooting in low light conditions well past blue hour. The lens did achieve autofocus in these instances.

Ease of Use

The Fujifilm ...

“The camera is just a tool,” says almost any established photographer that’s ever practiced the craft. And I tend to agree. I’ve enjoyed some works made on an iPhone more than I have on a Fujifilm X-T4, for example. That’s not to say the latter isn’t a better camera. It most certainly is. But it’s the scene, the creativity, and the emotion that makes a photo, not the camera. So if the camera is just a tool, as many photographers agree, why do Smartphone photographers struggle to be taken seriously?

Smartphone Photographers

The smartphone camera has come a long way since its inception. For those who don’t know, the concept was developed by inventor and business person Philippe Kahn. Way back in 1997, he had a vision of people making photographs with devices small enough to fit in their pocket. Fast forward to 2021, and his vision is well and truly mainstream.

For what they are, smartphone cameras have remarkable performance when it comes to detail, dynamic range, and even shooting in low-light. Can performance rival that of Canon EOS R6? Of course not, and it likely never will, at least not in our lifetime. But are smartphone cameras good enough to make compelling photographs? Absolutely. Check out our Flipboard magazine. You’ll be spoilt for choice when it comes to the number of amazing smartphone photographers we’ve shared.

Note: Check out EIC Chris Gampat’s review of the iPhone 12 Pro Max.

Bias Towards Smartphone Photographers

I have several friends in the photo industry that shoot exclusively with smartphone cameras. When I speak to them, some share the push-back they receive from photographers who only use dedicated cameras. “You’re not a real photographer,” “You can’t make good photographs with a smartphone,” “Smartphone photographers are destroying the craft” are just some of the comments my friends have to bat away.

In full disclosure, I also had certain biases towards smartphone photographers. There was a point where I wouldn’t take them seriously. “Just because you have a camera in your pocket doesn’t mean you’re a photographer,” I would think to myself. But how wrong I was. And in time, I aimed to understand why I and many other purists, held certain biases towards smartphone photography.

Did Smartphone Photographers Oversaturate the Industry?

If you think back to when the DSLR market started to become oversaturated, photographers rejected it and its impact. More affordable cameras meant higher demand for the products. More cameras in production meant more cameras in the hands of the people. Photography was no longer a rich man’s game (I say man because it was a male-dominated craft back then).

Then the smartphone camera went mainstream, and almost straight away everyone could make photographs. People who would never have considered educating themselves on the practice of photography were encouraged to take an interest. Tutorials increased across the industry, workshops were everywhere, and developers made apps so the average person could create “professional-like” images.

So, why would this be an issue for some? Well, let’s look at it from a basic human nature point of view. More people making photographs equates to there being more competition. From a professional standpoint, more people could take food off a professional’s plate.

When we feel threatened, a natural instinct is to defend ourselves. So, when an influx of smartphone photographers first appeared, it made sense people would question their credibility as real photographers. By putting them down, you’re pushing them out. Does that make it right? No. But it’s the industry we’re in and a harsh reality we must accept.

Smartphone Companies Didn’t Help

Another reason the purist may reject smartphone photographers is because of some of the actions of manufacturers. Companies claim their smartphone cameras are so awesome that people can use them to shoot anything, and that anyone can make professional-like images. But then they also use DSLR cameras and lie b...

We’re streaming daily on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, and Spotify! You can also listen to it right here on the Phoblographer.

We’ve been saying it for years not, but the current digital medium format isn’t really “true medium format.” At least, it’s not the same as film. In purely digital photography, you can arguably consider the Fujifilm GF system to be a digital large format. However, the camera systems need faster aperture lenses. Luckily, we’ve started to see strides made by Fujifilm and Hasselblad. But I don’t really think it’s enough. The arguments have to do with the traditional medium format.

Medium Format Cameras and Sensors

Here’s a graph we made years ago. Full frame 35mm sensors are fairly small. They’re the size of a single piece of 35mm film. Most mirrorless medium format sensors are pretty small. By all means, they had to be to make them so small overall. But as you can see, they’re only a bit larger than full-frame cameras. Full frame 645 imaging sensors are larger. Even beyond that, true 645 film is even bigger. For the record, 645 is the smallest type of medium format you can get on 120 film.

We’ve already got an 80mm f1.7. That’s wonderful. So what could we get? Well, I looked at the Contax 645 medium format system. And technically speaking, Fujifilm has outdone them already when you look at the 645 world. Contax had an 80mm f2. Fuji has an 80mm f1.7. Contax had a 35mm f3.5, and Fuji made a 30mm f3.5. If you compare and focus on the medium format world, Fuji has got them beat. But they can probably go even further. What’s more, they can also probably take on 35mm full-frame even harder.

Amazingly, the Fuji 80mm f1.7 is pretty lightweight. It’s under 2lbs, according to our review. Here’s another important section:

“Surprisingly, it’s not as heavy as it looks. Weighing in at 1.75lbs, it actually balanced well on the GFX 100S we tested it with. The lens is roughly 4.5-inches long, and you’ll add another 2.5-inches when you attach the lens hood. In terms of diameter, this lens is roughly 3.75-inches.”

The Future Ahead

Theoretically, faster medium format lenses should be possible. Currently, there are f1.7 lenses with autofocus. But why can’t we get f1.4 or f1.5 lenses? If you’re thinking about this from a traditional medium format, you’d say I’m crazy. However, as you can see, GFX and Hasselblad aren’t really medium format. It gets even more complicated, though. What if you wanted smaller lenses? Well, you can’t have a fast aperture and small lenses together. Unfortunately, these fast aperture lenses are going to have to be big unfortunately.

However, Fujifilm has been known to do some pretty incredible things. Look at their entire f2 lineup of lenses for the X series. The closest thing in GF format would be the 30mm f3.5 GF lens. But here’s my question: why can’t they all be f2.8 lenses instead?

This would help us keep the ISO levels down, balance out the size, and do a bunch of other things. According to MMCalc, a 30mm f2.8 lens would be like 24mm f2.2 lens in full-frame equivalence. That’s, of course, for the depth of field analysis. However, the lens is still 30mm. And it’s also still an f2.8.

I think that both Fujifilm and Hasselblad can do it. In terms of autofocus, Hasselblad is still almost a decade behind. But Fujifilm has almost caught up with Sony and Canon when it comes to autofocus speed. Of course, Sony and Canon have far more advanced systems with autofocus and AI. I’d love to see that come to Fuji.

If you’re wondering where this article came from, you folks typed it into our search bar. But more than that, one of our staffers, Brittany, has been considering a switch to the GFX system. And in the past, I too have considered it.

For more stories like this, please subscribe to The Phoblographer.

I’ve tested several Meyer Optik lenses. And they’ve never been easy to work with. Meyer Optik has also made perplexing decisions, but the 58mm f1.9 II is mostly different. It’s easy to get it sharp wide open. It’s also got beautiful colors in addition to its bokeh. In many ways, it’s my favorite lens from Meyer Optik. But for the price point, I’d expect more. For example, why isn’t this lens weather resistant? And why aren’t there autofocus contacts?

Too Long, Didn’t Read

The Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II is a beautiful lens that’s pretty small. It has smooth focusing and sharp image quality. Further, there are also really nice colors that are hard to hate on. For $899, though, I’d expect some weather resistance or lens communication.

Innovations

The Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II isn’t necessarily innovative. But they’re a company known for their beautiful soap bubble bokeh. Their website talks about the bokeh as if it’s swirly. This lens implements it differently than others. Most other lenses just make the outer edges of the lens swirly. But in this case, it makes whatever is not in focus swirly when shooting wide open.

Pros and Cons

Pros

Beautiful bokeh

The sharpest Meyer Optik lens I’ve used

Just a bit too sharp for portraits, but that’s fine in many cases

Smooth focusing

Large focusing range

I love manual focus lenses because they slow you down

Beautiful colors on the Sony a7r III

Cons

Lacks weather sealing

Lacks contacts for AF/AE communication

Really only sharp around the four points of the rule of thirds intersection.

Gear Used

We tested the Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II on the Sony a7r III.

Tech Specs

The specs for the Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II are taken from their website:

Focal Length & Aperture:58mm / f1.9 – f22Angle of View:41°Aperture Blades:14Filter diameter:52mmMinimum object distance:0,5 mLength:53mm – 71mmWeight:230g – 270gHousing:Aluminum / black anodizedLeica-Rangefinder:no (LiveView mandatory)

Ergonomics

The Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II is a special lens. It’s modeled as basically a reissue a vintage optic. And this can be seen throughout the entire design. The lens hood is small and screws onto the front of the lens. The lens cap can work on both the front of the lens and the lens hood.

When you look down at the Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II, you’ll see the metal body. But there is also the focusing ring, distance scale, and aperture ring. You can use this easily to zone focus.

The Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II has different measurements color-coded for your needs. It’s overall a small lens that you’ll love the feel of in your hands.

Build Quality

The Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 II isn’t weather-sealed, but it has a metal exterior. For Sony, in particular, I don’t think that’s a great move. Every lens that goes on a Sony camera should be weather resistant. Otherwise, the sensor tends to get dirty. Unfortunately, the Meyer Optik 58mm f1.9 isn’t weather-sealed, at least not at the mount. The lens has a little bit of rubber, but that’s not for weather sealing.

Otherwise, this is a metal lens and feels great in hand. If you’re a fan of classic lens designs, you’ll love this. Personally, I prefer metal lenses. I think they’re much better for the environment than all the plastic modern camera lenses use.

Ease of Use

This is a manual focus lens. So for what it’s worth, lots of folks will find it difficult to use. What’s worse is that Sony’s autofocus peaking is pretty horrid. So you’ll need to combine it with magnification to get any usable results if you’re shooting wide open. But once you stop down a bit, the system will be a tad more reliable.

Also, don’t forget about zone focusing!

Focusing

As this is a manual focus lens, you’ll focus manually and use autofocus peaking and magnification to get the shot just right. I think it’s stupid that these lenses don’t have AF communication. The focusing doesn’t communicate with the camera. It can totally be a manual focus lens and do j...

On this week’s episode of Inside The Photographer’s Mind, we speak to Brooklyn-based photographer Donato Di Camillo.

Donato has had a colorful life, and he’s able to transmute that into the photos he makes and the relationships he creates. Buckle in, it’s a great episode!

Links:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/

https://www.instagram.com/phoblographer/

Donato Di Camillo

https://www.donatodicamillo.com/

https://www.instagram.com/donato_dicamillo

CFExpress Type A is pretty new when it comes to standards. At the moment, not many cameras use them. Many are still sticking to SD–but some accommodate CFExpress. Type A though, is pretty new, and they have a great advantage. With a few Sony cameras, they fit right into the SD card slot. And the really cool thing is just how fast these are. The new ProGrade Digital CFexpress Type A cards have a 700 megabyte a second write speed. But when you hook them up to your computer, they can be read at 800 megabytes a second. Hopefully, the card reader you’re using can work accordingly.

It’s no secret that the new ProGrade Digital CFexpress Type A cards will appeal a whole lot to the folks who shoot video. And if that’s the case, it’s really going to appeal to anyone shooting stills. The Sony a7s III is mainly targeted at the video crowd. However, it shoots really great high ISO images at 12MP. Admittedly, the files also aren’t all that large. So there’s nothing to worry about. With the Sony a1, though, you’re shooting 50MP still images. The ProGrade Digital CFexpress Type A could be super advantageous.

As far as stills go, these are the only cameras on the market that have Type A slots. And I really hope that it doesn’t become something like the old memory stick duo cards. Not much supports them. We don’t know the details yet on the new Nikon z9 and if it will support that format or not. But I’m pretty sure it will. Nothing from Fujifilm supports it. And not even Panasonic or Leica have CFexpress Type A support yet. So we’re going to have to see where these end up going.

So basically, if you’re a Sony camera user on the higher end, you’ll probably really like these cards. But again, not much supports them. However, it’s camera announcement season. We’ve already heard from Fujifilm, Ricoh, and Canon. We’ve still got to hear from Sony, Leica, Panasonic, and Olympus. In all likelihood, I’m a bit curious about all of these.

If Sony announces the Sony a7 IV, they’re bound to give it a slot for the ProGrade Digital CFexpress Type A cards. If they try to get more into cinema, Leica might create a camera with these slots. Panasonic, I think, is the most obvious choice here. We’re due for the Panasonic S1 II and Pansonic S1R II. I don’t really believe Olympus will lean into video all that much, though their newer firmware on their cameras indeed does.

Here’s some important info from the press release.

ProGrade Digital CFexpress Type A memory card key features

Fully compliant with CompactFlashTM Association 2.0 specification

NVMe host interface with PCIe Gen3 X1 interconnect

Extended battery life and low standby power through NVMe PS0 – PS4 support

Metal enclosure for improved durability and heat dissipation

Thermal throttling protects card from overheating

Unique serialized tracking of every card enabling identification of key components and manufacturing data for the highest quality control

Rigorous 100% full card testing down to individual memory chips for optimal quality

X-ray proof, shock-proof

Temperature ranges: operating 14 to 158°F/ -10 to 70°C; storage -4 to 185°F/ -20 to 85°C

Three year warranty

MSRP $329.99

ProGrade Digital CFexpress portfolio

CFexpress Type A Cobalt

Maximum read speed 800MB/s

Burst write speed 700MB/s

Minimum sustained write speed 400MB/s (VPG 400)

Capacities: 160GB

We’re streaming daily on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, and Spotify! You can also listen to it right here on the Phoblographer.

Old DSLR lenses can be enjoyable to use. They’ve got imperfections that you don’t see in most modern lenses. Plus, they really make you work for the shot. In a world where photography is so simple, they’re refreshing. But in the past 10 years, lots of manufacturers have only cared about clinical perfection. This has surely satisfied tons of different photographers who wanted to get it all finalized in post-production. So what lenses are worth buying? And who should buy those lenses?

2011-2021

This is the era when suddenly, lens manufacturing really started to step up. It was ushered in by the Sigma Art lens lineup and the Zeiss Otus lineup. Almost overnight, third-party lens manufacturers started making viable lenses for lots of photographers who wanted clinical perfection. The Zeiss Otus lineup was considered a “No compromise” lens lineup. But the prices were exorbitant, and the lenses lacked weather sealing. Eventually, they were outdone by a bunch of other options on the market.

In 2021, when I’m writing this article, we’re still in a pretty clinical spot. But there’s evidence that brands are starting to change their tune. Canon RF glass isn’t super clinically perfect though it has a beautiful look to it. Leica is similar. Sony obsesses over clinical perfection. Manufacturers have effectively killed the fisheye look and distortion at wide angles. That’s a good thing in some ways. But at the same time, they’re killing the soul and charm that some of those other lenses had.

If the clinical look is what you want, then this era is great for you. More importantly to us, this is also when weather sealing really started to be taken seriously.

2000-2011

The years 2000-2011 were arguably a sweet spot. Lenses from this time often still had a bit of imperfection but also were leaning more towards the clinical look. Canon made some wonderful old DSLR lenses at this time, as did Nikon and Leica. This was an era where Tamron and Sigma were arguably a joke to many photographers. But the German and European brands were making some fantastic glass during this time. The old Leica and Zeiss manual focus lenses were beautiful from this era. I remember my first time working with some Zeiss lenses. I easily fell in love. Photographers like Jeff Ascough and Chris Weeks were constantly in the feeds talking about these kinds of lenses.

For the record, Sony was still working with the Minolta A mount, which later became the Sony A-mount. Those lenses are okay but not spectacular. The exception is Sony’s 135mm f1.8 that they made with Zeiss. This lens has far more character and a less clinical look than the modern version.

As far as build quality goes, this is a typical era that required a UV filter on the lens to complete weather sealing.

1990-2000

Lenses from this era were arguably in a weird spot. I’ve used tons and tons of lenses. But I can’t think of any except for Leica lenses that really stand out from this time. Canon EF mount had a few L primes like their 35mm f1.4 L. This was a very transitional era for lots of brands. Autofocus motors and electronics were really, majorly becoming the norm as brands moved away from major manual controls.

Photography in the 1990s is fascinating. The majority of it is on film. Lots of photos were done using a fisheye lens that gave it a very iconic look. Yet, lots of work was also done on medium format film. Personally speaking, some of my best photos early on in my career were made with the first version of the Canon 35mm f1.4 L. That lens was made in 1998. Think of this time as the peak film era: great image quality for film, but still not clinically perfect and soulless the way digital is. By all means, don’t even think about this era as having old DSLR lenses. But the lenses made during this time could easily mount onto DSLRs.

Before 1990

Lenses before...