As reported last week, the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and 24mm f/1.4 lenses will be released tomorrow. Now 100%. You better believe it!

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • alex

    great !

  • kelvin

    awesome news!

  • An other Nikon lens that I can’t afford….

    • Marc W.

      Amen. I wonder how many of the 24mm 1.4 criers can actually afford this lens.

      • I can and that’s what matters 😀
        I’ve waited so long for this!

        • Broken Gonad

          Me too. I’m fuckin loaded.

      • huh

        I wonder how many people actually know the price 🙂

    • Dweeb

      Not me. Saving up for the Hasselblad 4D. Tired of burning my money for Nikon’s benefit.

  • Louis

    Question: isn’t F/2.8 better than F/4?
    ….i feel like i’m missing something….

    • zeeGerman

      You should stop thinking in categories like “better”. 2.8 is faster than 4, this is correct, but f/4 is lighter and usually cheaper, so better depends on your point of view.
      Apart from that, the 16-35mm will most likely accept standard 77mm filters, which is a huge plus over the 14-24mm.

    • I don’t know about better. Brighter, faster, narrower DOF? Yes. Cheaper, lighter, smaller? No.

      If you don’t need 2.8 why pay the cost / weight of it?

      I’m really excited for Nikon to start making f/4 lenses.

      • RThomas

        I own the original 70-210mm f/4 fixed aperture zoom and I would certainly appreciate a light fixed-aperture wide-angle lens to go with it. I used to own the 17-35mm f/2.8 and it was heavy indeed.

    • John M

      This lens is likely a replacement/refresh for the AF 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D. So, a consumer/prosumer wide-angle zoom, and not a “professional” zoom.

    • Marc W.

      What, you weren’t one of those crying for f/4 lenes?

    • huh

      nikon needs an updated F/4 line. this is a good start. I can’t say I care about about a 2.8 zoom given I own 14-24 and 24-70.

      A 16-35 twined by something like a future 35-xxx f/4 and 70-200 f/4 would rock for lightweight setups.

      • WoutK89

        if they release a 16-35/4.0, I dont think a 70-200/4.0 is very likely. It will become a range Nikon hasnt covered exactly like the 4.0 one. example: 100-300/4.0VR (instead of the prime update 😉 )

  • Cost on the 24?

    • zeeGerman

      My guess is around 1600-2000 US Dollars.

      • Joe R

        For a 24mm f/1.4? No way.

        A new 50mm 1.4 AFS is under $500. The old AF 24 (2.8) is under $400.

        I’m going to say 499-699 tops.

        • WoutK89

          Then you probably dont understand wide angle engineering at f/1.4

        • zeeGerman

          The 24/2.8 is two stops slower than this one is supposed to be, so you can’t compare them. The 50mm/1.4 is a lens that is sold much more often, plus it is price is often compared by those you are about to choose a system (Canon vs Nikon, for example).

          But apart form all that, the Canon one runs for about 1700$, so my bet is still down for a price close to 2k$.

          I guess in about a year we might see something like a 28mm f/1.8 or f/2, which is more likely to have your desired price tag.

          • WoutK89

            Hasnt the price got to do with the amount of glass needed to get an almost “perfect” corner to corner sharpness wide open?

        • John M

          Also remember that the 28mm f/1.4 sold for about $2k US when it was first released back in 1992. Of course, that lens is about optically perfect even wide open, but I still don’t expect to see the 24mm price out at anything less than $1800 US. Even if it’s “not as good” as the old 28mm, it’s going to carry a heft price tag.

        • Mike

          The further you move away from 50 mm, the harder it is to correct for lens distortion (on the wide end). Add the glass that it takes to make it 1.4 an the cost goes up exponentially. 1.4 let’s in 4x more light than a 2.8 lens and there are likely higher criteria for tolerances in order to make it an exceptional lens optically. Thats why the 85 1.8 is $450 and the 85 1.4 is over a grand.

          16-35 while filling a need is also great marketing. The 14-24 is protected. People who need an ultrawide 2.8 are likely to get a 14-24 and while 16mm is close, it’s not 2.8. Different needs, different lens, no canibalism.

        • Broken Gonad

          Joe, you are clearly delusional. I’ll be disappointed if this is less than 2K, because if it is, then they’ve cheaped out on something. If I can’t use it as a spare car jack, then it’s not for me.

          • Joe R

            I don’t see this as being distortion-free. I don’t see this as being crazy sharp wide open. I think it’s going to be largely plastic and disappoint many of you.

            I’m willing to bed it’s pretty soft in the corners.

            I bet it ends up being a much better alternative to the 35 1.8 DX for DX shooters.

            I hope I’m wrong, I hope it’s a professional piece of glass, which would be priced as such, but I don’t think so. I think you’re all going to to be disappointed with this prime.

          • Eli

            “I hope I’m wrong, I hope it’s a professional piece of glass, which would be priced as such, but I don’t think so. I think you’re all going to to be disappointed with this prime.”

            I don’t see how you could predict that. The 35/1.8 is a purpose-built consumer prime for DX. We all knew it would be plastic and all–it’s a “normal” lens not built for professionals, although it is certainly very versatile and can be useful for a pro of they know what they’re doing.

            Wide-angle f1.4 lenses are generally designed for optical excellence and built with pros and wealthy amateurs in mind. There is nothing in Nikon’s past that suggests they will stray from that standard. Canon’s 24mm f1.4L, this lens’s competition, is a professional lens at a professional price and I see no reason to expect that the new Nikkor won’t be the same way. I’m guessing $1500-2000.

        • Astrophotographer

          Just look at the Canon 24 f1.4. That about $1800.

  • disco

    yebah! ideas on price?

  • hellosunday!

    Man, you got me there for a second when i refreshed the page to see the new post. Thought it was gonna be something bout the D700 refresh! Oh well =\

  • Killa

    Can someone explain does Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR good lens? What it is can be attractive in it? 16-35 is not wide range, F4 also dark. So?

    • alex

      it is wide range on FX and f4 is good enought for this range

    • John M

      This lens is likely a replacement/refresh for the AF 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D.

      The only aspect of it I can’t explain is why they’d put VR on it. At these focal lengths you can already shoot handheld at shutter speeds slow enough to make mirror bounce the bigger problem.

      • zeeGerman

        my guess is that it is meant for panning shots. And shouldn’t the VR also compensate the mirror bounce, at least to some degree?

        • SZRimaging

          You don’t use VR to pan. VR would be counter productive as it would be attempting, at least at first, to resist the pan. I pan hand held using anything from a 10.5mm fisheye to a 70-200 f2.8.

          VR should help in regular, hand held shots, just like every other VR lens.

          • zeeGerman

            Th simple VR’s work against panning, that is true. However, the more advanced VR systems can detect whether or not you’re panning, and will only compensate the vertical shake but not the horizontal.

    • huh

      canon has a similar 17-40 f/4 which looks like a dud until you see the price and experience the relatively small weight. It sells quite good and it is very good IQ wise. It makes perfect sense nikon would creat it’s own alas with some differences. This nikon gives you 1 mm more at the wide end, and 5 less at the long end. As a primary wide lens, this f/4 16mm wide angle lens will be hugely popular, as the canon counter part has been.

      the assumption is also that it can take filters. Although you can notice 1mm in wide angle lenses, the 2mm loss that set it appart from the 14-24 will likely be a good compromise to achieve filters as well as letting them achieve a better price point.

      In no doubt this will dissapoint some AF-S 17-35 f2.8 owners hoping for an update. But that lens still sold and remains a solid wide angle with filter capabilities.

      nikon needs the f/4 line more than it needs an updated 17-35 f2.8

      • WoutK89

        “the 2mm loss that set it appart from the 14-24 will likely be a good compromise to achieve filters”

        Or is it more the F/4.0 aperture?

    • It’s called landscape photography, you should try it some time. f/16, a circular polarizer, and a tripod. (VR is just to satisfy the whining masses)

      BRING ON THE F/4 ZOOM GENERATION!!! 70-200 F/4 NEXT!!!


  • sian

    The 24 will probably be over 1500 USD I think.

    • The 24mm f/1.4 is made for the D900 with his high ISO capability, you will be able to shoot a black cat at night with no moon. (did I already said that ?).
      So 24mm f/1.4 ($2000 ?) + D900 ($3400) ? that make the cat picture at $5400.

      • Lol….. But a great price if you’re into these things :-), but I’ll stick to my CV 20mm f/3.5 for now. No black cats in the dark for me.

  • ways

    very useful…bad news.
    As we know no new cameras.

  • Sun Tze

    24mm F/1.4 is very good. But I don’t understand why a wide angle lens (16-35 F/4 VR) needs a VR? I don’t think a wide angle lens like that need a VR!

    • Nikon will not sell any 24mm f/1.4 because it’s way over priced, so they will stop making it in 6 months, (VR mean very rare).

      • Love the VR reference. That’s funny!

      • Anon

        I’ll invest in a 24/1.4 so I can sell it for three times its original overprice in a few years. This will be 28/1.4 all over again!

        Seriously though, 24/1.4 is just the right lens for me – so I hope, but seriously doubt, that the price will be equally right.

  • Anonymous

    yah the 24mm 1.4 is my most awaited wide creamy. looks like im settling on it 1st over the 14-24 🙂

  • D40-owner

    If the 16-35 f/4 is built to pro standards, tough, sealed, it will be a very interesting dual purpose lens, very similar to Canon’s 17-40 f/4 L. A wide zoom in FX, and a “normal zoom” in DX. Remember that the only “pro” alternative in DX is the 17-55 f/2.8, which is very expensive and limited to DX.

    • D40-owner

      And at 52mm equivalent in DX, the VR starts to make some sense.

      • rg

        at 18mm, at 1/4 sec, on d40
        my 18-55 vr takes sharper pics then my 18-55 non vr

        i might be the only one with bad hand holding technique or horrible hands, but vr helps me at wide angles for sure.

  • D40-owner

    Let me state that again: Assuming the pro-build, then in DX it would be equivalent to a pro 24-52 f/4 VR. Who in DX never dreamed about that??

    • Worminator

      Very handy, certainly, though in the DX waters though it would have to compete with the DX 17-50 /2.8 on one hand, and the 18-xx family on the other. So it’s walking a fine line on teh price/performance tightrope, I’d say.

      On FX it’s a different story, and I know many people were waiting a long time for this.

    • The legendary 25-50 f/4 AIS comes to mind. I owned it once, AMAZINGLY sharp on film. Lightweight landscape photographer’s dream lens!

      I have to say though, I think it will be a much more exciting lens for full-frame landscape photographers, because it could potentially be extremely sharp, very light, and quite affordable which no other full-frame lens has ever been. The 14-24 is insanely sharp but doesn’t accept front filters, weighs a ton and costs a fortune. The 17-35 accepts front filters but is a bit heavy for landscapes and a bit overpriced for the sharpness. The 18-35 is just borderline un-acceptable for the most dedicated landscapers.

      So, MAJOR score for FX landscape shooters. Especially if a D700 body gets a 24 megapixel sensor ASAP. And, I suppose, a good score for DX shooters considering a jump to full-frame in the future, because the range is useful enough on DX. 16mm on DX (24mm) is nothing to sneeze at for landscapes, although if I were a serious adventure photographer I’d be packing the 16-85, in fact I could just pack two of those lenses, one for backup, considering to the weight that would be needed to achieve similar sharpness on FX. (Since IMO the 24-120 is un-acceptable as a die-hard landscape lens)

      Anyways. Very excited to see both lenses!


  • Kimaze

    16-35mm f/4 VR? for what purpose? is it lens for low end market or ?

    • Anonymous

      Its for the new DSLR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • DC

      It’s so the FX fetishists finally have a lens that makes their cameras useful for taking pictures.

    • Again, I have to say for the THIRD time: It’s called landscape photography, people! When you take 90% of your shots at f/16, and have to carry each ounce of gear on your back, those big fat f/2.8 zooms make no sense at all. Google the Canon 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 Pro-grade lenses with some of the sharpest optics ever made. Especially stopped down to f/11, where most landscapers usually find themselves. “F/8 and be there” was the mantra of old National Geographic photographers…


  • tim

    niiice! i hope that the 24mm 2.8 goes a bit down(i know is not expensive even now, but hey every € counts), when all you people go buy the 1.4.

  • pab

    16-35mm f/4 is a potential pro and semi-pro landscape lens for FX. f/4 being the price for a light, filter threaded (hopefully 77mm) lens. It would replace the 17-35mm f/2.8, VR compensating the lower aperture (not in every respect, but if this lens is nano coated and optically near the 14-24mm quality…).

  • SBGrad

    yawn….wake me up when they put out a lens >= 400mm

    • WoutK89

      I hope you mean zoom lens? They already have the 400/2.8VR, 500/4.0VR and 600/4.0VR

      • SBGrad

        Yes, for gazllions of $$$. I’m talking about an 80-400 replacment , the rumored 100-500 or even a 400/4. A 400/4 for between USD$2000-2500, I could go there.

        • WoutK89

          So be more specific 😉 I know these are hard times

  • metalorange

    Great news. But I think that the new 16-35mm won´t come cheap. Their wide angle lenses are always pricey. Just look at the overpriced 10-24mm Nikkor. I hope I am wrong though.

    • Anonymous

      1200-1300 most likely, if it is build to pro/semi-pro standard with nanocoating. it would be at most a 30% off the price of the 17-35/14-24 f/2.8s….

      • Vladi

        you better be joking. canons 17-40 f/4 L is £500 new which i guess is round $800. its pro built and one heck of a lens for the price. hope the nikon version doesnt cost twice as much.

        • Jonathan

          Well considering that the 16-85mm VR can be bought for about $600 USD, I wouldn’t expect it to be much more expensive than that. Granted the 16-85mm is DX and the 16-35mm is full frame. So if it is any more than $600, then no one with a DX camera would bother get it. Unless of course the 16-35mm has much better image quality, but the 16-85 is already very well regarded in that area.

          • WoutK89

            Some things to consider:

            The canon is older, so of course it is cheaper, wait a year and the Nikon will maybe have the same price point, who knows.
            The 16-85 is in no way a substitute for the 16-35, shorter zoom range, equals better optical quality
            If I am interested in a lens, it is because it does what I want it to do, if I need a wide angle only lens, why bother buying the 16-85, and also, on DX, you use only the middle part of the lens, less vignetting, and better optical quality again.

          • Eli

            “The 16-85 is in no way a substitute for the 16-35, shorter zoom range, equals better optical quality”

            Not to mention the 16-35’s constant aperture–a huge plus for me at least–and probable top-notch build quality. If you compare the 17-55 to the 16-85 in terms of build, there is a massive difference–16-85 is a very nice range but it is still a consumer lens, it is all plastic, and it has its optical faults. If the 16-35 has optical quality on par with the 14-24 and build on par with at least the 12-24 or something, for $1K or so, I’m sold.

  • hectorhannibal

    does anyone know whether the new 24 will come in 52mm filter thread? or does AF-S force them to use a fatter barrel, as with the 50mm 1.4G, making 58mm the new standard?


      • hectorhannibal

        it’s not that far-fetched a question you know, seeing as they were capable of making most of their lenses in 52mm for decades. yes, even some 1.4’s. the lens being a 1.4 has nothing to do with it. my question has more to do with other factors, like AF-S fattening the barrel to force a move to 58mm like their last 50mm.

        • noexani

          58mm on the 24/f1.4?

          The 28mm f/1.4 AF-D was 72mm.

          Likelyhood of 52mm filter thread: 0%
          Likelyhood of 62mm filter thread: 0%
          Likelyhood of 72mm filter thread: 25%
          Likelyhood of 77mm filter thread: 75%

          The 24-85mm AF-S was 67mm for cripes sake!

          • noexani

            Damnit. That’ll be me forking another £30 for a filter. I’ll use that spare 72mm one day… one day.

          • hectorhannibal

            my worst-case scenario is – they’re going fat and heavy and non-52. but my absolute worst-case scenario is – they’re going fat and heavy at a quirky size like 58 or 67.

  • Alex

    16-24 f2.8

    Am I missing something? I know the second is prime, but the 16-24 is highly rated for its quality. So whats the point in EITHER of these lenses?

    Nikon need to bring out a mid-range pro DSLR or I’m heading to Canon pronto. What a waste of time and energy on pointless lenses.

    • Bye

    • nimda

      they just did. its called the 300s. and the D700 is the best value in the world.

    • Anyone who switches to Canon NOW clearly has no sense of what an amazing point Nikon has reached, and how much more amazing the next few generations will be. Nikon’s shift in upper management and attitude towards full-frame has completely revolutionized the company and I honestly laugh at the offerings from Canon, I feel sympathy for all the 5D mk2 owners out there. Unless of course you absolutely love the control preferences, (YUCK) ….need 1080p video, (YAWN) or love f/1.2 and insane bokeh… (admittedly a good reason to switch!)

      I’m absolutely thrilled that Nikon has stuck with their amazing 12 MP sensor for so long, and not yet gone the route of higher megapixels and higher noise. I hope we see at least one more 12 MP FX camera from Nikon; a D700s with the D3s sensor and dual card slots (couldn’t care less about video) would be MY DREAM PJ CAMERA!

      I understand that some of you absolutely “need” an affordable 24 megapixels, or 1080p video, and I understand that Nikon needs to get these features out asap just so they don’t look silly next to the Sony A850 etc. But as a casual AND professional photographer, I honestly think that 90% of the people out there complaining for megapixels and HD video are, well, just complaining.

      Just my opinionated opinion!

  • nimda

    Great “REPORTING”

  • Alex

    Or rather I mean the 10-24mm f2.8 haha.

  • Alex

    Or rather I mean the 14-24mm f2.8 haha.


  • Bob

    I hope there is a new camera to go along with these lenses, if not who cares!

  • David

    If built to pro standards for sharpness, the 16-35mm f/4 VR would be a very interesting addition for backcountry landscapes. Nikon used to be the brand for this because they had a good collection of small, light bodies and small light sharp lenses, especially on the wide end. The incredible zooms introduced over the last couple years have been amazing optical advances, but they are big and heavy and not at all helpful if you’ve got to carry your kit in a backpack for 5 days.

    Personally I’d like to see more small, light, supersharp primes. Keep ’em at f2.8 please! The 20mm/2.8 and 24mm/2.8 are both great little lenses but not particularly sharp by today’s standards. Imagine if all the new optical engineering from the groundbreaking 14mm – 24mm was applied to these lenses. Imagine some small, light, sharp lenses that could outresolve the 24MP sensors that we hope are coming, yet still weighed only 10oz and took 52mm filters.

    For those who are wondering why put VR in a wide angle zoom, it’s important to remember that one is not always on a stable platform. For example, when shooting sailboat races one is often shooting close up action from a pitching deck. An ultrawide zoom with VR would be helpful.

  • ozawa

    so what’s the selling price for 16-35mm F4? It shouldn’t be as expensive as 14-24mm.

  • just trust me, ok?

    • WoutK89

      We always do, dont we? 😛

    • Anonymous


  • blueproto

    24mm f/1.4 seems eerily similar to the “failed” 28mm f/1.4 which became a success a few years later. Hopefully it won’t be too overpriced. However, I feel that the 14-24 will probably still be better for most users, unless they shoot in low light often.

    • WoutK89

      14-24, or 24-70? I mean, most users probably like to put a filter on their lens 😉

  • I have a 14-24mm f/2.8 and I will say that if they release the 16-35mm f/4, I will be all over that. I also have the 18-35mm f/3.5-5.6 and will be getting rid of both of those lenses.
    I love the 14-24mm, but no filters stinks. Also the range is too limiting, I find myself changing between the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm when out taking pics. 14-24mm is great for landscapes (if you can control the flare), but try to take a shot with people in it, and they get all distorted. 🙁

    I will probably get the 24mm f/1.4 too just to play around with, but probably too wide for my taste, and at $2,000, way too much for me. I find I shoot more with the 35mm f/2 on my D700 than anything . . . update that lens please.

    • Yep, I’m in the “new 35 1.4!” boat as well. I understand that 24 1.4 is where Nikon needs to start if they are going through their product line creating serious full-frame primes. I’m certainly glad they didn’t make the mistake of updating the 85 1.4 first since it’s honestly an amazing lens despite everyone’s pleas for SWM. But a 35 1.4 AFS, built-like-a-rock and sharp as heck, yeah that’s what I want…


  • Metavanguard4

    Isn’t it obvious that Nikon is trying to add video to all their bodies? And isn’t it equally obvious that the glaring hole in the Nikkor line up is in wide angle VR lenses? Why add VR to a wide angle? It is better for stills but not by much. VR makes a huge difference at all apertures in shooting 5 minute video clips.

  • Louis

    fuck lenses! i want a d900 so there’s something worth upgrading to! i guess if i save up until summer break i’ll be able to take a hit like the D3s or possibly D4 by then….

    • WoutK89

      Do you really expect a D4 to be released (not just announced) this summer? The D3s is a sports camera, The winter olympics and the World soccer cup are this year, they dont need a D4 yet.

    • SZRimaging

      If anyything new pro comes around, expect a D3XS. Maybe a pro 18MP in addition to a revamped D3X, but I would doubt that. It makes zero sense for there to be a D4 on the way right now.

  • user-not-fan

    at first I wonder why on earth put VR on 16-35 (esp assuming this focal length is only worthy for FX bodies), then I think about night photography without tripod???? that will be really awesome.

    • I think adding VR is mostly just to silence the whiners, and to fulfill Thom Hogan’s prophesies. Sure, more experienced photographers understand how in-effective VR is at such wide angles, but the masses, the consumers, don’t. They’ll probably sell 20-30% more lenses just because the VR is there and some people don’t fully understand it…


  • Del-Uks

    Forget about à 16-35 f/4… 17-35mm f/2.8 is the way to go!

    Now, I need to save for the 24mm f/1.4 😉

    • Gordon

      The 17-35mm is in need of an update, it’s corner sharpness is not that good. Hopefully the 16-35 is much sharper then the 17-35mm.

      • Del-Uks

        I’m pretty sure the 17-35’s corners will be sharper than the forthcoming 16-35 at f/4.

        At 17mm, from f/5.6 to f/11 the 17-35 is razor sharp from center to corners and that’s the average aperture I usually use with ultra wide angle lens.

        This babe and the new 24mm f/1.4 (mostly for night shot) will be my way to go…

        My two cents.

  • noexani

    Woohoo! I’ve been drooling over Canon’s EF 24mm f/1.4 for years now.

    £1800 at the ready! That better cover it!

  • SZRimaging

    So my new lens lineup will be a 10.5mm f2.8 fisheye, 20mm f3.5 Voigtlander, 16-35mm f4 VR, 24-85mm f3.5-5.6 (knock around lens), 55mm f3.5 (pre-AI) micro, 85mm (exact version tbd), and 70-200 Sigma HSMII (although it is beginning to worry me). Mounted on D200, and either a D3 or new Nikon body (depends on how impatient I get).

    Should be a pretty decent lineup.

    You know, unless there is an affordable baby hassy that gets released (falls over dead from laughing so hard).

  • Steve

    oh yes ! just sold my 24mm f2 Ai-s , hope its better !

  • jon

    ok you guys..sell your 28mm f1.4 cheap..you know you want the new one..hopefully no manufacturing crap inside the barrel this time..

    • WoutK89

      There will not be, if you keep your flashlight off, or not aimed inside your lens 😉

  • Anonymous

    I predict the value of the 28mm 1.4 dropping like a rock after this new lens comes out. Nikon lenses are always improving, so what’s currently a $3500 28mm 1.4 will soon be a $1400 28mm 1.4.

    • b

      i really really hope so, i might pray for that.

      but i also don’t think it’s going to happen.

  • Chad

    Am I the only one who doesn’t quite understand what’s so great about a 16-35mm at f/4? I never quit got how the dx 12-24mm f/4 was that great of lens, f/4 seems kind of slow for the amount of money we’re talking about. I guess the VR will help, but not with moving subjects. I guess that’s the point though, you most people don’t shoot wide angles, wide open?

    • WoutK89

      It is only one stop slower (not a problem with the ISO capabilities of the D700 and up), and since wide angles for landscape are used at f/8-f/11 and mostly on a tripod, the lowest aperture doesnt matter. Why is everyone so much against f/4, when it is cheaper, lighter and smaller. I guess its just hard to satisfy people, showing the 2.8 on their lenses.

      • Finally, someone answers this question for me. 😛 F/4 = landscapes lens!


  • Shan

    …. 100% not today!

  • jack

    … 100% disappointed

  • 100% is not guaranteed anymore. From now on I’ll look for 200% in the title 🙂

  • 100% like Nostradamus.

  • Back to top