Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens now shipping *UPDATED*



I already reported that the new Nikon AF-S Fisheye 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens started shipping a few days ago. A reader from India received the lens and sent me two quick full resolution sample pictures (direct link to flickr album):

Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens sample photos

Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens sample photos

Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens sample photos (https://nikonrumors.com/2017/06/07/nikon-af-s-fisheye-nikkor-8-15mm-f3-5-4-5e-ed-lens-now-shipping-part-2.aspx/)

Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens sample photos (https://nikonrumors.com/2017/06/07/nikon-af-s-fisheye-nikkor-8-15mm-f3-5-4-5e-ed-lens-now-shipping-part-2.aspx/)

Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens sample photos (https://nikonrumors.com/2017/06/07/nikon-af-s-fisheye-nikkor-8-15mm-f3-5-4-5e-ed-lens-now-shipping-part-2.aspx/)

Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens sample photos (https://nikonrumors.com/2017/06/07/nikon-af-s-fisheye-nikkor-8-15mm-f3-5-4-5e-ed-lens-now-shipping-part-2.aspx/)

Check pricing and availability of the new Nikon AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED lens:

Pictures credit: Lokender Pilaniya Photography

Update #1 - the lens is also in stock in Hong Kong:

Update #2 - A few more sample photos can be found Froknowsphoto.

Update #3 - more pictures of the lens:

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

    I’m sure this is personal to me, but there’s no lens less exciting or more gimmicky than any fisheye ever

    • SammySVK

      I agree, it’s subjective, but I don’t see any real use of this lens except for fun..

      • jmb2560

        …and guess what: fun is what I’m looking for when I shoot and that’s why I’m gonna get one!

      • Gecko684

        I am a wedding photographer in New York. I shoot with the Nikon 16mm fisheye on almost every event I do. Not useful in every situation, but when I want to use the unique perspective to pull the subject into the foreground this gives me additional options. Here is a shot from the dance floor during a recent wedding:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/de3af78979ae994f300de5697954424f56ce9bbe515256905d97801fa2e1a87b.jpg

        • fanboy fagz

          A few fisheye shots are ok to add to the pics done the day. But that circular type is horrible. Good pic

          • The circular is useful for scientific work. Monitoring light intensity etc.

            • akkual

              They can also be used to make HDRi sky maps for photorealistic 3d rendering, but I am not sure are they huge benefit over wide angle + stitching. I’d assume you need less images.

        • Wintermute

          This is an amazing photo, but I’m wondering how it would look with rectilinear 14mm lens.

          • Gecko684

            I find the biggest difference with the fisheye and a rectilinear wide angle is that the subject doesn’t get pulled towards the camera as much. I like the feeling that you get when you can see everything around the couple (or unique centerpiece when doing details) but the fisheye lens puts the emphasis on what’s closest to the camera. I use a “normal” ultra wide lens to get capture a busy and active dance set. The fisheye I will only use during the first dance for a few shots and during my room shots, but I do find it adds an interesting perspective to the other shots I normally take.

          • Nyarlathotep

            Not nearly as wide. 114 degrees vs. 180 degrees along the diagonal. To get the same background of crowd in the shot, the photographer would need to be a good bit further away and the bride and groom and they would no longer be as large of a subject in the frame.

    • Max

      Really? For me there’s nothing more boring than the endless shallow dof long lens portraits everywhere. Anyone can make them and no one will remember them.

      This to me is more exciting: http://www.willemjonkers.com/fisheye/

      • Originaru

        Ecat!

      • Aldo

        I agree that the endless shallow dof portraits are boring… but your link displays even more boring images are most of them follow the same pattern… low angle shots that rely on the coverage and distortion of the fish eye 100 percent to make it ‘look’ or seem interesting.

        • dylanear

          I think they are great! You seem to think it’s using the lens as some sort of cheat to make interesting images. Using the features of a lens to make interesting images is how you are supposed to use lenses and why we don’t all have cameras with fixed standard primes or mid zooms on them.

          • He means that they’re all the same. And, pretty much, they are. I’d like to see more different ways of using it. The super high contrast is a bit repetitive as well. Having said all that, I like some of the images.

            • Lowhook

              I liked the train station and bulldog photo. The rest got very repetitive. Not bad…just more of the same shot over and over IMO.

            • fanboy fagz

              I cant image the female with mini enjoys seeing her thighs so big with cellulite exaggerated. Not my cup of tea. Unique but a little Repetitive. Dont like square images

          • Aldo

            No… judging the photos on the same scale as we are calling bokeh portraits ‘boring’… Im not impressed by those photos either…. a single technique across most photos… just like the bokeh portraits.

            • Proto

              you’re like the movie critic who panned the new “Pirate of Caribbean” movie as not being sophisticated : )

              but i agree with you dishing back what he dished to bokeh portraits : )

            • Aldo

              I hope the new pirates is good!

        • Seem interesting? That picture with the old lady and the cigarette is fantastic I won’t be forgetting that one any time soon. If a picture is memorable it is more than likely interesting!

          • Aldo

            so are the bokeh portraits then…

      • TwoStrayCats

        Lovely! Even though they all follow a similar viewpoint, the “in-your-face” use of the lens is very interesting. I’ve always thought of the 14-24 as an up-close, personal, portrait device rather than merely a landscape or architectural lens.

      • Allen_Wentz

        Very nice pix! How do you repeatedly get so close?

        • Max

          Hey Allen those are not my photos.

          That’s just the first tog that came to mind when I thought of uwa people shooters.

          I agree on the repetition of similar shots – they make you scroll through quickly.

          What I find interesting are the photos that draw you in and keep you looking for a while, like the row of men on the bench, and the ones where he composed a number of interesting items in a composition.

          Especially challenging are the ones where he uses the effect of the fish eye to work with elements in the frame, like the man cycling over the bridge, and even the comic ones like where the guys’ stomach is being made bigger, the woman’s cigarette and nose longet, etc. – that way he exaggerates some attribute of the people or elements on the shot.

      • Brent Rawlings

        And all B&W.

      • akkual

        If shallow dof portrait is boring, it probably means that the subject/content is boring. And that is the thing that separates real photograhper artists from photographers: they make interesting content into photos, not just “interesting” technique.

      • Now there’s someone who really knows what he’s doing. Note that for a lot of those shots he would have been literally laying on the ground with the camera pointed upward at the subject–messy, but effective! His treatment of the pics, in a bit of an exaggerated B&W, goes well with the surreal distortion too. Great stuff.

      • Kivdul

        Really nice shots

      • abmbarry

        I find them rather ordinary, …. Seems like adds for smoking, .. Yuck!

        • Max

          I smoke YUM! That must be why I like them.

    • lol totally

    • Anyone can strap a fisheye on a camera. Using it well is a discipline that takes time to ‘master’ just as any other class of lens.

      You have to get up close and personal with everything you shoot. It’s like learning how to use an UWA well, except you take the challenges of a UWA and exaggerate those.

      My fisheye doesn’t get that much use, but it’s light and lives in my kit bag always. There are times when it’s invaluable and it’s a personal favourite I’d never get rid of.

      • The size of the 10.5mm DX is an excellent feature: I can easily fit it in my pocket, even better than with the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

    • Nyarlathotep

      Not gimmicky uses: Underwater and diving, 360 panos, astro-photography, super wide landscapes, de-fished landscapes, skiing/skating/skydiving and other similar sports, large venues, urban up-shots, large architectural ceilings, low and close shots. Really there are a lot of uses that aren’t gimmicky or silly “get it all in” shots. It just takes a while to make it work.

      I only use mine here and there, but when I do use it, I am glad I do.

    • T.I.M

      Some Asian people (including my wife) eat fish eyes.

    • EarlFargis

      Well, I bit.

      The one cool thing I like is the zoom feature. I’d never just buy a fixed fisheye lens but now I can play with 8mm. I can see me using 15mm for panoramas and some neat effects.

      Yes, it’s a toy but so is my convertible and I paid a heck of a lot more for that car.

      • Haha, me too. My convertible was precisely 51x the price of my fisheye. The car was a year old, while the fisheye was quite a bit older but in great condition.

        • See, just buy an OLD convertible and new lens, problem solved!!! I bought a 12 year old car and it has been reliable, I just had to find somebody else’s “baby” and made it my own 😛

          • Ah, but the new car has all the mod cons, better fuel economy and yet is quicker than the old model, much better and quicker hood mechanism and something that is priceless – much, much better safety equipment. I sold my 10-year-old but reliable car to make the upgrade. The engine was a peach, but all the wear and tear items were starting to go all at once. I had that one for eight years and expect this time round will be similar. I have no idea how a 12-year -old car has been treated most of its life.

            A lot less can go wrong with a lens than a car 😉

    • karayuschij

      In 40 years of work as professional photographer I have used a fish-eye twice…
      Well, it can be useful for somebody, but not for me.

    • Juha Backman

      A fisheye (I’m using the 10.5 Nikkor DX on regular basis, and occasionally the Sigma 8 mm FX) is an excellent starting point for pictures needing perspective correction, since when you correct for the barrel distortion and leave the corners uncropped, you can get much wider angle in the final perspective corrected image than if using a rectilinear superwide. So, a lens for every purpose, and using a fisheye doesn’t imply that you need to always like extreme barrel distortion.

    • Fisheye shots are really difficult in terms of
      composition. I recall going through a fisheye lens group on Flickr back when I was trying to decide whether to get one, and 999 out of 1000 pictures in the group were the standard, gimmicky fisheye shot. But that 1 out of 1000…wow! So, in the hands of an expert composer, and given the right subject matter, I think a fisheye lens can be a powerful artistic tool. (Admission: I myself have proven
      to *not* be an “expert composer” of fisheye shots, although I keep
      trying. I end up using mine mostly for night sky shots.)

      • It can be really hard, getting that one amazing shot is taking me to cool places and trying new things – I’ve come to discover with a UWA that if you want good results you have to put in good effort generally, and that includes climbing remote peaks, points, and places other people don’t want to go, to get whats special…I can get a lot of work done with teles that involve me not moving very much, sometimes patience in one place is key but not moving around can really kill the opportunities in certain locations at different times of day.

  • bobgrant

    The fisheye is not a lens I’ve EVER seen in a pro kit. On the other hand, a lot of enthusiasts and artist like them and thus they are totally viable. I don’t own one and have no interest. Everything on this site is just noise until we see the update of the D810.

    • MB

      Actually I know some pros using them even on weddings and pretty successfully..,

    • paulski

      Find me a pro who shoots, say, skateboarding who doesn’t own a fisheye.

    • Abhinav

      Rubbish.,It has loads of use for creating 360 degrees Panoramas.As an astrophotographer this is a dream lens ,but 15mm @ f4.5 is way too slow.

    • The oracle hath spoken.

    • Tadao_Isogai

      Used quite a bit among college sports photographers in the US, particularly to capture team huddles, pre-game pep talks and the like; lots of fisheye images on US university athletic web sites

    • So you were told what’s in a “pro” kit ;)))) Now you need to find a pro for it;)

      • bobgrant

        I shoot jewelry, so obviously that segment does not have much use for a fisheye. But I have friends who are set photographers, HBO/Showtime boxing and sports shooters, wildlife shooters and so on. Nobody uses fisheyes. I don’t know a working professional who does. I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions, but it’s about the last thing I’ve heard anyone clamoring for.

        • Allen_Wentz

          I don’t know, I used to shoot a fair amount of antique jewelry and glassware. Thinking back, I wish I had creatively taken the 10.5mm fish after it instead of just the standard 60mm and 105mm macro.

          The ongoing project was straightforward boring, but I should/could have added some creativity with the fish.

        • If you look beyond those specific kinds of professionals to a different area you’d be very surprised. Fisheyes are the #1 preference of professionals for stitched 360 VR photography. Other lenses are used as well of course, but you’d really struggle to find a professional 360 photographer who *doesn’t* have a fisheye in their kit bag.

        • Okay I’ve shot a bunch of different fields and you are putting yourself in a corner – you shoot jewelry, of course this thing doesn’t appeal to you. Shooters of action, sports, landscapes, real estate, media, events, are gonna buy this thing and use it with aplomb, the inner Astrophotographer inside me can’t wait to put this thing inside the arms of a Saguaro and shoot all night with it.

    • ZoetMB

      And how revolutionary do you think the D810 update is going to be? It’s going to be an incremental update of the D810. I don’t believe it’s going to be anything that’s going to put more money in the pocket of a pro. Will it be better than the D810 and have some nice new features and 4K video? Probably. Major advance to the point where anyone with a D800 or D810 has to have it? Highly unlikely.

      To think that the D810 update is the only thing that’s important and more important than new lenses or Nikon getting involved in the mirrorless market is a bit silly to me.

      If every lens was for everybody, Nikon (or Canon) wouldn’t have to have 100 lenses in their lineup (especially when there are only 1.6 lenses sold for each body). There’s a huge lineup of lenses offered so people can make their own choices about what they need. There’s nothing wrong with a fisheye. Some years back I bought the 12-24mm to take to Paris with me and made what I thought were some really interesting images. Every lens is capable of making great images and every lens is capable of making incredibly boring images. It’s the photographer’s eye that determines which one it turns out to be. I’ve seen images by photographers taken at places I pass every day. I see a boring scene that’s trite and not interesting and they see something special and make a great image. It’s all in the eye. The lens is just a tool to get you there.

      • bobgrant

        Good lord, spare me the lecture. I was shooting large format for years. And I often tell people not to waste money on the “idea” that better gear will elevate them. But I’m already a working paid photographer and I can make proper profitable use of a 46MP D820. End of story. Some of us are paid photographers and “incremental” updates can be of more use than some might expect. That all said, Nikon NEEDS to update DSLR’s like the D810 because they are VERY long in the tooth for the market and make the company look stagnant to some buyers.

    • Allen_Wentz

      I used the 10.5mm in my pro D2x and D3 kit. Not all the time, only occasional use but when you need it you need it and it is worth having. In my case mostly I used the 10.5mm fisheye corrected to rectilinear in post, but one particular wedding fisheye pic justified the 10.5mm all by itself.

  • Farhad Moghadam

    really why we need a fisheye lens? i was waiting for an updated 105 macro

    • Stefan Suchanec

      yeah man exactly… like there’s so much ahead of this

    • Abhinav

      Just because you don’t find any use doesn’t mean it has no use.

      • Nyarlathotep

        Seriously, I don’t get all of the bellyaching around here. People get so bent if their desired lens isn’t updated first.

        I love that Nikon made a new Fisheye. And that they made a super specialized 19mm T/S. And a bonkers 105 f/1.4. Will I buy any of those? No, they are just not something I need. Are there lenses I’d like to see them work on? Sure, but I realize they have a whole stable of lenses to roll. They have to be competitive in all segments. Not just the stuff that x, y or z person wants.

    • Just curious, what’s inadequate about the current Nikon 105mm macro? I see nothing but glowing reviews on it.

      • Jarret O’Shea

        It’s not as sharp as some of the lenses Nikon (and others) have released since. Not to say that it isn’t sharp, but the difference between it and a couple other lenses I have is noticeable. It’s also heavy (expected) and fairly slow to autofocus (also expected).

        All that said, I really like it, and don’t see a great need for a replacement.

      • Stan Chung

        Just received mine today after looking high and low.
        The others just had too many compromises.

    • I’m still waiting for replacement for my D700.

    • BPhoto

      I would like to see Nikon update the 200 macro before the 105. The 105 is a sweet lens.

  • The usefulness of ANY lens is limited only by the imagination of the user.

    • Aldo

      Agreed. I have no imagination for this lens. I like the standard water at the bottom trees on top images that seem to simulate the earth… and thats about it.

  • RIT

    Love Fisheye lenses, used well they are very powerful. I’m not so sure about circular fisheyes but diagonals are pretty essential IMO.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/ritylor/9529760675
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/ritylor/9496620475
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/126b36020a9e6f5dbf51bb770317052a4d47a42444bb6696618511543286ce40.jpg

  • RIT
    • T.I.M

      Circular fisheye look too much like a fish eye.

    • Nice but you dont need a fisheye, this is just UWA. The 12-24mm sigma rectilinear will do without any distorsion correction!

      • MB

        Fisheye lens … are not UWA …
        They are VEWA … Vastly Exaggerated Wide Angle lens 🙂

  • Peter Allinson

    Mine arrived today, super sharp, will be happy to use this underwater as a replacement for the tokina 10-17. Also for some fun shots above water

  • Jay Hemdal

    Why pay $1200 USD for a lens you’ll use for a few special shots? I bought a Rokinon 8mm for $230 and used it one week and haven’t used it since. I have it if I need that “special” shot, I just haven’t had the need (grin).

    • Nyarlathotep

      I would imagine people want it for the AF or perhaps the options the new zoom provides as a DX AND FX compatible lens.

      Now, don’t get me wrong, I have both the Rokinon 8mm and 12mm fisheye lenses, and I won’t be parting with those lenses for this one. I am quite happy with them. But AF would be nice, and if I were starting over, this option would be of serious interest.

      And no, the comment “you don’t need AF for a fisheye/UWA, everything is in focus” is not true. With a fisheye or UWA I am often very close to my subject. If my focus is set to near infinity and I want focus at 2 feet, my subject is not going to be in focus. Yes, I can get things in focus and I am not complaining, I do just fine, but as a pro or a sports/action photographer who uses fisheyes a fair amount, I would want AF.

    • Chris

      It replaces 3 lenses for me. Sigma 8/3.5 Nikon AF-S 10.5/2.8 DX and Nikon 16/2.8 FE. So yes, I get one and have a grin.

    • Very valid point – although I was willing to shell out $700 for the 10.5, this new lens is $500 more, and now, years later, I have the experience to know exactly how challenging fisheye lenses can be to use effectively. So it’s highly unlikely I will ever buy this lens, it’s just too doubtful that it would be worth that much money. This, even though I am a fan of good fisheye work.

      Basically it’s the same problem here that Nikon has had for a number of years now: prices always going in the wrong direction.

  • Jeffrey Hartog

    Underwater photographers are very excited about this lens; Canon underwater shooters have had the Canon equivalent for a few years now, and love it.

    • BPhoto

      I think Nikon was smart to directly compete with Canon with this lens.

      • dylanear

        Especially since they were innovators in fisheyes for decades. They used to be halo products for Nikon. The 8mm and insane 6mm 2.8s and the earlier ones were big technology demonstrations for Nikon in the 60s, 70s. As was the giant 2000mm reflex. Sad Nikon let Canon lead them for the past decade or two on this range.

  • Eric Calabros

    Isn’t it boring to hear folks who have made countless boring shots with boring focal length normal prime whining about boringness of fisheye?

    • Captain Megaton

      Not boring, just difficult to use effectively.

  • Steven Choi

    Did you say fish eyes? You should cook it right! If you do, it is so delicious!

    • Allan

      Sorry, Steven. T.I.M beat you to it. See below.

  • Tom Taubert

    It would have been cool if the Jimi hendrix Experience used a fisheye on one of their album covers.

  • Stan Chung

    Something different and fun. Would have prefered a fixed f4 one though.

  • Bruno

    excited to use it on the 4K crop of the D500/D7500

  • disqus_ErOzKSxw9P

    cant wait to use this on the 4K crop of my D500!

  • cBBp

    Looks nice. But it’s pretty large.
    My 10.5 is tiny and semi circular and 220 degree veiw on FF.

    Zom Fe is nice but zooms r always less sharp

  • Carleton Foxx

    Golly, that is a great lens. Very sharp and quite pleasing colors. Approved!

  • bobgrant

    The D810 was released and expected to be an “incremental” update to the D800. As I own both cameras, I find the D810 to be a superior tool, just as both cameras are superior (in some respects) to the D3 and D700 I had prior. Owning older gear is rarely a barrier to getting good shots as the primary barrier is always the person behind the camera. But this “need” to call a camera you haven’t seen yet “an incremental update” sounds like sour grapes. In other posts I’ve said that great shots are being taken today with the D40, but as someone always points out, it’s wrong to assume that a better tool won’t help someone get the shot of a lifetime, or make more money. I seriously doubt that the D820 will be a small improvement, but we’ll have to see. The other end of my comment has to do with the relative health of Nikon, as they NEED to update an aging design soon.

  • Circular view has a fuzzy edge? That’s unfortunate. Makes it look like a cheap fisheye attachment.

    On the plus side, full-frame performance seems to be quite good corner-to-corner, presumably due to the zoom design.

    • BukkakeComet

      Yeah that fuzzy edge is a turn off, but with the uniqueness of this design I don’t expect any more out of the fisheye family as far either one of the ends becoming a prime. So this is what we get.

      But the 15mm looks pretty good. But I have to use it to see if that fuzzy edge can be beaten

      • MB

        The fuzzy edge is inevitable on circular fish eyes due to diffraction at the edge of FOV … you use circular crop to get rid of those 🙂

  • dylanear

    But is it sharper than my 8mm 2.8 Ais?? I’ll probably have to buy one to find out for sure. I hope it’s sharper than my Sigma 8mm f4, that’s what I carry around since the Nikon 2.8 is too massive and precious to haul a lot of places.

  • BukkakeComet

    I love fisheyes, use them in professional action sports shots. I love the uniqueness of the 8mm-15mm zoom. Although I just wanted a strong prime fisheye revamp from Nikon. However I see how this can attract the experimental crowd and the pro looking to mix up a selection in their bag.

    I have to knock out the new camera purchase first then I will pick up one of these to play with, but I really wish we got this down to 2.8

    But that circular 8mm is going to give me some fun days of photos. Just wish I could get a ND filter on this lens.

  • Julian

    As I own the 14-24 then there is less of an urge to buy this, its still very tempting though, but probably only if I win the lottery or something. I agree that it is gimmicky, but then again this lens will likely hold its value well, as I expect it to be a bit of a rarity.

    • Chris

      I didn’t know that’s a fisheye zoom too.

      • Julian

        Ha ha, well obviously not, but at the wide end the focal lengths are getting close, and the distortion at the wide end is a little similar. My point being though – do I really need 2 super wide angles, sure the fish-eye is a cool effect, but think I prefer the more tradional wide angle result.

  • Amir

    Why didn’t you publish my posting regarding this lens that I told for the very first time that Froknowsphoto had that lens?I saw you have banned me from postings.Why?Because I told you that you are too forgetful to update that damn section?You know what?You claim you live in a democratic country,but you act like dictators.

    • Amir, relax – your comment contained a link and is pending moderation, I will get to it when I get to it. If you were banned, you would not be able to post you last comment. FYI: I added the link to froknowsphoto an hour after I published my post – this was two days ago. Read the post next time before you make a comment like that.

      • Allan

        Dear Benevolent Dictator (Peter),

        I would like you to consider banning that fellow, Thom, from your country, I mean, website. He makes several of your readers look not too bright.

        Sincerely yours,

        your most humble reader.

        P.S. Slow day. I’m trying to be helpful.

        • Sounds like maybe you need to start your own blog.

          • Allan

            ?.

            • Max

              He means start your own country.

            • Allan

              Thanks.

              I think I’ll stay with Nikon Rumors. I like the leader and his citizens.

  • Viktor

    Those photographers making boring pictures need a lens that is getting some fun to the pics.

    Goods photographers are fine with a “boring” lens and they make interesting fantastic pics with them….

  • harry hobo
  • japangelo

    I have a nikon d500, a fisheye lens and a 20mm lens..would this lens replace them? Would I have the fisheye effect at 15mm on a crop sensor?

  • Steve C

    I’m happy with the 10.5mm f/2.8. It’s faster too.

  • jagigen

    I want that kind of front cap for my 14-24.

  • Bojan

    A short review of Nikon 8-15mm lens on my log and full resolution sample photos. http://foto-info.si/af-s-fisheye-nikkor-8-15mm-f3-5-4-5e-ed-kratek-test/

  • Rick Francis

    July 3 and still waiting for the I preordered… The people who think pros don’t use fisheyes never met an underwater photographer. But this FE focuses VERY CLOSE, which creates lots of interesting compositional possibilities for flowers and insects and pets and…

  • Back to top