When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

Lomography has announced the Joseph Petzval Métamorphose 35mm F1.8 Art lens, a full-frame manual-focus prime for Canon RF, Nikon Z and Sony E cameras. The lens lets photographers and cinematographers adjust the intensity of its swirling bokeh and embraces flaws that modern lens designs aim to avoid.

Lomography

The Métamorphose 35mm F1.8 Art lens offers seven levels of bokeh, allowing photographers to customize the look of their images via a dial on the lens. Lomography says that with the effects turned down, the bokeh is similar to its previous Petzval Art lenses, with softer edges and soap-bubble bokeh.

With the bokeh level increased, Lomography says a much more dramatic change takes place. According to the company, the center stays sharp while the edges stretch and appear blurred. Lomography describes it as a “powerful hallucinatory effect around your subject.” It says the effect is best used to convey a disoriented state or when you want to create a sense of motion.

Lomography

The effect becomes even more pronounced at the lens’s 0.35m (1.1′) close focusing distance, where swirling bokeh and outward-stretched edges surround a sharp center. In the company’s sample images, only the very center of the frame remains sharp in these cases.

In addition to changing the look of the bokeh via the seven adjustments, the lens supports drop-in rear aperture plates to change the bokeh’s shape. It comes with five plates: a star, a sun, an oval, a heart and a snowflake.

Lomography

Lomography designed the Métamorphose for both photo and video work. It offers a 180-degree focus throw, Mod 0.8 gearing for standard follow-focus systems and a de-clicked aperture ring for smooth exposure adjustments. Its bokeh control can be adjusted without shifting focus, allowing users to alter the image’s rendering during a take. A built-in 1/4-inch mounting point can support the lens directly on a compatible camera rig, while a 67mm front thread accepts filters. The optical design comprises six elements in five groups.

The Métamorphose joins Lomography’s Petzval Art range of manual-focus, full-frame mirrorless lenses. The line is named for Joseph Petzval, who designed an influential portrait lens in 1840 that became known for its fast aperture, sharp central rendering and softer edges caused by field curvature. Lomography introduced its first modern Petzval lens in 2013 and has since expanded the series with 27mm, 35mm, 55mm, 80.5mm and 135mm models.

Unlike those more direct Petzval-derived designs, Lomography says the Métamorphose also draws on an early Gaussian optical formula developed by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1817.

The Joseph Petzval Métamorphose 35mm F1.8 Art lens is available for pre-order now for $649 and will ship beginning in December.

Lomography

Lomography Joseph Petzval Métamorphose 35mm F1.8 Art

• $649 at Lomography

LK Samyang has started to tease the arrival of a 28-135mm F2.8 autofocus zoom for Sony E-mount, more than four months ahead of a February 2027 launch.

The company has only released close-up photos of the lens, so far, but has also published full specifications.

So we know it’ll be an extending zoom that expands from 151mm to 190mm long, as you zoom in (6.0-7.5″). We also know that it’ll weigh 854g (1.9lbs).

This makes it almost 30% longer than the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 and around 60% heavier, so you definitely pay a price for the additional flexibility the Samyang should offer. It’s around 27% longer and 50% heavier than Tamron’s 35-100mm F2.8, that doesn’t offer either the wide-angle or telephoto capabilities that this will.

It will also take an 82mm filter, rather than the 67mm filter used by the two Tamrons.

As with other recent LK Samyang lenses, its autofocus will be driven by a voice coil motor, which should be quiet and fast.

And, although no mention of them is made, the preview images show control ring grips that match the company’s lenses co-developed with Schneider-Kreuznach.

Camera prices, like most other prices, are going up. Part of this has been manufacturers focusing on high-end users, because they tend to buy the higher-margin products. But even attempts at making more accessible cameras can seem wildly expensive, compared to the prices we remember paying.

And that’s not a question of manufacturers being foolish or greedy. Whether we like it or not, we are living through a period of higher inflation than we’re used to.

This is the first of a two-part series looking at why the perspective on cameras’ prices in our reviews can seem out-of-step with other people’s initial reactions, on the day of launch.

Many of us lived through a more than twenty-year period of relatively low inflation. Prices of most things rose by around 2% per year, the cost of electronics fell, partly with the outsourcing of manufacture and through increased efficiencies and economies of scale. Wages typically kept pace with inflation, so things didn’t feel more expensive. Large sensor digital cameras got cheaper at first, then settled into a pattern of improving while maintaining their existing price.

Richard Butler

Sadly, that’s no longer the world we live in. It’s impossible to enumerate all the factors that got us to here without spiraling off into discussions of politics, but there have been a host of inflationary pressures over the past few years. Whether it’s supply-chain shocks, tariffs, wars putting pressure on oil and gas prices or out-of-control demand for processors and RAM, there’s more pushing prices up than encouraging them to drop.

Manufacturer’s materials and energy costs have gone up. Their component prices have become erratic. Their wages have gone up. Their logistics costs have increased. They cannot make cameras for the prices we used to pay. And, because of the way inflation works, the $1000 you had planned for your next purchase simply isn’t worth as much as that figure have been, five or six years ago.

I suspect it’s not just me who finds myself marveling at articles or footage from the 70’s showing a pint of beer priced in pennies or a gallon of ‘gas’ in cents. To a more modern ear, that just seems unimaginable, and it’s hard to see how we got from there to where we are. For most of my adult life, the changes have been incremental enough that I didn’t notice the jump. But thinking back to when I was at college, a pint in my favorite pub was £1.36. I visited the same pub this summer, and it was £5.30. Those little changes have ramped up into big ones in the past few years, and now the prices of my own yesteryears are beginning to seem impossibly distant. 

The same thing is happening with cameras, and just about all manufactured products: the value of money is dropping faster than any reduction in the cost of electronics (and a lot of key components are being bought for AI, before it can get anywhere near consumer products). Also, there’s every chance that it’s been some time since you last bought a new camera, and that precisely remembered reference point is no longer realistic.

None of which is to say that we have to like it. I’m not trying to defend it, or suggesting you should (or even can) just decide it doesn’t matter. But getting frustrated about it or insisting that the latest camera should cost what your last one did, pre-pandemic, isn’t going to change things. None of us enjoys it, but pretending inflation doesn’t exist or that rising prices are down to manufacturer misjudgment or greed doesn’t get you anywhere useful.

Laowa has announced the Acris 35mm F2.8 1X AF Macro APO, which it says is the “world’s first full-frame autofocus 35mm lens with 1:1 macro magnification.” It’s also only the fifth autofocus lens we’ve seen from the company, though some of the lens mounts it’s being released for will get a manual focus-only version.

Laowa says the autofocus versions of the lens will be available for Sony E, Nikon Z and Canon EF mounts. L mount and Canon’s mirrorless RF mount, meanwhile, will only be getting a manual focus version.

The lens is made up of 13 elements in 10 groups, and while Laowa doesn’t call out any special glass it’s using, the company says the apochromatic design means you’ll get “zero color fringing” due to chromatic aberration. In manual focus mode, it has a minimum focusing distance of 18cm (7.1″). This means the front of the lens has to be around 49mm (1.9″) away from your subject to achieve the 1:1 lifesize reproduction that gives the lens its name.

Leslie Jie / Laowa

Like with Laowa’s 180mm F4.5 macro lens, the autofocus capabilities are quite limited in macro mode. From the minimum focusing distance to 0.5m (19.7″), you have to manually acquire focus, but the lens can make precise adjustments for focus stacking purposes. If the subject you’re shooting is more than 0.5m away, though, Laowa says it’ll work like any other AF lens, providing “fast, responsive, and accurate subject acquisition.”

Of course, this is assuming you have the version of the lens that comes with autofocus, rather than being manual focus only. Beyond the lack of motors, there are two interesting differences between the two lenses: the AF version has 9 aperture blades and is threaded for 72mm filters, while the manual focus version has 13 and uses 67mm filters. Both, however, zoom internally.

Laowa

The dimensions of the lens will vary substantially based on which mount you get it in; for instance, the Sony E-mount version is 114mm (4.5″) long, while the EF version is 87mm (3.4″) long. The lens’s weights are much closer, though, with the E-mount one coming in at 560g (19.8oz) and the EF at 530g (18.7oz). Laowa says the lens is sealed against dust and moisture.

In terms of features, the lens is relatively spartan. It has a USB-C port for firmware updates, and a function button that Laowa says “allows seamless switching between modes.”

The Acris 35mm F2.8 1X AF Macro APO will be available starting today and will cost $449 in the US, though regional pricing may vary.

Laowa Acris 35mm F2.8 1X AF Macro APO specifications

Every photographer has a first moment when they realize their time behind the camera is something they truly care about. For some, the spark comes from a chance encounter with a unique camera in a shop window or from the skills of a beloved relative who’s also into photography. For others, it stems from a childhood TV hero, or perhaps an interest to document family life.

Last week, we asked our community what set their photography journey in motion, and the replies were as varied as the photographers themselves. Read on to see what sparked the DPReview community into photo-taking action.

lumigraphics: I was in the Navy when Queen Elizabeth made an official state visit to my ship (USS Ranger in San Diego, 1983). I only had a little 110 camera and wanted better results, so I bought a Canon AE-1 Program from the ship’s store, and the rest is history. 43 years later, I’m a working pro. Might be the only person around who is a photographer because of the Queen.

Dimpsey: Early morning trips to buy bread rolls for breakfast. The bakery often wasn’t open, but the chemists across the road had cameras in their window. One was all shiny silver knobs and a gleaming top plate. It was utterly irresistible, and I wanted it. That was over 60 years ago, and I’m still taking the camera(s) out today!

SGA

SGA: As a kid, I wanted to be Jimmy Olsen, Cub Reporter. I loved watching him on the original Superman TV show, running around Metropolis with his old folding camera. But all my parents got me was a Kodak Brownie, which used 127 film.

NorCalPhotonFoundry: My grandfather was a lifelong photography enthusiast, and when I was 6 or 7 years old, he gave me a cheap little plastic point-and-shoot camera for Christmas. For me, the “spark” was the magic of being able to capture, keep and share a moment or perspective; something which still brings me joy to this day. I still have and use my childhood QL17, and am grateful to my grandpa for giving me that first plastic point-and-shoot.

Alun Thomas: My interest was kindled by my cycle touring interest. I would go on forums to read others’ trip reports and wonder why my photos were so rubbish compared to theirs. So I bought a Sony A5100, then soon started buying different lenses. I eventually switched to full-frame, and now the hobby is more prominent for me than cycling.

GWKilgore: I grew up hunting. I was in my 30s when I went out to Oregon in 1975 to hunt mule deer. Right after sunrise, I bagged a nice buck. I was worn out and told my hunting companions this was too much work. I said that I would trade my rifle for a camera.

GatoAmarillo

Gato Amarillo: I think it might have started here (see photo above). That’s me in about 1952 with my father and sister at the Tri-State Fair in Amarillo. The photographer was from one of the local newspapers, and I still vaguely remember being fascinated by the big camera. It was another 20 years or so before I started serious photography myself, but I suspect that experience was the spark.

Edgar_in_Indy: When we started having kids in the early 2000’s, my wife and I would go to one of the franchised photography studios at the mall. It would kill us to see the screen fill up with dozens of great pictures of our child, but only be able to pick a handful due to the cost of each picture.

I ended up buying an early DSLR and a couple of old studio strobes and never had to visit those mall studios again. I’m not sure we actually saved any money in the long run, given my camera collection, but we have so many great family photos from over the years.

GeoInSD: When I was a child, my family used cheapie cameras, like Kodak Brownies and Instamatics. I remember seeing my granduncle having an SLR system that I thought was pretty cool. My interest in photography started when I took a photography class in high school. I was stunned by the vastly superior image quality of a 35mm SLR compared to Kodak Brownies and Instamatics.

I was not an early adopter of digital. I held off until shutter lag was comparable to film AND the DSLR body was under $1000 US. The Nikon D70 was the first DSLR that met those criteria in my book.

There are many other stories from our community. We would love for you to join in on the discussion!

Richard Butler

This wasn’t the camera I was using when the Frame No. Full warning popped up, but it did happen on a Fujifilm camera.

On a recent outing while testing Fujifilm’s new 400mm F4.5 lens on a loaner camera, I ran into something unexpected: 15 minutes into my hike, an error message appeared on the camera, and nothing happened when I pressed the shutter button.

The message on the screen read “Frame No. Full.” Admittedly, I was left scratching my head. I had formatted the card before I left and knew there was plenty of room on it. A quick Google search while I was in the woods informed me that the camera had reached the end of its file numbering system. The only fix that I could find while I was in the woods was to reset the camera’s file-number sequence with a formatted card, effectively ending my hike shortly after I started (I was there to take photos, after all).

Why file numbering can become a problem

Mitchell Clark

While I experienced this issue on a Fujifilm camera, it isn’t something specific to Fujifilm. Digital cameras commonly assign images a three-digit folder or directory number and a four-digit file number. For most, those numbers top out at 999-9999, though the exact number of images per folder may differ depending on the particular model.

The exact label differs, but there is usually a continuous, series, or auto option that carries the sequence forward across cards, plus a reset-style option that starts over when a new card or folder is used. Continuous numbering helps reduce duplicate filenames, but it also means a borrowed, rental, used, shared or demo body can inherit a numbering history that began long before you received it. Canon, Nikon, Sony, OM System, Panasonic and Leica all document variations of that basic approach.

Mitchell Clark

It’s also important to note that the file number does not represent a simple shutter count. It may look as though reaching 999-9999 would require nearly 9 million shutter actuations, but continuous-numbering systems can advance to the highest number already present on a card. Many camera manuals across brands say that in continuous mode, the camera will use the last file number recorded or the first available number, whichever is higher.

In other words, a high frame number may reflect a camera’s or memory card’s file-management history rather than a straightforward count of images taken. That is likely why the Fujifilm loaner reached its final available identifier, 999-9999. I had formatted my own card in-camera, but that did not reset the stored sequence because the body was set to Continuous. Fujifilm’s manuals say the shutter is disabled once that number is reached.

What to check before an important shoot

Fujifilm was simply the camera in my hands when I experienced the issue. Exact limits and reset behavior vary by brand and model, but every continuous numbering system has some ceiling. It is probably rare, but it could be a costly surprise in the middle of a wedding, event, wildlife outing, or other once-only shoot.

File-number history can follow both cameras and cards, so the risk is not limited to loaner gear. It can also affect photographers who rotate cards among multiple bodies, work on shared kits or pass cards between shooters. Before an important assignment, check the camera’s current folder/file number and its file-numbering setting. It may also be smart to reset the sequence with a safely backed-up card if it looks unusually high before heading out to an important shoot (and keep a backup card on hand, too).