Zeiss CP.2 Lens Mount Change From PL To Canon EF.

Cameras

Scott Selenak from Birns & Sawyer, Hollywood shows how to quickly change a Zeiss CP.2 lens mount from PL to Canon EF. It’s as easy as removing a few torx screws with the supplied torx driver and checking the back focus with either a camera or a collimator. The entire process only takes a few minutes. We do not recommend trying this in the field unless you have a clean working environment. The camera truck may be just fine. Dig it.

Jared Abrams
Jared Abrams is a cinematographer based in Hollywood, California. After many years as a professional camera assistant he switched over to still photography. About two years ago a new Canon camera changed the way the world sees both motion and still photography. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
  • http://twitter.com/ChrisMarino_DP Christopher Marino

    Even I could do that! 

  • http://cinemajestic.livejournal.com/ Cinemajestic

    There’s no way that any person will have correct “backfocus” the first time they make a change from PL to EF or any other mount.  Also, even if it was by some miracle correct on that camera it wouldn’t be correct on any other camera.  Sorry but this example is b.s.

  • Goforjared

    I would have to disagree here. We did not fake anything in the video. The back focus was correct. You do not always have to change the shim every time you switch mounts. Where are you getting your info from? Are you a lens technician? Please clarify.
    Thanks

  • http://cinemajestic.livejournal.com/ Cinemajestic

    Where are you getting your information from, Birns & Sawyer? I didn’t post this video, you please clarify. 

    If you switch out a calibrated PL mount on CP.2 for an uncalibrated HD-DSLR mount on a camera with a mount you can’t adjust (5DmkII), like it or not you are going to need to shim that mount. It’s the reality if you want to get the full focus range of your lens.

    I’m not saying you faked anything, only that this example is totally misleading, especially to anyone who has never done this before, that’s not cool.

    I’d guess most readers of this blog don’t know a 2575 from a 504. The same people watching this video are now going to think that swapping CP.2 mounts is a piece of cake, when it’s not.  

    So why create situations where Manfrotto and O’Connor are right next to each other? As you trust both equality doesn’t it make sense that we, your faithful reader, think WOC considers them equivalent?  

    Your readers are not just a bunch of film school geeks, you should be working to a higher moral standard. If I want wrong information there’s plenty of other blogs I can read.

    CM

  • Buttbongo

    What do tripod heads have to do with this? 

  • Scott @ Birns & Sawyer

    Firstly, the video shows that in this particular case, the lens shimming was correct for that camera body right after the mount change. It is immediately mentioned that you will need to adjust the shims if the lens is not focusing at the set distance.

    The flange focal distance slightly varies between different camera types. Most manufacturers have tolerances of +/- 0.02mm (or 0.001″). If either the camera or lens is off to the extreme of this tolerance, it  can be hard to notice when focusing. Since the lens and camera each have manufacturing tolerances, they can either compound, or cancel out. If your lens is -0.02mm and your camera is -0.01mm, you will have a back focus variance of -0.03mm which can  generally be noticed when eye focusing. However, if the lens is -0.02mm and the camera is + 0.01mm, your backfocus will have a variance of -0.01mm which again,  can be hard to notice when eye focusing. So when a lens is shimmed to +/- 0.00mm, using lens testing equipment, you can be confident that the flange focal distance should only vary by the tolerance of the camera, which can be hard to notice. Although it would make sense to set your lenses exactly to your personal camera, keep in mind that when working on a multiple camera shoot they may not focus correctly on all the cameras.The flange focal distance for 35mm PL mount lenses is 52mm. The flange focal distance for the Canon 7D (the camera feature in the video) is 44mm. That difference of 8mm is compensated for in the lens mounts. So if you check a Zeiss CP-2 PL mount on a lens collimator and adjust it to zero, then change the mount to EF, the flange focal distance should remain relative to the sensor. Although the back focus wouldn’t be correct on every other camera, based on the number of Canon DSLR’s delivered in the last few years, there are most likely hundreds of cameras with identical tolerances. Secondly, I have seen nothing but high standards in WOC posts. And a particular person or person’s opinion has no bearing on the matter.

  • http://twitter.com/goforjared jared abrams

    I still disagree with your comment. I think it’s quite easy to change the lens mount even if you have to shim it to get the correct back focus. My only concern would be a clean working environment. It’s actually quite simple. Have you ever tried it?
    Thanks,
    Jared

  • http://twitter.com/goforjared jared abrams

    Thanks for jumping in here Scott. We really appreciate the time you put into this video. I think it shows just how simple it can be to change lens mounts on the Zeiss CP.2 lenses.
    Thanks,
    Jared

  • http://cinemajestic.livejournal.com/ Cinemajestic

    Thanks Scott for jumping to Jared defense.  

    >Firstly, the video shows that in this particular case, the lens shimming was correct for that camera body right after the mount change. 

    And you well know this situation is not standard or normal the first time out.  Since it is not normal you also know that your new mount will require a difference in shim (+/-).  It’s irresponsible to promote otherwise.

    >The flange focal distance slightly varies between different camera types. Most manufacturers have tolerances of +/- 0.02mm (or 0.001″).

    And there’s part one of the rub.  Canon doesn’t make cameras with a sensor at 44mm.  It’s part of the reason why Canon lens focus marks are worthless.  In fact all DSLR lenses focus marks are worthless. The sensor location varies in the Canon cameras, usually greatly.Maybe .01mm is close enough at your shop, or is close enough for longer focal lengths, but much of the professional  world is working 2.5x more precise at .005mm (.0002″ for you on the imperial system). Check a 21mm Master Prime at 1.3, you need to be +/- .005mm.  Especially when working in places like Toronto where you are regularly moving gear in and out of big temperature changes where expansion and contraction of lens and camera do not take place at the same rate.

    >So when a lens is shimmed to +/- 0.00mm, using lens testing equipment, you can be confident that the flange focal distance should only vary by the tolerance of the camera, which can be hard to notice

    Not really.  It’s actually can be extremely easy to notice, when 6′ comes up at 6’6″ the variance between Canon cameras is relatively extreme, and unacceptable for professional work.

    >That difference of 8mm is compensated for in the lens mounts.

    But the lens mount IS NOT manufactured to +/- .005mm, so dropping in the new mount doesn’t guarantee anything!  Also your replacement mount won’t be the same thickness as another.

    >there are most likely hundreds of cameras with identical tolerances. 

    On this you are probably correct.  Unfortunately millions of 7D cameras have been sold, that means you probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting two cameras with identical sensor position from the factory. 

    And on another topic, I’ve decided to take back what I said about the way Jared has listed “trusted” tripods under “Gear We Trust”.  

    I see now that it makes perfect sense to put a Manfrotto 504 next to an O’Connor 2575.  I just noticed the banner ad for Manfrotto on this website.  So they are paying you good money to call the  Manfrotto 504 “trusted”.  A Manfrotto 504 as trusted as an O’Connor 2575, now it all makes sense.

    And finally………………………………………

    >I think it shows just how simple it can be to change lens mounts on the Zeiss CP.2 lenses.Yes Jared, it is “easy” to change.  However, if you honestly believe it’s easy for anyone to do a mount swap CORRECTLY without a serious investment in bench equipment and training, you are being purposely obtuse or have misplaced your trust in someone.I’m not sure which it is, but watching this video doesn’t make me TRUST anything that I read on Wide Open Camera is correct, or for that matter unbiased or scrupulous.You’ve also got a banner for Birns and Sawyer on your website?  A lot of your videos seem to be shot there.  Do you work in their shop?  Maybe you should disclose more information in your bio under “The Crew” portion of this website.  That way readers like me can understand who is keeping the lights on at Wide Open Camera.CM

  • Scott @ Birns & Sawyer

    Bottom line… at no point in the video was it stated that you will not have to shim your CP-2 the first time, or any time you change the mount.
     So I’m sure it feels like a point is being made here, but we’re not talking about Zeiss Master Primes which are a precise, high-end lens. And we’re not talking about extreme temperature situations. This is a three minute video to show potential CP-2 owners that a mount change on those lenses is something they can do, fairly easily, without the need for expensive lens test equipment and years of experience.
     
    And just out of curiosity, to all those who claim they shim their lenses to a tolerance of 0.005mm or 0.0002″, where do you buy your shims? The thinnest shim you can get is 0.0127mm or 0.0005″. And no matter how much people love to say they can shim closer than that, they simply cannot.

    It was stated that if the camera’s flange focal distance is within the manufacturer’s tolerance, it can be hard to notice. Not that you can’t notice it. It depends on various factors. And if you think all lens marks on every DSLR lens are worthless, then what is your point here to begin with? I’m starting to feel like a broken record here.  Maybe you do have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting two cameras with identical flange focal distance. But again, and again, and again, it doesn’t matter if they are identical. I don’t think it would be clear to you that manufacturer tolerances cover those variances if Carl Zeiss himself was somehow here to explain it to you. Do you even understand how this industry works? There are big budgets and low/no budgets… So there are plenty of people who trust Manfrotto, just like there are plenty of people who trust O’Connor. The point is that there is a tool for every job. So the trusted tool varies based on the needs for that tool. I wouldn’t trust a fully loaded RED on a Manfrotto 504, just as it would be pointless to put a Canon 7D on a O’Connor 25/75. So there are a lot of people who love to make things seem more complicated than they are so they can enjoy the ego boost of holding that information over people’s heads. Repairing and servicing lenses is not an easy thing to do. But it is not rocket science. Zeiss’s goal when developing the CP-2’s was to make a fully manual cine style lens that could be used by owner/operators. Although some people would have you believe a “serious investment in bench equipment and training” is necessary, Zeiss feels that a competent person can use the torque wrench, shims, mount, instructions, and focus chart supplied when purchasing CP-2’s to do the job. Who do you trust more? Oh, and it looks like the jig is up… Cinemajestic here stumbled on a conspiracy theory here… Birns & Sawyer seems to be helping film makers and clients with gear and information to help with careers. You busted it wide open…  The unfortunate thing here is that posters like this guy make big, unfounded claims and as long as they sound legit, the readers, not knowing any better, are the ones that lose out. A word of warning to all readers… Check you facts. A little research will keep you from looking like an idiot when you post in open forums.

  • http://cinemajestic.livejournal.com/ Cinemajestic

    >This is a three minute video to show potential CP-2 owners that a mount change on those lenses is something they can do, fairly easily, without the need for expensive lens test equipment and years of experience. 

    You are distorting what I said, I’m not saying it can’t be done, it just can’t be done correctly the way you present it.  And if most people knew what was really involved they might not want to take this on this task.

    Clearly, you’re saying that any person can do this properly in 3-minutes using only a chart?

    >but we’re not talking about Zeiss Master Primes

    >And we’re not talking about extreme temperature situations. 

    So the principals of calibrating flange depth on a less expensive lens are not the same as a more expensive lens?  

    Temperature affects cheap lenses less?

    We are talking about these things, because I brought them up to explain why you can’t half-ass this procedure.

    Do you think that everyone shooting with CP.2 lenses is  a neophyte?  You think that focus marks don’t matter? CP lenses were used to shoot part of one of the movies nominated for a best cinematography Oscar last year.  Give me a break.

    >And no matter how much people love to say they can shim closer than that, they simply cannot.

    Please believe me when I say that I really don’t enjoy explaining how you are wrong. 

    Every, let’s call them “proper” rental house for the purpose of this discussion, finds that if they can’t get to .005mm by adjusting the variable portion of this equation (the camera mount, the ONLY thing that should ever be variable in a lens/camera combination) you have to remove a small amount of material.  It’s not a fun process, and I’m not going to explain how to do this to you here.  But I’d say that if you are responsible for the lenses at Birns and Sawyer, and you are asking me this question, it’s fair to say that you don’t know this, or how it’s done. That doesn’t bode well for Birns and Sawyer, I’ll just leave it at that.

    The whole idea of shimming a lens to camera is malarkey anyway; and again (I shouldn’t have to explain why this is) but that’s what we’re stuck with thanks to Zeiss and Schneider with their new entry-level lenses.

    >And if you think all lens marks on every DSLR lens are worthless

    Not a thought, fact.  Go find the nicest L-series lens you’ve got in your shop and put it on you favorite camera, put a chart 6′ away.  6′ will not be where the witness mark is on your lens, if you get really lucky and find one that can hit 6′, try to also hit 10′, it’s not going to happen.  

    Why do you think cinema lenses are expensive?  The mechanical portion is as important as the optics.  Try this with your most expensive Leica, Nikon and everything else in you DSLR lens box. Focus is not accurate and a ballpark at best, worthless for professional production.

    I guess if your entire production world is weddings and youtube videos, then maybe focus doesn’t really matter.  But any one who actually makes their living with these tools knows that it does matter, as much as anything else going on while the camera is rolling.

    Scott, I thought long about continuing to address each of the other arguments in your last post, but based on your comments I now feel like I’m now talking to an ostrich with it’s head in the sand.

    >The unfortunate thing here is that posters like this guy make big, unfounded claims and as long as they sound legit, the readers, not knowing any better, are the ones that lose out. 

    I couldn’t agree more.  Just one problem with your statement.  Only one of us is incorrect, only one of us is trying to save face, and only one of us doesn’t appreciate being told that the video was misleading. That person isn’t me.

    >A word of warning to all readers… Check you facts. A little research will keep you from looking like an idiot when you post in open forums.

    I agree completely. However, on the internet it can be very difficult to know who or what to believe.  I thought I could believe the information I read at Wide Open camera.  This video, and the subsequent defending is proof that I can’t, and neither should other readers.

    I always considered the target demographic of the Wide Open Camera blog closer to entry level than professional, but every now and again there were kernels of good information. Clearly I was mistaken about the intentions of this website, as it’s become clearly commercial, and promotes the people and products on it, rather then offering any meaningful insights or education.   

    I’m really glad Jared posted the “trusted” gear section.  Because it underlines my point so effectively.  Comparing a 2575 to a 504 is only one example.  But what it comes down to is you are either a pro or not.  Trying to tell us you are, and then recommending something clearly not up for the challenge of pro level work is an insult to our intelligence.  Just as it’s totally bonkers to tell the wedding shooter they need a 2575.  You can’t have it both ways.  

    Jared, I suggest the trusted gear section include categories.  Because it’s asinine to lump it all together.I also suggest you offer a disclaimer that the lens mount swap  video is courtesy of Birns and Sawyer only, so as to limit your culpability for the content.  This is just another example of why Birns and Sawyer warrants their long declining reputation.

  • Scott @ Birns & Sawyer

    The fact that the video is three minutes long has nothing to do with how long the mount change takes and is not promoted as it does. It is a fairly quick procedure, but the video is edited to a lengeth that the average online video viewer will watch and take away a basic concept. It’s clearly not a real-time, step-by-step video. Zeiss offers a great version of that already.

    Yeah, the procedure commonly used to take down some of the mount material is called lapping. But to do the procedure properly, you need a good machine shop and technicians experienced in the method. It’s not done as commonly as some might have you believe. Since the smallest shim available is 0.0127mm, what do you do if the lens is +0.005mm? You can lap the mount down, but then what? If a temperature, or other variation then makes that lens -0.005, you can’t shim it back to where it was. You would need to lap is further until adding the smallest shim would perfectly calibrate the lens. Eventually you’ll reach a point where the mount cannot be taken down any more. I’m not saying lapping isn’t done. I’m just saying it’s not just an easy step which always follows a backfocus discrepancy of 0.005mm. I’m sure “proper” rental houses have all kinds of varying procedures, but I stick to the information supplied by the actual lens manufacturers and lens repair facilities. And the word from them, is that it is just not usually neccessary to lap a lens for being half a hundreth of a millimeter off.I guess our discrepancy is that you are considering the CP-2’s to be on the higher end, professional side of the lens line rather than the DSLR side. The CP-2’s are great, but are not an expensive lens. They are closer to the Zeiss ZE than the Zeiss Master Prime. It’s basically the same glass, housed in a cine-like, fully manual body. You can’t pop the PL mount on and compare them in quality, function, and sensitivity with a lens that costs more than five times as much.I don’t mean to give the impression that I’m defending myself. It doesn’t matter if people agree or disagree with me…  I’m just trying to make sure that if someone reads these posts, the presence of debate inspires them to do their own research on the matter rather than take either one of our word to the bank.Now since the rest of your post sounds like a jaded, bitch-fest, I’m going to end my commenting here. But I must say, this has been fun!

  • Scott @ Birns & Sawyer

    The fact that the video is three minutes long has nothing to do with how long the mount change takes and is not promoted as it does. It is a fairly quick procedure, but the video is edited to a lengeth that the average online video viewer will watch and take away a basic concept. It’s clearly not a real-time, step-by-step video. Zeiss offers a great version of that already.

    Yeah, the procedure commonly used to take down some of the mount material is called lapping. But to do the procedure properly, you need a good machine shop and technicians experienced in the method. It’s not done as commonly as some might have you believe. Since the smallest shim available is 0.0127mm, what do you do if the lens is +0.005mm? You can lap the mount down, but then what? If a temperature, or other variation then makes that lens -0.005, you can’t shim it back to where it was. You would need to lap is further until adding the smallest shim would perfectly calibrate the lens. Eventually you’ll reach a point where the mount cannot be taken down any more. I’m not saying lapping isn’t done. I’m just saying it’s not just an easy step which always follows a backfocus discrepancy of 0.005mm. I’m sure “proper” rental houses have all kinds of varying procedures, but I stick to the information supplied by the actual lens manufacturers and lens repair facilities. And the word from them, is that it is just not usually neccessary to lap a lens for being half a hundreth of a millimeter off.I guess our discrepancy is that you are considering the CP-2’s to be on the higher end, professional side of the lens line rather than the DSLR side. The CP-2’s are great, but are not an expensive lens. They are closer to the Zeiss ZE than the Zeiss Master Prime. It’s basically the same glass, housed in a cine-like, fully manual body. You can’t pop the PL mount on and compare them in quality, function, and sensitivity with a lens that costs more than five times as much.I don’t mean to give the impression that I’m defending myself. It doesn’t matter if people agree or disagree with me…  I’m just trying to make sure that if someone reads these posts, the presence of debate inspires them to do their own research on the matter rather than take either one of our word to the bank.Now since the rest of your post sounds like a jaded, bitch-fest, I’m going to end my commenting here. But I must say, this has been fun!

  • S.27

    I usually don’t respond to posts that are as unintelligent, presumptuous and egotistical as this; but, dude, you take the cake. 

    It seems you think you are a “pro.” But any “pro” I’ve ever met wouldn’t have this much time on their hands to attempt to subjugate the readers of this forum to such pointless babble. 

    What we do is not about “pro” or “consumer.” It’s about storytelling and filmmaking. If Jarred loves using a 504 head, great. It’s a tool. I’ve seen wheelchairs used as a dolly, I’ve seen C-Stand arms used as mini jibs, I’ve seen $20 dollar generic  Home Depot lights used to illuminate scenes. I’ve also seen wedding videos that have been more enjoyable than big budget studio pictures. It’s subjective this thing of ours. Those who excel in the art of storytelling are those who are willing to use any tool they may have at their disposal in order to capture the story. Nothing gets in their way. You obviously do not understand any aspect of that notion. 

    Scott was not being misleading in any way. I’ve changed the mount on CP.2’s myself and used those lenses on big budget commercial shoots without an inkling of unacceptability for professional precision. 

    I’ve had in person conversations with Zeiss reps and they say the changing of mounts on the CP.2’s is something that an end user can accomplish with success. But I guess you know better than the actual manufacturer. 

    Bottom line, nobody is forcing anybody else to take the opinions posted on this site as gospel. They are informative opinions. If you play these message boards right you can extract a myriad of opinions from the web and use them to form your own opinion. I’ve read some things here I agreed with and I’ve read some things here that didn’t vibe with me. I was able to come to my own conclusion. 

    Maybe Manfrotto is paying WOC to advertise on the site. Maybe Birns has the same deal with WOC. I don’t know for sure. But I am sure nobody is paying you anything for any of your opinions. Welcome to the world. We have a little thing called advertising that was invented some years back. It seems to be working out quite well for some people. Obviously not you. 

    So while you’re putting WOC on blast, blogging about how crappy FCPX is, talking up your new O’connor CFF-1 you spent $3K on it and think its the best cause you bought it, posting about how Trublood jumped the shark, whatever crap you’re dumping out there into the ether, while you’re doing that we’ll be over here telling our stories in any way we can with whatever gear we can get our hands on. 

    Have fun explaining the difference between a 2575 head and a Manfrotto 504 and insisting on how much better a Master Prime is from L Series glass. I’m sure so many people are dying to hear you talk about it. Tool. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H2VYGJZI7XSITCWUGMDFBCLIUU Tom Mayer

    Wow!?!!! That post is really mean spirited. Cinemagic has a problem with the video, fine. Cinemagic doesn’t like commercialism. I don’t like advertisements either. Understandable.  Mr. S.27, why are you taking it so personally? I don’t know about lens mounts and I don’t care, never had a need to do anything with them. I do like reading passionate discussions. But  you past passion and turned it up to troll bating.Jared should call you on it.  If he doesn’t he might as well change his name here to Jim Jannard Jr.  Because your comments belong on Reduser!!!

  • http://cinemajestic.livejournal.com/ cinemajestic

    In response to “S.27″

    >It seems you think you are a “pro.” But any “pro” I’ve ever met wouldn’t have this much time on their hands to attempt to subjugate the readers of this forum to such pointless babble

    That’s pretty funny.  I couldn’t reply the last couple days because I was working on a Cola commercial.  If you actually knew anything about being a freelance professional you would know it’s not bankers hours.  

    Oh, and It’s only “pointless” if you are an ignorant slag, incapable of understanding what’s being said.

    For the record I loved it when you said,

    >What we do is not about “pro” or “consumer.” It’s about storytelling and filmmaking

    So you’re a story teller?  Okay Christopher Nolan, please point me towards some of your “stories” I’d really like to see what is undoubtedly your “high art”.  

    > I’ve seen C-Stand arms used as mini jibs, I’ve seen $20 dollar generic  Home Depot lights used to illuminate scenes. 

    Um, yep that’s the everyday world of no-budget filmmaking, and the exception for people who know what they are doing.  Guaranteed that when John Toll needs to light a scene he’s not running out to Home Depot for a work lamp.

    > I’ve also seen wedding videos that have been more enjoyable than big budget studio pictures. Please direct me to any wedding video more entertaining Citizen Kane.  It’s one I’d like to see.
    >It’s subjective this thing of ours. Those who excel in the art of storytelling are those who are willing to use any tool they may have at their disposal in order to capture the story. Nothing gets in their way. You obviously do not understand any aspect of that notion. 

    This is the most ignorant comments about “storytelling” I have read in a long time.  The only thing getting in your way is common sense and genuine experience.  Please shoot some more of these highly entertaining wedding videos and post them on youtube.  It’s the only thing you’ve mentioned that you genuinely like.

    >Maybe Manfrotto is paying WOC to advertise on the site. Maybe Birns has the same deal with WOC. I don’t know for sure. But I am sure nobody is paying you anything for any of your opinions. Welcome to the world. We have a little thing called advertising that was invented some years back. It seems to be working out quite well for some people. Obviously not you. 

    HA HA!  Of course WOC is being paid, but not for what is being “said”, only for the promotion of products. WOC can’t wait to become the next big sell out.  Because of this they are looking to make profit, and do not have the readers best interest in mind.  

    If they did they wouldn’t accept advertising.  I’m now forced not to believe anything on this website about any product, or for that matter any other competing products.  It makes all the comparisons between cheap consumer products (like those from JAC35 and DFOXUS among others) listed as TRUSTED, next to products from Arri and Panavision all the more laughable.

    >I’m sure so many people are dying to hear you talk about it. Tool.
     
    Maybe, maybe not.  But at least I’m not a sell out, and my opinion isn’t compromised by Zeiss, or anyone else.

    This does also bring up a larger point about commercialism.  But for a tool like you who clearly thinks that selling ad space equals having an opinion that matters, I think that the finer points of the larger conversation are wasted on you.

  • http://cinemajestic.livejournal.com/ cinemajestic

    Tom, I capable of defending myself.  Against the likes of these guys.

  • http://cinemajestic.livejournal.com/ cinemajestic

    Can’t believe I forgot to hit post last week.
    >Yeah, the procedure commonly used to take down some of the mount material is called lapping. But to do the procedure properly, you need a good machine shop and technicians experienced in the method. It’s not done as commonly as some might have you believe. Again.  This is just wrong.  i actually lapped something this morning, on my kitchen counter, no machine shop.  The rest of you post is filled with incorrect statements and assumptions as well.It’s amazing how there “was no way” in your previous post, and then after I called you on it, now there’s lapping.Your posts have confirmed that there never a good reason to do business with Birns and Sawyer.  Thank you.

  • Scott @ Birns & Sawyer

    Last word… 😉