7Artisans lenses - no such thing as a free lunch

[sojournerphoto]

A few friends of mine have these lenses. I've inspected them and even played with a few.

My summary - caveat emptor.

Inexpensive, yes. Anything else, well. You pays your $$ and you takes your chances. One of the six or so I looked at produced okay (to my taste, 6/10) results. The others - I will only say, their owners were my good friends so I had to be polite.

As I see it, if you have To dismantle the damn things to get the infinity focus right - shouldn't that be done at the factory before the lenses are released to be sold??

Voigtlander lenses cost more, but oh gosh, the quality...

There are really two possible adjustments - infinity focus and rangefinder calibration. I’ve played with a few Chinese M mount lenses and only one has needed infinity adjustment - a 7A 1.4/35 Wen that still doesn’t quite reach infinity even after removing the shims under the mount, although it’s surprisingly good at portrait range or stopped down.

All others have had rangefinder calibration checked and adjusted as required. I’ve viewed them as a cheap way to get a fast lens for low light - expecting to use a smaller lens most of the time. On that basis, once adjusted, they’ve largely been better than I expected.

The TTA 1.4/50 asph is actually a very likeable lens, and doesn’t focus shift like the C-Sonnar. I’ve sort of stopped worrying about the 1.1/50s - too big and soft, and I just don’t really have a use.

The other lens I have a use for is the TTA 5.6/28, which sits on an MDa to go in a bumbag (Fanny pack) when I’m out for a run.

Otoh, a set of Noktons would do it all very nicely. The current 1.5/28 is lovely - right size, weight and very good optically.

 

[former member]

7Art 75/1.25 is one of my favorite lenses, I have it matched to my M9. I use a 1.25x finder.

Wide-Open, ISO2500.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

What comes out strongest in these posts, and the images, are - quality control issues with 7Artisan lenses.

Personally, I could not put up with an excess of color fringing, and I see a lot of it in the posted photos.

If one can live with this, well and good. Me, I would cough up the extra cash, and go with maybe Voigtlander. Of course not as cheap as, which may be important to some or even many here.

Bottom line is, to each their own. You pays your money and you gets what you get.

 

[former member]

ISO2500, F1.25, 1/60th second for a moving subject under Disco Lights at a skating rink. A $10,000 75/1.25 would have done so much better.

The 75/1.25 on the M9, first got the lens and did a calibration test.


Something at base ISO that is not moving much.
Wide-Open on the M9, ISO 160.

I have a lot of Voigtlander Cosina lenses.

Including the 50/1 Nokton, wide-open on my M9.


I remember when the 50/2 APO Lanthar was introduced, I bought one early on. Some people also complained about color fringing in the out of focus areas.
I can put up examples, really not worth it. I use it on the M Monochrom with an O56 or R60.

 

[TenEleven]

Damn, can you even accurately focus a lens this long and fast?
A quick check of a DOF calculator shows me that this lens has about half the depth of field of a 50/0.95... that must stretch the ability what the .72 mag rangefinder can do...

 

[sojournerphoto]

What comes out strongest in these posts, and the images, are - quality control issues with 7Artisan lenses.

Personally, I would not accept an excess of color fringing, and I see a lot of it in the posted photos.

If one can live with this, well and good. Me, I would cough up the extra cash, and go with Voigtlander. The Sigma Art series also gets good reviews. Of course neither range are cheap, which may be important to some or even many here.

Bottom line is, to each their own. You pays your money and you gets what you get.

In no particular order…

Sigma Art lenses aren’t an option for M bodies. They are superb lenses on L mount, as are the smaller and lighter Contemporary I-series.

The most recent Voigtlander M mount lenses are excellent. They often still have some purple fringing, but so do Leica and Zeiss ZM.

The Chinese lenses probably show significant improvement over time - there are a lot of very fast 50s with residual spherical aberrations and purple fringing. These are often not dissimilar to equivalents from other manufacturers, but aren’t representative of the more normal and newer lenses. The TTA apo-m 35mm doesn’t suffer at all and the ZM Sonnar 2/85 fringes like mad at f2…

So I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to dismiss them all out of hand. Just understand what each can do. Boojum has posted several pictures taken with the Voigtlander LTM Ultron 1.7/35, a lens that is known to not be sharp and to have low contrast, weak saturation and generally poor performance. His pictures are lovely.

As for QC at 7A, possibly given my experience with infinity focus. However, surely everyone now understands that the lenses need calibrating on receipt - that’s a cost cutting measure but it does allow calibration to a particular body and with a filter (if you’re Sonnar Brian).

 

[sojournerphoto]

I think this is with the 7A 1.25/75 on film - it looks nice in a print.

 

[former member]

Damn, can you even accurately focus a lens this long and fast?
A quick check of a DOF calculator shows me that this lens has about half the depth of field of a 50/0.95... that must stretch the ability what the .72 mag rangefinder can do...

I use a 1.25x magnifier eyepiece on my Leica bodies for fast 50s and telephoto lenses. It's not hard to hit an accurate focus on a still subject, moving subjects- takes some practice.

 

[phojsu]

Somewhere at the back of my Leica shelf is a small case with a 1.4x magnifier which crops the basic viewfinder to at best the 90mm frame marks. It is a specialized tool which I seldom use. The 1.25X magnifier lives on my dedicated 50mm & longer M9-P body, the exception is when I'm shooting with a 21mm and using the 21mm accessory viewfinder in the hot shoe. In that scenario, the 21mm is used with the magnified VF body and the 35 Summicron is on the other body with no additional magnification.

My pair of M6 Classic bodies is a 0.72x VF and a 0.85x VF, functionally the same as the M9-P bodies, one without a magnifier, the other with the 0.25x magnifier.

I so hoped Leica would offer a retrofit 0.85x VF for the M9 & M9-P, alas, it never happened.

 

[sojournerphoto]

The MP that followed me home the other week is a 0.85 viewfinder. Apart from feeling sorry for it, that encouraged me to give it house room. 50mm and up…

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Sigma Art lenses aren’t an option for M bodies. They are superb lenses on L mount, as are the smaller and lighter Contemporary I-series.

Thanks. I stand corrected. As does my post. As it happens, I am now pondering the purchase of a Leica CL as my (maybe) last ever camera, so this advice from you has been of special importance. Many thanks!!

Your posted images are excellent BTW. Curiosity prompts this question: do you do a lot of post-processing??

 

[sojournerphoto]

Thanks. I stand corrected. As does my post. As it happens, I am now pondering the purchase of a Leica CL as my (maybe) last ever camera, so this advice from you has been of special importance. Many thanks!!

Your posted images are excellent BTW. Curiosity prompts this question: do you do a lot of post-processing??

Thanks, and I’m pleased the post was useful. I’d quite forgotten the CL, but think it would be good with I-series lenses - I think there is at least on APS-C lens too, 30mm? Probably the Arts would be a bit big for me. Of course there are the Leica lenses too.

As for my processing, I don’t do a lot. I shoot digital in raw and scan film with a Panasonic S1r and Sigma 105 Art macro lens, also in raw. I use basic global adjustments to get contrast in place and sometimes a bit of burn or dodge. Nothing fancy.

 

[Freakscene]

I so hoped Leica would offer a retrofit 0.85x VF for the M9 & M9-P, alas, it never happened.

The 0.85 and 0.58 viewfinders have internal optical geometry that doesn’t really work with the thicker body of the M9 and type 240 series cameras. If they did adapt them to make them work they would be roughly 0.8 and 0.55x magnification because of the increased internal length between the image window and the eyepiece. I get the feeling Leica didn’t want the complexity of making 3 viewfinders, and by the time the M10 series cameras arrived and were the same thickness as the film Ms, live view arguably works better than a wider viewfinder anyway.

Marty

 

[phojsu]

Live view has it's place as do pure rangefinders (think Leicas) and SLR / DSLR viewfinders. The essential difference for me is Live View whenever enabled is drawing power & draining batteries whether an image is being made or not. Not necessarily an issue for passive VF's unless also using a TTL meter.

The 1.25x magnifier lives on one of my M9-P's, thus a magnified VF always for my 50's & 90's, even the rare occasion I use the 135mm f/4.0 Tele-Elmar. I do miss the clean simplicity of my pair of M6 Classics, one with the 0.74x VF, the other with the 0.85x VF. I deal with far more vexing issues, this is not even on my radar.

Tangentally, I have the Nikon DK-17m VF magnifier on not only my Df bodies, but also, via adapters, my 5D3 bodies, too. At 1.2x magnification, they enhance my ability to manually focus these DSLR's. To be clear, I don't wear glasses and achieve a sharply focussed VF via the diopter adjustment.

 

[former member]

With the M240- The Latency induced by using Liveview makes it too difficult for me to get shots like those I posted from the skating rink. I turned it off and used the VF/RF.
It has been stated on this forum that the Latency on the M11 due to metering off the sensor is about the same as the M240 using Liveview,. Okay for still shots.

With the Mitakon 90mm F1.5 wide-open on the M240, using the VF/RF.


The Latency on the Nikon Z5 is much less than the M240 using Liveview. I have no trouble getting shots of moving subjects.
Same lens on the Z5, wide-open.

 

[phojsu]

With the M240- The Latency induced by using Liveview makes it too difficult for me to get shots like those I posted from the skating rink. I turned it off and used the VF/RF.
It has been stated on this forum that the Latency on the M11 due to metering off the sensor is about the same as the M240 using Liveview,. Okay for still shots.

With the Mitakon 90mm F1.5 wide-open on the M240, using the VF/RF.
View attachment 4841052

The Latency on the Nikon Z5 is much less than the M240 using Liveview. I have no trouble getting shots of moving subjects.
Same lens on the Z5, wide-open.
View attachment 4841053

Any comparisons might you share between the Leica sensor / images and the Nikon sensor / images?

 

[former member]

Any comparisons might you share between the Leica sensor / images and the Nikon sensor / images?

That will be an interesting Thread- I need to compare Wide-Angle and "Super-Speed" lenses. The first lens I used on the Z5 was the Canon 50/0.95, using a Canon Breech Mount to Z adapter. The far corners vignette, but was very usable.
I can shoot the 50/1 Nokton on the M9, M240, and Z5- will be the choice.

 

[phojsu]

I very recently acquired the 7 Artisans 75mm f/1.25. I had decided to revisit the Voigt 35mm f/1.2 and in the same moment chose to see if this super speed 75 was something that might expand the low light potential of my M9-P.

Comparing the images from my point of reference of the M9-P and now the Canon R (which was my choice to replace the Sony A7-2) for the same lens will be interesting and perhaps time consuming.

I only shoot Raw and auto white balance (AWB) so issues such as light falloff in the corners and color shift may fall within the variables of adjustment in post.

I have long ago realized that deep element lenses, specifically the 21mm Super Angulon f/3.4, just don't play nice with digital sensors.

The only constant is change.