Best of the Rest? Cheapie Chinese X-Mount Lenses--Anyone have one?

[Benjamin Marks]

I was browsing lenses for the Fuji X mount cameras and was struck by the number of really cheap manual focus lenses that have cropped up in this segment. At the prices quoted, I am surprised that the cost even covers shipping, if you know what I mean. In general, you get what you pay for, of course, And I always understood the Fuji-X cameras to rely pretty heavily on software corrections for many common lens aberrations. Such corrections would be missing when using a non-electronic lens, no?

But has any RFF'er actually used one of these new lenses? Any hidden gems among them? Responses with pix a plus, of course, for this sort of discussion.

 

[olakiril]

No lens is perfect. Quite often, it is the imperfections that offer an appealing character to the lens.

Most of these cheap lenses are missing the advanced coatings of the more expensive lenses and this results in reduced flare resistance. Corner performance in wider lenses might also suffer and distortion might be off as well. I don't find any of these issues really problematic given their cost. In many cases adapting M-mount lenses gives you worse performance than any of these cheap alternatives.

Here is a good summary of lenses and it includes reviews for some of them.

 

[Dogman]

I own several of these low priced lenses. They're not bad, at least the ones I've used. Much better than the low priced third party lenses I tried in the 1970s. Not exactly state-of-the-art but serviceable. Sample variation is to be expected. I recall reading Kirk Tuck's blog a few days ago in which he reported buying a second copy of a lens for a different camera system because the first one he had was so good. Turned out the second lens was a mess.

Uncorrected aberrations are thought to give a lens "character". A lot of these characteristics can be duplicated in post processing these days.

Playing with ƒ/1.2 and ƒ/0.95 lenses can be fun and there are several from Chinese makers that I've enjoyed. With Fuji's electronic shutter it's possible to shoot them wide open in bright light. But remember it's kinda hard to get perfect focus with such lenses, especially if you're used to AF.

TTArtisans 50/1.2 lens, shot at or near maximum aperture:

 

[mrtoml]

This guy has tested a lot of the cheaper lenses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeOBfMRVoEQ

 

[Dogman]

This is from the TTArtisans 35/1.4 at maximum:

 

[Dogman]

I've posted this before. It's done with a Meike 28/2.8 lens. It's pretty sharp in the center.

 

[Dogman]

This demonstrates how difficult I find it to manually focus an ƒ/0.95 lens. In this instance, it's the 7Artisans 35/0.95:

 

[Dogman]

This last one was done with a TTArtisans 23/1.4 lens. I hope this compressed JPEG shows the sharpness because it is a very sharp lens for the low price paid.

 

[zuiko85]

I use them on 4:3 format. So, the corners are sort of pre cropped out on the smaller sensor. I can say that the 7Artisans 25mm f1.8 has absolutely useless distance and DoF scales. Mine shows 5 feet when focused at 18 inches. It is as if the printed scale is from an completely different focal length lens because not just infinity is off but the whole scale is massively off.
My other two lenses are a 10mm f8 Pergear simi-fisheye and a TTArtisan 50mm f1.2 because,…well I’ve never had a f1.2 and for $98 how could you not buy it. A bit of a glow wide open, by f4 not too bad.
Manual focus? Thank goodness for magnified view is all I’ll say about that.
It seems many of these lenses don’t have detents for the aperture ring. My 50 has light detents, the 25 has none. As an old timer I prefer detents.
The Pergear 10mm f8 is, like Ron Popeil was fond of saying, a ‘just set it and forget it’ type of lens. Great for wide angle snap shots without needing to worry about focusing.

 

[f.hayek]

Life’s too short to drink bad wine…

 

[zuiko85]

Life’s too short to drink bad wine…

Disclaimer; I am not an artist, but still not a ‘gearhead’ either. Lend me (for my income demographic precludes buying) the most wonderful, high quality, heavy, expensive, prestigious lens ever…and my multitalented self will manage to take a dull, formulaic, cliche of a photo. But of course it will have high resolution, contrast and creamy bokeh.
I look at it this way. Some folks go on and on about resolution, contrast, bokeh, etc. as if certain lenses have magic imbued within.
But if you can’t take a good photograph with one of these ‘two buck chuck’ lenses, then a ‘fine wine’ lens just ain’t going to help.

 

[f.hayek]

A Nikkor AIS or Zuiko OM on an adapter won’t break the bank and should prove a more dependable build.

 

[Dogman]

I've used Nikkors with adapters on my Fujis. They are fine but they are also big and the adapter makes them even bigger. Kinda unwieldy on X-Pro bodies. These Chinese lenses are small and fit without adapters. Certainly good quality for the money as well. I will admit the Voigtlanders I use are better built and uniformly better quality and they're still small even with adapters. But you really owe it to yourself to give these cheap lenses a try.

 

[zuiko85]

A Nikkor AIS or Zuiko OM on an adapter won’t break the bank and should prove a more dependable build.

It so happens my system 35mm for the last 45 years is OM and I also have a modest collection of Pen F half frame Zuiko’s from the 60’s. I’ve used all these lenses on my 4:3 camera. The problem with the inexpensive Chinese made adapters is that all that I’ve ever tried need to be shimmed out to infinity with adapted legacy lenses. Makes for an interesting afternoon, cutting paper shims and trying to get a combo that settles right on infinity (or a very tiny bit short).
my experience is that most of the cheap adapters are anywhere between 3-6 thousands too thin. I guess that’s better than too thick.
With manual focus you don’t absolutely need to have these lenses land right on the numbers but I sometimes like to prefocus by scale.

 

[f.hayek]

It so happens my system 35mm for the last 45 years is OM and I also have a modest collection of Pen F half frame Zuiko;s from the 60';s. I've used all these lenses on my 4:3 camera. The problem with the inexpensive Chinese made adapters is that all that've ever tried need to be shimmed out to infinity with adapted legacy lenses. Makes for an interesting afternoon, cutting paper shims and trying to get a combo that settles right on infinity (or a very tiny bit short).

Head Bartender sells well-machined Japanese Rayqual adapters for OM >> X for the heady price of $149 ($129 for an OM >> µ4/3), so there's no excuse wasting an afternoon making paper shims.

You have better things to do with your time, I would venture.

Bad wine....

 

[Dogman]

Here's a link to Alik Griffin's Fuji lens list: https://alikgriffin.com/a-complete-list-of-fujifilm-x-mount-lenses/

Griffin lists a number of Chinese lenses, several of which he has reviewed. Here's a general article of his: https://alikgriffin.com/shooting-cheap-chinese-lens/

I've not had construction problems he reported but he's used a lot more lenses than I have.

Also a Google search for "cheap chinese camera lenses" turns up a lot of results. Some are opinions, some tests, some kinda interesting, some not.

It appears to me that most of these lenses copy older designs by Leitz and Zeiss. My bottom line is that these lenses do not threaten to unseat my preferences for Nikon, Fuji, Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses on my cameras but they are definitely worth the time and money investment.

 

[zuiko85]

Here's a link to Alik Griffin's Fuji lens list: https://alikgriffin.com/a-complete-list-of-fujifilm-x-mount-lenses/

Griffin lists a number of Chinese lenses, several of which he has reviewed. Here's a general article of his: https://alikgriffin.com/shooting-cheap-chinese-lens/

I've not had construction problems he reported but he's used a lot more lenses than I have.

Also a Google search for "cheap chinese camera lenses" turns up a lot of results. Some are opinions, some tests, some kinda interesting, some not.

It appears to me that most of these lenses copy older designs by Leitz and Zeiss. My bottom line is that these lenses do not threaten to unseat my preferences for Nikon, Fuji, Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses on my cameras but they are definitely worth the time and money investment.

You got it! It is a value equation. ( And the definition of value varies with each person.) Sure, top flight glass *should* be higher quality, (although that is not always a given). And, I’m not grinding any lens into dust with constant hard pro use. I’m retired, it’s a hobby, and even in my twenties was a ‘bottom feeder’.

 

[Archlich]

Here's a link to Alik Griffin's Fuji lens list: https://alikgriffin.com/a-complete-l...-mount-lenses/

It appears to me that most of these lenses copy older designs by Leitz and Zeiss. My bottom line is that these lenses do not threaten to unseat my preferences for Nikon, Fuji, Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses on my cameras but they are definitely worth the time and money investment.

Generations of Chinese lense AFAIK:

The one from before the 1980s are usually copies or closely derived designs of Russian lenses (and the cameras they sold with, like the Shanghai 58, were mostly FED and Zorki copies), which again were largely descendants of Zeiss designs. Rule of thumb is if it's 58/2 it's a Biotar. Same applies to numerous 50/2.8 lenses - Tessars and Triplets. The Chinese touted the Red Flag 20 to be an achievement - that they managed not only copying a M4, but also the Summilux and Summicrons, albeit at an exorbitant cost that rendered the entire project impratical. At the time, anything more than 6 elements seemed to be a challenge for the technicians of Shanghai Camera Factory (later Seagull) to reverse engineer by hand. Oh well.

Came the 1980s saw Japanese makers (and a couple of German ones, like Balda) outsourcing cheap models like the X-300 (aka Seagull DF-300) to China, sometimes as licensed copies. Resulted in a sea of Minolta, Pentax and Ricoh lenses under Chinese labels. Rule of thumb is if it's 50/1.7 it's usually of Japanese origin.

With the advent of mirrorless cameras in the late 2000s, Chinese lens makers that used to make CCTV lenses for western clients began to adapt their designs onto M43 cameras en masse for a quick money. An ocean of 35/1.6, 25/1.8, 28/2.8, of varying but usually so-so quality.

Post-2015: a new generation of Chinese lens designers joined the scene, coinciding with Chinese lens manufacturing growing sophisticated enough to make very complicated, original designs instead of just repackaging generic lenses off the shelf of Shenzen's extensive supply chain. I'd say except the original Yongnuo Canon EF mount lenses, few from this period were blatant copies optically (the exteriors though, is another story). Laowa, the Artisans and Viltrox began churning out dedicated designs for various mounts. I gather that they're still lagging behind on like the coatings and cutting-edge AF motors, but niche makers like Laowa really is hitting some balls out of the park. The capability is there and ever-growing.

So, hard to sum the Chinese lens scene up with one sentence as it had morphed extensively. Think: when's the last time you've heard of a new Japanese lens maker?

Again, I hope they can hire some proper product designer instead of just copying the Leica look (and font, for God's sake).

 

[drew.saunders]

I have two, a Kamlan 50/1.1 MK2 that was $179 through Kickstarter that I picked up in 2019, and a Laowa 65/2.8 2:1 macro that I picked up in late 2021 for $399.
The Kamlan is pretty good for a $180 f/1.1 lens! I'm not saying it's good, it's just good for its price. It's fun wide open, but since I have the Fuji 50/2, there's no reason for me to stop it down at all. Here's a shot wide open:
Fuji-X-E3-DSCF6113-20200126 by Drew Saunders, on Flickr

And here's one with the Fuji 11mm extension, which makes it downright "dreamy"!:
Fuji-X-E3-DSCF6390-20200328 by Drew Saunders, on Flickr

The Laowa super macro is a much better lens, as one would expect. This is pretty close to 2x, and I was also playing with a new Godox macro LED light (which I really like, but it consumes batteries!)
Fuji-X-E3-DSCF7902-20220113 by Drew Saunders, on Flickr

This is also pretty close to 2x:
Fuji-X-E3-DSCF7832-20220107 by Drew Saunders, on Flickr

 

[Benjamin Marks]

[Snip] These Chinese lenses are small and fit without adapters. Certainly good quality for the money as well. I will admit the Voigtlanders I use are better built and uniformly better quality and they're still small even with adapters. But you really owe it to yourself to give these cheap lenses a try.

Ah! An enabler after my own heart. Any particular brand a favorite?