M240 with 7Artisans 50mm 1.1

[Huss]

Here are three new images:

I may be improving in using the M240.

You nailed the focus on this one and it made for a very very nice portrait.
Sharp on the eyes with a wonderful softness blurring out of the rest.

This lens is definitely a steal at the original price.

 

[ferider]

Remind me of "Italian Flag" meaning, please. Thanks, Roland.

edited: "Extreme corners: it shows Italian flag and smears / never gets really sharp in the extreme corners"

Now I know what you meant by it. Smearing in the corners. Maybe it is a good portrait lens at 2.8 or so, and then open up the aperture when needed.

It's not only the smearing, Raid. The color is off: there is a purple vertical stripe on the right.

Roland.

 

[raid]

Colors can be adjusted, but the other effects are not good to see in images from a new lens. Maybe, it will be OK for portraits?

 

[raid]

I took today some portraits/snapshots with the M240 and the 50/1.1 7artisans lens.

 

[raid]

I set the ISO to 500 on the M240, which resulted in faster shutter speeds being chosen for apertures 1.1-2.0.

I am getting better results for focusing.
This lens is an excellent lens, in my opinion. I am glad that I bought it.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I must say, after reading this thread any aspiration I had to attain this lens was shattered. The OOF areas are, to be kind, funky (I thought the 50mm CV f/1.1 was bad) and it's quite soft until stopped down to about f/4. Overall the CV is a much superior lens, IMHO (well worth the money by comparison).

Filed under "you get what you pay for".

 

[Huss]

I must say, after reading this thread any aspiration I had to attain this lens was shattered. The OOF areas are, to be kind, funky (I thought the 50mm CV f/1.1 was bad) and it's quite soft until stopped down to about f/4. Overall the CV is a much superior lens, IMHO (well worth the money by comparison).

Filed under "you get what you pay for".

You may want to check the images on this stream. A bunch are from the 1.1

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32909711@N00/

 

[Bill Blackwell]

You may want to check the images on this stream. A bunch are from the 1.1

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32909711@N00/

Yes, these are much better for sure, but I still don't like the OOF areas in some of the shots. What did you do in post-processing? (Raid's shots look less processed).

The other downer on this lens though is the lack of click stops on the aperture ring.

 

[raid]

I prefer my CV 50/1.1 over the 7Artisans 50/1.1, but this was never the issue here to compare the twice as expensive CV lens to the 7Artisans cheap lens. It is a lens with flaws, but it may be a lens to have to special applications.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I prefer my CV 50/1.1 over the 7Artisans 50/1.1, but this was never the issue here to compare the twice as expensive CV lens to the 7Artisans cheap lens. It is a lens with flaws, but it may be a lens to have to special applications.

What does the 7Artisans do that the CV doesn't? Or maybe a better question is - What does it do better?

 

[raid]

It is not about getting a better lens, Bill. It hardly ever is. It usually is about trying our "another lens". Why else would anyone own many lenses of the same focal length?! It is curiosity on some lenses and the wish to experience many lenses. I am not the only person here who tries out lenses for the sake of trying out lenses. I prefer my CV 50/1.5 over the CV 50/1.1, and I prefer both over the 7Artisans 50/1.1. I prefer my Rigid Summicron 50/2 over these three lenses. Recently, I purchased a Hexanon 50/2.4 ltm. I have wanted to try out this lens for several years. Now I use this lens. I have quite a few 50mm RF lenses, and I love using them. Which lens is "the best"? Often, the answer depends on what the user likes to see in the resulting images.

 

[fad gadget]

I must say, after reading this thread any aspiration I had to attain this lens was shattered. The OOF areas are, to be kind, funky (I thought the 50mm CV f/1.1 was bad) and it's quite soft until stopped down to about f/4. Overall the CV is a much superior lens, IMHO (well worth the money by comparison).

Filed under "you get what you pay for".

I gotta go with Bill on this one, you can buy a lot of film for $300.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

It is not about getting a better lens, Bill. It hardly ever is. It usually is about trying our "another lens". Why else would anyone own many lenses of the same focal length?! It is curiosity on some lenses and the wish to experience many lenses. I am not the only person here who tries out lenses for the sake of trying out lenses. I prefer my CV 50/1.5 over the CV 50/1.1, and I prefer both over the 7Artisans 50/1.1. I prefer my Rigid Summicron 50/2 over these three lenses. Recently, I purchased a Hexanon 50/2.4 ltm. I have wanted to try out this lens for several years. Now I use this lens. I have quite a few 50mm RF lenses, and I love using them. Which lens is "the best"? Often, the answer depends on what the user likes to see in the resulting images.

I understand this mentality, but I don't live by it. If I somehow ended up with two lenses of the same (or similar) focal length I would generally see no reason to keep both - especially if one shines head-and-shoulders above the other. Even if they produced similar characteristics I'd find reasons to prefer one of them and get rid of the other.

I would somehow feel ripped-off if I took picture with a lens somehow inferior to another I had at my disposal. I understand these things can be highly subjective, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[raid]

I would not recommend the 50/1.1 7Artsisans to someone who is looking for her/his first or second fast 50mm lens unless the budget is tight and a 1.1 aperture is needed.

 

[shawn]

I would somehow feel ripped-off if I took picture with a lens somehow inferior to another I had at my disposal. I understand these things can be highly subjective, but that's where I'm coming from.

I have a number of 50ish lenses as well. I'd suggest it isn't exactly as if a lens is superior or not but that they have different characteristics that you may prefer for a given situation. For example, Sonnar type lenses tend to have a 'glow' wide open. Objectively, this shot has lower contrast (inter-scene, micro-contrast, ansi-contrast... whatever you want to call it) but in the right photo it can be beautiful and add to the picture. A shot with another lens without the glow wide open may have more contrast (and therefor technically better) but not be as effective a shot.

Every photo is a photographers interpretation of the event or scene. Using different lens characteristics is just another way we can alter that interpretation beyond choices of focal length, framing, positioning, film choices (or PP digital choices), shutter speed and DOF.

Shawn

 

[raid]

You paint with different brushes even if you own a favorite brush. One of my favorite 50mm lenses with the M 4/3 camera is the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 (in Rollei QMB mount). It gives beautiful portraits and it is also a very sharp lens. I use this lens when I am after certain types of images. On the M 4/3 the crop is a 100mm view. It leaves the central (very sharp) portion. Older lenses were not sharp across the film plane. The "focus" was on the central part of the images. Another example of a 50mm lens with character is the original Nokton 50/1.5 in Prominent mount. It differs from the modern Nokton 50/1.5. I use the old version more often than the new version Nokton. I would be quite bored if I had to use only a few lenses.

 

[Emile de Leon]

Fine lens for the money...esp if you don't want to bring the 10K noctilux to the jungle...

 

[raid]

If I owned a Noctilux, I would be extremely careful where I used such an expensive lens. I rarely take photos when such a fast lens is needed, so the cheap 7Artisans lens is a small investment in low light photography. I bought the lens out of curiosity and also for special effects photography. I don't really need this lens, but I enjoy trying it out.