TTArtisan 50mm / f0.95

maartenmoerman said:
got my lens today, looks nice, supposed to be pre-calibrated, so we'll see, will shoot a roll of film (my M9 is out for calibration).

Initial findings:
- finder blockage isn't that bad
..

viewfinder095.jpg
Click to expand...

Not that bad? 1/3 of the framed image is blocked!
 
Huss said:
Not that bad? 1/3 of the framed image is blocked!
Click to expand...

For some reason the picture looks different then when looking through the viewfinder, I am just noticing that. I think my iPhone was a bit at an angle, I just tried taking a proper picture of it, but that's not really easy todo , replicate the view that you have with your eye.

When I look at this picture, yes it's not good, it's better in real life.
 
Seems to block 40% of the finder and about 1/3 the frame. Really a lens for an EVF for both framing and focus accuracy at f/0.95
 
If this is the view in VF without hood, I highly recommend SBOOI bright-lines 50mm finder for it. I hope adding of hood on this already big lens is not going to block RF patch.
 
Off topic, kinda, this is why RF cameras really are better using small lenses not pickle barrels.
Even my Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 blocks a lot of the VF because it is so long. It is a fantastic lens, but because of that I hardly use it.
Use a 35mm f2, and suddenly you can see!
Big lenses are for SLRs, and this is why I hated the Leica 50 .95. It is just miserable to use on an RF camera. Huge, heavy, blocks the VF, and if you are not using it at .95 what's the point? And if you are using it at .95 soon the photos become very boring 'ooh look at the bokeh' images, instead of having subject matter.
 
Huss said:
Off topic, kinda, this is why RF cameras really are better using small lenses not pickle barrels.
Even my Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 blocks a lot of the VF because it is so long. It is a fantastic lens, but because of that I hardly use it.
Use a 35mm f2, and suddenly you can see!
Big lenses are for SLRs, and this is why I hated the Leica 50 .95. It is just miserable to use on an RF camera. Huge, heavy, blocks the VF, and if you are not using it at .95 what's the point? And if you are using it at .95 soon the photos become very boring 'ooh look at the bokeh' images, instead of having subject matter.
Click to expand...

Feels like gigantic and expensive lenses allow for a larger profit margin, whichever form the body takes.

Anyway part of Leica's identity is absolute optical performance. Another part advocates "small portable..." whatever. They're coming increasingly at odds with physics in the digital age - you have to make lenses larger for better correction. Mandler days are gone - the current 47MP sensor would require a new generation of ultra-corrected lenses, which are bound to be huge.
 
Archlich said:
Feels like gigantic and expensive lenses allow for a larger profit margin, whichever form the body takes.

Anyway part of Leica's identity is absolute optical performance. Another part advocates "small portable..." whatever. They're coming increasingly at odds with physics in the digital age - you have to make lenses larger for better correction. Mandler days are gone - the current 47MP sensor would require a new generation of ultra-corrected lenses, which are bound to be huge.
Click to expand...

But do they really for use on an M camera?
Think about it for a moment. M cameras are NOT precise instruments. Framing is imprecise. Focus can be imprecise because most bodies have rfs that are not calibrated for the lens that is on it. And if it is, that goes away if you change the lens.
One can argue that the exposure is imprecise.
So there are so many variables that effect ultimate quality, the lenses do not need to be perfect. And yet we still make beautiful pics with them.
I have a feeling that the current M lenses will be just fine on 47mp sensor. My Z7 works great with 'old' Zeiss SL lenses.
I think it is just another marketing push. Gotta sell improved lenses to fully take advantage of the 47mp Leica M...
 
maartenmoerman said:
Unfortunately not. But then again, to what profile should it be set? None of the corrections applied by digital M's would work I suppose.
Click to expand...
That's a bummer, and interesting! An Amazon seller told me that his stock had milling for 6-bit coding; I felt then he was lying to me. It seems you're confirming my suspicion!

I'd set it as a 50mm Noctilux f/.95. We're talking about the TT 50mm f/.95, right?
 
Huss said:
Not that bad? 1/3 of the framed image is blocked!
Click to expand...

My Voigtlander 50mm f1.1 is not much better when its wearing the hood I use with it (actually a Nikon HK -11 with clamp fit). Somehow it never bothers me on a Leica M - some intrusion into a VF is a feature of going old style rather like its other quirks - such as even using an optical rangefinder which is the thing which necessitates the optical viewfinder. I suppose I figure it's baked in the cake - if you like big lenses this is what you may get.
 
BillBlackwell said:
I'd set it as a 50mm Noctilux f/.95. We're talking about the TT 50mm f/.95, right?
Click to expand...

Yes TT 50/0.95.

However, my M9 does not have a profile for that, and then it would only be to set the focal length in the exif information, as like I said, the corrections applied to a Noctilux probably won't do the TTartisan images any good.
 
In the meantime.... for people that find it interesting...

I shot a roll, and thats being developed this week. I've shot it on my M9 (that I just got back from calibration, after I already shot the roll of film), and the focus is off, it back focusses by some 10cm on 0.7m focus distance, I will try and calibrate it tomorrow. On the Sony A7 it gives amazing results. Rendering seems to be similar to the 7artisans 75mm f1.25, just a tad sharper.

The lens definitely has a 095 look to it. Not as wild as the Canon 50/0.95 dreamlens, more Noctilux rendering from what I have seen. I don't own the Noctilux, and to be honest, I think it's wrong lens to compare with. I think it should be compared to 7artisans 50/1.1 and the Voigtlander Nokton 1.1 or even the 7artisans 75mm f1.25, those are similar price ranges.

Will also shoot on my M240 once I have bought an EVF for it. At f0.95, you will need live view/focus peaking.
 
Tests with Sony A7, on ISO640, aperture priority, AWB, on tripod, about 1 meter (minimum focus distance for the nokton):

TTArtisan 50/0.95 @ 0.95:

50-095.JPG


Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.1 @ f1.1:

nokton-1.1.JPG


7Artisan 75/1.25 @ f1.25:

75-125.JPG
 
maartenmoerman said:
... I think it should be compared to 7artisans 50/1.1 and the Voigtlander Nokton 1.1 or even the 7artisans 75mm f1.25, those are similar price ranges. ...
Click to expand...
The two 50s look very similar to my eye. But the CV bokeh looks a little edgier (I think I like the TT a little better).

If you had both lenses, I wouldn't mind seeing a comparison between the TT 50 f/.95 and the 7A 50 f/1.1 (both at f/1.1).


maartenmoerman said:
... my M9 does not have a profile for that, and then it would only be to set the focal length in the exif information, as like I said, the corrections applied to a Noctilux probably won't do the TTartisan images any good.
Click to expand...
maartenmoerman said:
... Will also shoot on my M240 once I have bought an EVF for it. At f0.95, you will need live view/focus peaking.
Click to expand...
I'd forgotten how limited the lens profiles were in the M9. But the M240 should definitely have the comparable Noctilux profile(s). There will be a Noctilux profile that will do wonders; you just need to find the right one (I'd start with the latest 50mm f/.95 profile).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ken Ford
Comparing the Voigtlander fast 50s
Replies
15
Views
1K
Yokosuka Mike
Yokosuka Mike
EddieJ
LLL 50 Rigid Announcement
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
K
50mm lens for the Leica CL (film)
Replies
13
Views
587
splitimageview
splitimageview
E
Slight focus resistance at 1–2m on my Summicron 50 V5 — normal?
Replies
4
Views
233
Endzeit
E
P
kodak movie film
Replies
1
Views
541
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
Back
Top Bottom