I really like that you review those 3rd party lenses regularly. I think they're going the right way closing the gaps in the mft lens system and giving US more choice and they're getting better time by time with design and IQ 🙏🏼
I seriously like TTArtisan's products that are overall better than average in terms of quality and top-notch in terms of price and value for the buck. Buuuuuut and this is a big BUT! َThat is what I don't understand about Chines. Seems not only us, but they can't understand what they write! Especially in the spect section of products they create and this is all over the board. Every Chines lens with a 0.95 F produces a darker image when compared to say a reputable today's builder or even old vintage lenses and I can clearly quote Canon rangefinder LTM lenses such as the legendary Canon Dream Lens 50mm F/0.95 Lens For Leica LTM L39. The same goes for the quality of bokeh they make. If you doubt my personal experience, then please look at good reviews and clips on this subject, already published by Mathieu Stern, or better, get one and test it for yourself with the result published here.I simply can't trust Chines and I really want to! Sadly it's not only the quality control. And I understand that mistakes happen but when describing an item for a feature, Chines mistake is always in the far extreme degree that projects feature in a better direction and never vice versa, as statistics in a fair environment should prove. Well, that is my half-penny worth of opinion on the subject.
Man that OM1 looks gorgeous with a lot of glass on it. What a camera. Out of my price range but I just got a used OMD EM1 ordered and that will do me along with my EM10s, the black one being the most aesthetically pleasing SLR I've handled.
SLR Magic made a great M mount 50/0.95 which Leica stopped them from making. Although they did use the optics and took out the rangefinder mechanisms and cut a few thousand off the price. They made 2 50/0.95s for m43. One was a standard version similar to the 2 you mentioned. 1 was the Hyperprime II T/0.95 which is excellent. The T/0.95 seemed to have a shallower dof and brighter than the F/0.05. I do not find them on their site, but still see them in stores. The original one used the same optics as the M mount without the rangefinder mechanics. The II uses updated optics and cut the cost in half. They are rare and pricier than the current ones. I think it is a great lens meant to be used wide open. Not an every day look, but for those photos where it is appropriate, it is beautiful. Much better than the Voigtlander Nokton 43.5 or 60. Unless you like that classic Voigtlander look of course. Although the 60 is close the SLR Magic 50/0.95, the SLR magic used saves some money and is still has more detail (contrast and sharpness) than the 60 Nokton. I also love the 50 T/0.95. They are a little softer in the corners wide open which I expect from a 0.95 and actually helps the smooth bokeh. It has excellent transitions which I think give a nice look than the usual subject in front of a backdrop look for some photos. I think when it comes to image quality it is the best value 0.95 around half the costs (slightly more than half) of the Voigtlanders. If you run across one I sure would like your opinions of it and how it compares. I have no idea how much sample variance there is since I have just used 1 of each version.
I've never really understood much of the argument for balance. The first time I picked up a camera as a kid I naturally held the entire thing more or less by mostly holding the lens and then resting the body on my left palm to control pitch (vertical rotation), then holding with my right hand to guide horizontal direction, and either my thumb on the shutter or index finger depending on the angle. The first camera I got (and still use) was an old Nikon SP from a relative, so it's relatively small body and lens together, but I felt it was more natural to hold the lens where I always had my left thumb/index finger able to focus/change aperture. I moved to a Nikon F3 after that and from there went to DSLRS and eventually mirrorless (and Pentax KP/K1-2), always using the same support style holding technique regardless of size (I hold my Pentax Q's, Nikon 1's, and even my Canon S95, Fuji XQ1, and other point and shoots by resting on my left index finger with my left thumb resting on the side like an L bracket). All of that said, I recently let my nephew who is getting a little interesting in photography. He's 12 so I trusted him enough to hold my M50 mark II with a wrist strap. He immediately went to hold it like I see most people complaining about balance, just clamping onto both sides of the body without any support on the base or lens at all (22mm Canon EF-M prime, so not much to support) and I immediately showed how I would hold it and explained why. Maybe I'm just programmed to hold it that way because I started with full manual lenses and still primarily use manual lenses :|.
Thanks for the review. I found, on a bright sunny day, the focus ring and aperture ring both magnify and intensify incident light, very distracting and the lens attracts a lot of attention under such conditions. Also, the kamlan 1.1 is smaller and slightly better overall, but the .95 of the TT makes for extremely nice effects, especially when paired with a macro extension tube.
Thanks for the review, this lens is definitely on my short list. Don't know if I'd call a blurred background a modern look though since I've been shooting with wide open apertures on my Nikkor and Pentax lenses since the 70's. When I first got my first digital camera I was disappointed by the lack of affordable lenses with 1.4 or larger apertures. I've been using mount adapters in order to use my 35mm film lenses. Been getting amazing results but the adapter does add bulk to the setup.
I bought some affordable M43 lenses including a fisheye from 7 artisan and they are very good for the money. The lack of autofocus does not bother me at all. Actually it makes me think more about each shot, just like the film days. My next lens will be a macro where autofocus is not very helpful, it is usually more convenient to move the camera instead.
Great video. I like the idea of these 0.95 lenses but I do feel they need some evolution, Can’t wait to see a sharp wide open version. I have a sigma 56mm f1.4 that is excellent wide open (and such a small, light lens too). That lens takes some beating although the Olympus pro 45 1.2 is tempting. Still it’s great to see 3rd party lenses putting pressure on the big boys, hopefully they will drive quality up and force prices down.
If you have the 56mm Sigma, you don't need any of these manual, fast lenses, unless you want blurry pictures. That's not only because they are soft at f 0.95, but also because it is hard to get precise focus without AF. The 45mm f1.2 is certainly the king of this kind of fast portrait primes, but it is expensive, a bit large and heavy and does not offer much over the Sigma 56mm, optically. (Of course, it does have the Pro features such as manual focus clutch and weather sealing.)
@@hauke3644 yep, I think we are making the same point, especially considering how reasonable the sigma lens is priced. Don’t underestimate manual focus though, some of us were brought up on film cameras before autofocus was a thing. I still shoot film too so still focus manually, however I must admit I do predominantly use af on my mirrorless cameras so I know what you mean. To be honest that sigma 56mm is an outstanding lens and I probably wouldn’t swap it for the 45mm pro lens but the 30mm I find less sharp, have you used that one?
@@robgeorge102 I have both the Sigma 30mm and the M.Zuiko 25mm f1.2. Pixel-peeping in high-res images, I can tell a difference at f 1.4, where the 25mm has a bit higher microcontrast. But I don't consider this practically relevant, the Sigma is a pretty good lens and since I have it, I haven't used my manual, fast 35mm primes any more. If some day I want a "dreamy" look, I'll just apply a mist filter...
@@robgeorge102 being brought up on manual focus doesn't mean much. Depending on what you're shooting, you're going to get a lot of misses with a 0.95 with manual focus. Just the natural sway of a person can mean their ears or tip of their nose are in focus instead of their eyes. I grew up shooting with manual too and I want nothing to do with manual lenses anymore.
just filmed some flowers with the 7artisans 35mm f0.95 on my old GH4 camera, I only bought it for short video and now streaming!the dummy battery arrived today, going to buy a video capture card so I can stream with it!can you show how nice the bokeh is with some cheap step rings on it?
Hello Jimmy, entertaining video! I have a 50mm 7artisans for Sony and the Voightlander 25mm for m4/3, both 0.95. Is not the same focal lenght and system but they are supposed designed for full frame and m4/3 respectively (same angle of view). In all aspects is best the Voightlander: quality of material and construction, optical performance and facility for video work (clik and de-clik aperture ring). But with cinema lens chinese manufacturer I find them of better quality. Saludos (cheers).
Great review, but on a M43 camera it’s not technically f0.95 it becomes f1.9 which is still nice but should be taken into account. Manufacturers always ignore the change in f numbers on cropped sensors.
Sweet video Jimmy, I am fascinated by some of the alternative options out there for M43 cameras. I actually really like manual focus lenses; I don't know what it is about them! I have the Samyang 12mm f2 which I really only use when I go on trips up north with the chance of the aurora showing (it's optically awesome as well). For you personally, taking into account image quality wide open, what do you prefer between this and OM's own offering of the 45mm f1.2? As it's the closest to it (I think!). I know they are different lenses, I'm just thinking about quality at that wide open setting. Cheers!
Great review Jimmy. Not so sure I like the dished grip areas on the lens. Worry about how this will handle oxidation as the lens ages. Not sure why makers of offer .95 lenses if their sharpness suffers so much at the larger apertures. Seems counter productive to me, but then for the price who knows.
Thanks Caitlin. I would agree but only time will tell how it ages. On the sharpness note, event the more expensive Voigtlander 0.95 series are the same. I'd listed Leica's Germany factory before and looked at their 0.95 lens, built aside, it's more to do with the employment of premium and exotic elements. These elements are critical in controlling various aspects of lights passing through. From what I was told, these elements are very very expensive, one piece of glass could be as expensive as this lens itself. However, some may find these lenses useful for a certain type of photography/videography. And for the price, you can see if this experiment works before paying 10K for a Leica :)
Thanks Jimmy great review as usual. I have a suggestion for a video I don't think you have done. What is the best {best performance for the price) low-light prime lens (not wide angle, not zoom) available for a micro 4/3 camera for someone who wants to take evening/night pictures on City Streets including some close-up portraits without a flash?
I sold all my Pro OMD stuff yesterday. EM1X, Em1.2, 300mm F4. 40-150 F2.8, 12-40 F2.8, 75mmF1.8 and about 5 other lenses. Kept the Pen F and need a 17mm for it as a travel camera. Might look at the TTartisans 17.
Who cares about your sample F8 images????? I am looking at your review for quality wide open. I have modern 25mm AF lenses to shoot at f2.8 and above. Just FYI for future reviews. We are here for f .95 review and performance!!
No, this lens is designed for cropped sensor cameras, APS-C and M43. It's too narrow to cover a full frame sensor. They do make a full frame lens though.
