I went ahead and bought one. It's just a pleasure, and in my walkarounds, I just haven't had issues with the lens's limitations. I compared it to my vintage Canon FL f/1.2 55mm. It's simply better all across the board (and not even radioactive, unlike the FL) - except for flare, which I didn't test. And, at the price, and with the images I get, I consider it money well spent. I should add that, wide open, the Canon gives a softer image that is lovely in its way - and can be preferable to the technically better images from the Chinese lens.
I've been watching these cheap fast lens reviews for at least 5 years and I think it's finally time to order one. The image quality looks more than acceptable.
I had this lens for 6 months on SONY body, the de-clicked aperture ring is so smooth that I always bumped it to around f1.4, manual focus slows you down a lot when you try to get sharp focus at f1.05 (I use it mostly for portrait and use focus magnifier to the eyes area), subject need to be extra still to stay in focus, when the focus is right and everything's perfect I really love the result. I had many manual lenses before but now I'm more toward auto-focus lenses (if you interested in this lens, yes it is better than other cheap 50mm f/0.95 lenses, but it's not as sharp as the standard 50mm f1.8 wide open)
Good input. But the lenses need to both be compared at f1.8. If you are saying this f1.05 lens sharpness wide open is slightly worse than other lenses at f1.8 then that is saying that the f1.05 lens is actually good.
Now THIS seems like a proper follow-up to the 7Artisans 35mm f/0.95. Their prior effort in the 50mm f/0.95 just didn't quite seem to have the same magic.
I'd be really interested in this lens if it only had electrical connections. I'm fine with manual focus, but I find it really useful to have proper lens metadata stored with my images.
I installed a dandelion chip on my peleng 8mm and it is good enough for the metadata. It reports 8mm to the camera, so IBIS works properly, but it says it’s a Canon 28-80 lens, at 8mm. That requires some post processing with exiftool. But I finally have *something* in the EXIF :)
just use exif editor before importing. these lenses are designed for rangefinder cameras hence no contacts & these cheaper brands don't spend money unless necessary unlike voightlander.
I mean, out of all the high aperture lenses i've seen here and its price, its wide open quality in the middle is more than acceptable. I'd definitely get it had I a mirrorless system. Looks like a great street lens if you can focus quickly.
@@riveraluciano And I currently use a non-AI 50mm f/1.4 and have it set to f/5.6 and hyperfocused from infinity down to 30 feet. Almost always ends up working and still gives me 1/800th of a second during the day.
@@RealRaynedance That's another thing we need to take into account; you almost always end up stepping down, specially with full frame, where DoF really has an effect.
I have one and use it for street photos. Most of the time I don't use it wide open. When I do, it's a specific shot and takes some work to get right. Stopped down a bit, any manual lens is darn near as fast as an autofocus for me - just not an issue.
My Laowa Argus 35mm f/0.95 brings an effective T-Stop of 1.00 at widest aperture. Was very impressed by that. But that lens costs a little bit more than the lenses of 7artisans.
@@markusschlevogt Yeah that's something that I was actually curious about with that new Laowa. I was debating letting go of the Mitakon for the Laowa but I love how smooth the focus ring is that I can actually quickly focus at f/0.95 and I feel the Laowa (plus longer focus throw) will slow me down
There's a mask right behind the front element making the refractive area look smaller. That doesn't make sense. What's that for? My guess is that this lens carries a 0.95 design, maybe improved somehow, but the same or nearly identical optical design based on a 0.95 lens. Adding a mask to reduce the aperture 0.1 might have been a way to: 1, market it as a different lens; 2, mitigate some of the optical problems of the full 0.95 aperture; 3, do both.
hey dude -seriously thanks for making all these videos.... ur mostly unbiased consistent and large variety of lens review are SUPER helpful and APPRECIATED ..... best on youtube PERIOD .... everyone else is shilling me to death .... and ok -there is one more channel with 2 guys that I wont mention here that are also amazing -but they are kinda just starting out :)
From what I notice he focus in the middle ... However he would mention if the lens doesn't have a flat focus plane and would refocus to the corner to show the difference
Hi Christopher, thanks for the high-quality review! How is the light transmission of this lens compared to a sigma f/1.4? And to the Laowa f/0.95? Did you do some test on this?
It is a pity that you don't evaluate this type of lenses in the middle of the frame at wide apertures. For a portrait you don't need the corners but you don't want to put your subject right in the center. This suggestion is also valid for average lenses which can be correct even on borders .
He did - it's above average in sharpness for its type wide open center frame, though there is significant longitudinal chromatic aberration. I own one of these, and use it for street walkarounds (as I'm a manual focus guy from way back). As he pointed out, any lens this wide has compromises and performance issues - this lens copes with them better than most, and at a very reasonable price.
I know you don't often do vintage lenses, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts on how these modern ultrafast primes stack up against some of the old f/1.2 classics from Canon, Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. I have the Canon FL 55mm f/1.2, for instance, and where it shines (so to speak) is actually in the dark - it's a wonder for places like mines or caves, and clean copies on the used market today are less expensive than many of the modern ones, as are the Nikon and Minolta superfasts. The later f/1.2s, where the optics and coatings had improved, tend to be rather costly (the Konica Hexanon, the Canon APSH, and of course the Canon "Dream" lenses being well out of reach), so play at a different level.
The FL 55 is technically a better lens than the Minolta 58 1.2, Nikkor 55 sc 1.2 and the Zuiko 55 1.2 ( i own all 4) but still miles away in image quality from my TTartisan 50 0.95 at 1.2
@@0action847 Very cool - I'm still hoping to find a good deal on a Konica Hexanon 1.2. When you say "miles away", do you mean that these are significantly better or worse than the TT?
Thr vintages are not known for the sharpness but the dreamy, creamy bokeh colorful rendering.. So you must take that into account... Btw only Venus Optics of china, IMHO, produces some that on par with The West.. At 400 USD, this lens is terrible, and yes, the expectation now is higher ever than before...
Cool, I'll buy one. I have the Brightin Star 0.95 and in overall terms that's a good creative lens but its close up performance disappoints. I'm very keen to get the close up performance that you show here. It looks smaller and lighter also.
Hello I have bought the Risespray 50mm F0.95 and as far as I have found out it is from the same manufacturer and allmost the same as this 7Artisans 50mm F1.05 I would love to see this lens tested I use it mostly on my fullframe Canon Eos R but would love to know how it manages on an APSC sensor like thah of my Canon Eos R7 .
FINALY after like 200 comments and a few video, only 1 person noticed that same thing. I was like are all these reviewers or photographer stupid or what? I bought that lens which I have 2 months to return for free by Amazon so I could try it and when I put it at F1.05 I DO NOT get twice the amount of light of F1.4 which I should according to the F-Stop chart! For example I looked up close to a spotlight on my ceiling with a fixed ISO then I've set the Aperture on the lens at F16, F8, F5.6, F4, F2.8, F2.0, F1.4... which ALL gave me 2x the amount of light so 1 extra stop as it should... but then when I went from F1.4 to F1.05 I got far less than a stop, at best F1.2 I would say. For example I'd go from 1/200 to 1/250 when it should had been 1/400 if I would have gained 1 extra stop. Plus it's really soft, major vigneting and the lights in the bokeh are extremly ugly at F1.05 they look like lemons or football shape even though it has 13 blades aperture but then at F1.4 everything gets perfect. If I have to use this lens at F1.4 otherwise it's crap or a lie, then I'd rather just buy an actual real F1.4 lens with AF! (-_-) Cheap chinese garbage.
Yes Focus Peaking works and is actually a MUST with that kind of lens. You just need to set to Enabled "Use shutter with no lens attached" otherwise it will refuse to take a picture as it won't detect any lens attached.
It seems this lens comes in Leica L mount not the M mount ... megadap is adapter for Leica M to Nikon Z ... there is another lens 50mm f1.1 from the same company but didn't check its performance
Hello! Do you consider that this lens can be used successfully at the maximum aperture of 1.05 for making portraits during the day and at night? Is it worth buying to create magical soft portraits? Thanks!
I've used it a couple of times for daytime portraits, but, wide open, the focus plane can be just too thin unless it's a full body shot and you're a little distance away from the subject. Not only is it a bit challenging to get the focus perfect, but the ONLY thing in focus will be the eye (or whatever you focus on). I have a habit of pre-focusing, backing off a few inches, and using the auto-shutter to snap a burst of frames as I move the camera gently forward. I'll catch a few focal planes and one will be right.
I know what you're saying. It definitely looks like a decent quality in comparison to other cheap lenses. But realistically nobody has beat Laowa 45 0.95 other than Nikon
im in the minority of people who like a smaller focus pull for capturing moving subjects/speed of photography. i develop a rythem for locking focus quick with lenses that have shorter focus throws.
I wanted to buy this lens too for its rendering, however i like to screw my heavy mattebox to my lenses for videowork and that does not work with any of those helicoid lenses. however i found the meike 50 1.2 which does not extend and despite some average critics i really really like it for 4k video. its "sharp enough" with nice contrast wide open (where many of the f0.95 lenses fail and need to be stepped down a bit anyway) and the bokeh is also on the better side for fast 50s. maybe you want to test that lens too.
No, for moving subjects, if you knew the distance beforehand (such as when the object is moving in a direction parallel to your panning plane), manual focus shooting is actually faster (by many many ms). Of course, that would not benefit much from the f1.05 (as other AF systems benefits a lot from large apertures). As for unpredictable movements, sure, the shallow DoF could be a challenge -- but one can still be trained to use MF just like before (and the thin DoF actually helps to show the focus distance).
That's pretty much what I do. Another thing I do is put it on auto-shutter, if I'm shooting wide open. I'll focus, back off a few inches, and ease forward as I pop off a few frames. One of the frames will be right on, and it's quick. If I missed focus a bit, it's still taken care of.
@@selkiemaine Agreed, using continuous shooting mode with manual focus can capture both fast moving objects as well as focus stacking for close-ups. That's also why cameras are made to have a separate AF-on button from the shutter button (even though conventionally the shutter button also triggers AF when half-pressed) -- so that AF is automatically disabled when the AF-on button is released (and why manual override lenses are developed). This may be surprising to smartphone photographers when they rely on the touch screen to point at where the camera should focus, and praising why EVF would be superior than OVF. EVF is better only when the AI assist out-performs human operations -- which is true when the frame of view is fixed (i.e., when the camera is on a tripod) when the object is moving through the frame. AI assist will be worse if there are several identifiable objects or if there are unidentifiable interferences. But, hey, why not make the camera at lower costs (i.e., mirrorless) when they can be sold for the same price (read: higher profits).
Why wouldn't it be usable for photography de-clicked? Sure, you'll have to be a bit more careful not to accidentally twist it, but if the exposure is right, why does it matter if you're at f/1.4 or f/1.37? Also you buy these sorts of lenses to use them completely open most often, so I really don't see a problem here.
@@csorfab that's you, I hate de-clicked apertures, you constantly bump them and to me the aperture is the most important factor for the kind of photography I do.
Whoever reads this, if you're in the market for a manual focus lens, don't bother with anything other than Voigtlander. If you don't mind (or want to) using an adapter, then you can also consider old Hasselblad lenses, some of the old Nikkor lenses, Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses. If you own a Sony E mount camera, then you already have native (no adapter) access to Voigtlander, Zeiss and Sonys Zeiss Approved glass. (ZA lenses have autofocus though.)
These cheap Chinese lenses are actually optically better than some old Nikkors which I own many， for example, my TTartisan 50/1.4 is far superior than my Nikkor AIS 50/1.4, according to Ken Rockwell, it's better than Leica's non-ASPH version 50/1.4. Also my 7artisan 28/1.4 is as good as Leica 28/1.4, I believe.
@@vocvoc9895 Optically superior how? Sharper? Less aberrations? Less vignetting? Even if so; none of that matters unless you're pixel peeping. What actually matters and what your clients and just about anyone who views your art is going to notice, is how pleasing to look at and how nice/not nice the image is or in other words; Rendering! Rendering is what matters, not sharpness, not colors, not aberrations... All of that can be fixed in post, rendering can't be fixed or I should say added in post - and they all render as flat as paper cutouts glued together and slapped onto a piece of canvas to form an image. No depth perception is being rendered in the images whatsoever.
After reading like 200 comments and a few video, only 1 person noticed the same thing as I did with the one I bought. I was like: "Are all these reviewers or photographer stupid, lying, paid or what?". At F1.05 I DO NOT get twice the amount of light of F1.4 which I should according to the F-Stop chart! For example I looked up close to a spotlight on my ceiling with a fixed ISO then I've set the Aperture on the lens at F16, F8, F5.6, F4, F2.8, F2.0, F1.4... which ALL gave me 2x the amount of light so 1 extra stop as it should... but then when I went from F1.4 to F1.05 I got far less than a stop, at best F1.2 I would say. For example I'd go from 1/200 to 1/250 when it should had been 1/400 if I would have gained 1 extra stop. Plus it's really soft, major vigneting and flare wide open, and the lights in the bokeh are extremly ugly at F1.05 they look like lemons or football shape even though it has 13 blades aperture but then at F1.4 everything gets nearly perfect. If I have to use this lens at F1.4 or higher otherwise it's crap or a lie from 7Artisans, then I'd rather just buy an actual real F1.4 lens with AF! (-_-) Cheap chinese garbage.
You'll have to use t-stops if you're concerned about light transmission. F-stops correlate with light transmission, but they aren't necessarily comparable between lenses.
I've tested the ttartisans 50mm f1.2 and the 7artisans 50mm f1.8. While the ttartisan was good, I've had more sharp photos with the 7artisans which actually was great for only 85€.
I went ahead and bought one. It's just a pleasure, and in my walkarounds, I just haven't had issues with the lens's limitations. I compared it to my vintage Canon FL f/1.2 55mm. It's simply better all across the board (and not even radioactive, unlike the FL) - except for flare, which I didn't test. And, at the price, and with the images I get, I consider it money well spent. I should add that, wide open, the Canon gives a softer image that is lovely in its way - and can be preferable to the technically better images from the Chinese lens.
I've been watching these cheap fast lens reviews for at least 5 years and I think it's finally time to order one. The image quality looks more than acceptable.
I had this lens for 6 months on SONY body, the de-clicked aperture ring is so smooth that I always bumped it to around f1.4,
manual focus slows you down a lot when you try to get sharp focus at f1.05 (I use it mostly for portrait and use focus magnifier to the eyes area), subject need to be extra still to stay in focus, when the focus is right and everything's perfect I really love the result.
I had many manual lenses before but now I'm more toward auto-focus lenses
(if you interested in this lens, yes it is better than other cheap 50mm f/0.95 lenses, but it's not as sharp as the standard 50mm f1.8 wide open)
Good input. But the lenses need to both be compared at f1.8. If you are saying this f1.05 lens sharpness wide open is slightly worse than other lenses at f1.8 then that is saying that the f1.05 lens is actually good.
Now THIS seems like a proper follow-up to the 7Artisans 35mm f/0.95. Their prior effort in the 50mm f/0.95 just didn't quite seem to have the same magic.
I'd be really interested in this lens if it only had electrical connections. I'm fine with manual focus, but I find it really useful to have proper lens metadata stored with my images.
You’re a good kid tbh
Totes, also pain in the bum to have to dial in the stabilization for each lens
I installed a dandelion chip on my peleng 8mm and it is good enough for the metadata. It reports 8mm to the camera, so IBIS works properly, but it says it’s a Canon 28-80 lens, at 8mm. That requires some post processing with exiftool. But I finally have *something* in the EXIF :)
just use exif editor before importing. these lenses are designed for rangefinder cameras hence no contacts & these cheaper brands don't spend money unless necessary unlike voightlander.
@@datdudeinred have to manually set focal length for ibis. That's the main pain the bum for me
that flare looks very unique
I kinda like it!
Maybe it's just the fact that all metal lens mounts seem to be silver-colored, but I appreciate them making this lens's mount such a dark gray.
I do like the gunmetal grey
Lovely images you have made with this lens !
Thank you for this review.
4:30 there is no vignetting visible to me?
This really ain’t bad for 1.05 vs anything but the Noct and Fuji’s 50 f1.0.
I mean, out of all the high aperture lenses i've seen here and its price, its wide open quality in the middle is more than acceptable. I'd definitely get it had I a mirrorless system.
Looks like a great street lens if you can focus quickly.
For street, you're a lot more likely to pick an aperture, set your focus, and never touch it again when you're using a manual focus lens.
@@RealRaynedance That's true, I've used the 50mm 1.8 AIS from Nikon and did that all the time.
@@riveraluciano And I currently use a non-AI 50mm f/1.4 and have it set to f/5.6 and hyperfocused from infinity down to 30 feet. Almost always ends up working and still gives me 1/800th of a second during the day.
@@RealRaynedance That's another thing we need to take into account; you almost always end up stepping down, specially with full frame, where DoF really has an effect.
I have one and use it for street photos. Most of the time I don't use it wide open. When I do, it's a specific shot and takes some work to get right. Stopped down a bit, any manual lens is darn near as fast as an autofocus for me - just not an issue.
I like the flares
I'd be curious what the effective T-stop rating would be. Many of these "fast" aperture lenses have been a bit dim.
Probably about T/1.4 which is what all of these Chinese super fast lenses are. I have a Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 and the T stop is like 1.3 or 1.2ish.
My Laowa Argus 35mm f/0.95 brings an effective T-Stop of 1.00 at widest aperture. Was very impressed by that. But that lens costs a little bit more than the lenses of 7artisans.
@@markusschlevogt Laowa is really something else when it comes to quality compared to 7artisans..
@@markusschlevogt Yeah that's something that I was actually curious about with that new Laowa. I was debating letting go of the Mitakon for the Laowa but I love how smooth the focus ring is that I can actually quickly focus at f/0.95 and I feel the Laowa (plus longer focus throw) will slow me down
What is T-stop?
There's a mask right behind the front element making the refractive area look smaller. That doesn't make sense. What's that for? My guess is that this lens carries a 0.95 design, maybe improved somehow, but the same or nearly identical optical design based on a 0.95 lens. Adding a mask to reduce the aperture 0.1 might have been a way to: 1, market it as a different lens; 2, mitigate some of the optical problems of the full 0.95 aperture; 3, do both.
Would it be that hard to have two models to give us stills shooters a clicked aperture?
An f1.05 lens that used to be an f0.95 lens but now "more" correctly labeled.
hey dude -seriously thanks for making all these videos.... ur mostly unbiased consistent and large variety of lens review are SUPER helpful and APPRECIATED ..... best on youtube PERIOD .... everyone else is shilling me to death .... and ok -there is one more channel with 2 guys that I wont mention here that are also amazing -but they are kinda just starting out :)
A question. For your sharpness test, do you only focus at the center or you refocus at the image corner?
From what I notice he focus in the middle ... However he would mention if the lens doesn't have a flat focus plane and would refocus to the corner to show the difference
Hi Christopher, thanks for the high-quality review! How is the light transmission of this lens compared to a sigma f/1.4? And to the Laowa f/0.95? Did you do some test on this?
It is a pity that you don't evaluate this type of lenses in the middle of the frame at wide apertures. For a portrait you don't need the corners but you don't want to put your subject right in the center.
This suggestion is also valid for average lenses which can be correct even on borders .
He did - it's above average in sharpness for its type wide open center frame, though there is significant longitudinal chromatic aberration. I own one of these, and use it for street walkarounds (as I'm a manual focus guy from way back). As he pointed out, any lens this wide has compromises and performance issues - this lens copes with them better than most, and at a very reasonable price.
Aps-c test would have helped here.
Did you said it will be available for RF?
I know you don't often do vintage lenses, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts on how these modern ultrafast primes stack up against some of the old f/1.2 classics from Canon, Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. I have the Canon FL 55mm f/1.2, for instance, and where it shines (so to speak) is actually in the dark - it's a wonder for places like mines or caves, and clean copies on the used market today are less expensive than many of the modern ones, as are the Nikon and Minolta superfasts. The later f/1.2s, where the optics and coatings had improved, tend to be rather costly (the Konica Hexanon, the Canon APSH, and of course the Canon "Dream" lenses being well out of reach), so play at a different level.
The FL 55 is technically a better lens than the Minolta 58 1.2, Nikkor 55 sc 1.2 and the Zuiko 55 1.2 ( i own all 4) but still miles away in image quality from my TTartisan 50 0.95 at 1.2
@@0action847 Very cool - I'm still hoping to find a good deal on a Konica Hexanon 1.2. When you say "miles away", do you mean that these are significantly better or worse than the TT?
@@Skipsul The ttartisan is significantly better.
@@0action847 Thanks for the clarification. I may add that one to the list for night / cave / mine lenses.
Thr vintages are not known for the sharpness but the dreamy, creamy bokeh colorful rendering..
So you must take that into account...
Btw only Venus Optics of china, IMHO, produces some that on par with The West..
At 400 USD, this lens is terrible, and yes, the expectation now is higher ever than before...
Cool, I'll buy one. I have the Brightin Star 0.95 and in overall terms that's a good creative lens but its close up performance disappoints. I'm very keen to get the close up performance that you show here. It looks smaller and lighter also.
You rated the Argus 45MM 0.95 better than the other 50MM is your other video. How would you compare this 50MM 1.05 to those lenses?
Will you review the new Samyang af 85 mm II? Thanks!
please review ttartisan 50mm asph for leica mount
Finally my fav lens! I love it more than the native Z! Especially awesome for BnW all wide open.
Hello I have bought the Risespray 50mm F0.95 and as far as I have found out it is from the same manufacturer and allmost the same as this 7Artisans 50mm F1.05
I would love to see this lens tested I use it mostly on my fullframe Canon Eos R but would love to know how it manages on an APSC sensor like thah of my Canon Eos R7 .
This is NOT f/1.05 lens. It's rather f/1.2, when compared to other ultra-high speed lenses in terms of tansmision and DoF.
Wow, this is huge. What makes you say this ?
FINALY after like 200 comments and a few video, only 1 person noticed that same thing. I was like are all these reviewers or photographer stupid or what? I bought that lens which I have 2 months to return for free by Amazon so I could try it and when I put it at F1.05 I DO NOT get twice the amount of light of F1.4 which I should according to the F-Stop chart! For example I looked up close to a spotlight on my ceiling with a fixed ISO then I've set the Aperture on the lens at F16, F8, F5.6, F4, F2.8, F2.0, F1.4... which ALL gave me 2x the amount of light so 1 extra stop as it should... but then when I went from F1.4 to F1.05 I got far less than a stop, at best F1.2 I would say.
For example I'd go from 1/200 to 1/250 when it should had been 1/400 if I would have gained 1 extra stop. Plus it's really soft, major vigneting and the lights in the bokeh are extremly ugly at F1.05 they look like lemons or football shape even though it has 13 blades aperture but then at F1.4 everything gets perfect. If I have to use this lens at F1.4 otherwise it's crap or a lie, then I'd rather just buy an actual real F1.4 lens with AF! (-_-) Cheap chinese garbage.
@Read my own review/comment below you'll understand why. I will probably just return that lens, very disappointing.
¡Me encantaría que probará la lente Meike 50mm f0.95!
so this is better than the TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95?
Curious about this too!
No APS-C test? :(
Oh my gosh it would have been a massacre...!
@@christopherfrost Couldn't be any worse than the 0.95 APS-C abominations xD.
Try the Voigtlander 50mm f1.2 Nokton. It's going to be even nicer 😅
as this lens has no electronic contact point, do we have a focus peeking option in our camera? like any other lens?
Yes Focus Peaking works and is actually a MUST with that kind of lens. You just need to set to Enabled "Use shutter with no lens attached" otherwise it will refuse to take a picture as it won't detect any lens attached.
I assume the megadap leica to z mount would work to achieve auto focus on this. I wonder.
It seems this lens comes in Leica L mount not the M mount ... megadap is adapter for Leica M to Nikon Z ... there is another lens 50mm f1.1 from the same company but didn't check its performance
Hello! Do you consider that this lens can be used successfully at the maximum aperture of 1.05 for making portraits during the day and at night? Is it worth buying to create magical soft portraits? Thanks!
I've used it a couple of times for daytime portraits, but, wide open, the focus plane can be just too thin unless it's a full body shot and you're a little distance away from the subject. Not only is it a bit challenging to get the focus perfect, but the ONLY thing in focus will be the eye (or whatever you focus on). I have a habit of pre-focusing, backing off a few inches, and using the auto-shutter to snap a burst of frames as I move the camera gently forward. I'll catch a few focal planes and one will be right.
@@selkiemaine Thank you very much!
A f1.05 is 1/6th of a stop slower than f1.0! So basically its about the same speed as a f1.0 and add 100th of a second or so. Crazy!!!
The Sony 2.5 g had just as much longitudinal CA.
I know what you're saying. It definitely looks like a decent quality in comparison to other cheap lenses. But realistically nobody has beat Laowa 45 0.95 other than Nikon
im in the minority of people who like a smaller focus pull for capturing moving subjects/speed of photography. i develop a rythem for locking focus quick with lenses that have shorter focus throws.
I love rangefinder lenses for this reason. A long focus throw just takes longer to focus.
Any body knows What is the difference between this lens and the 7artizan 50 f1.1
I wanted to buy this lens too for its rendering, however i like to screw my heavy mattebox to my lenses for videowork and that does not work with any of those helicoid lenses. however i found the meike 50 1.2 which does not extend and despite some average critics i really really like it for 4k video. its "sharp enough" with nice contrast wide open (where many of the f0.95 lenses fail and need to be stepped down a bit anyway) and the bokeh is also on the better side for fast 50s. maybe you want to test that lens too.
No, for moving subjects, if you knew the distance beforehand (such as when the object is moving in a direction parallel to your panning plane), manual focus shooting is actually faster (by many many ms). Of course, that would not benefit much from the f1.05 (as other AF systems benefits a lot from large apertures). As for unpredictable movements, sure, the shallow DoF could be a challenge -- but one can still be trained to use MF just like before (and the thin DoF actually helps to show the focus distance).
That's pretty much what I do. Another thing I do is put it on auto-shutter, if I'm shooting wide open. I'll focus, back off a few inches, and ease forward as I pop off a few frames. One of the frames will be right on, and it's quick. If I missed focus a bit, it's still taken care of.
@@selkiemaine Agreed, using continuous shooting mode with manual focus can capture both fast moving objects as well as focus stacking for close-ups. That's also why cameras are made to have a separate AF-on button from the shutter button (even though conventionally the shutter button also triggers AF when half-pressed) -- so that AF is automatically disabled when the AF-on button is released (and why manual override lenses are developed). This may be surprising to smartphone photographers when they rely on the touch screen to point at where the camera should focus, and praising why EVF would be superior than OVF. EVF is better only when the AI assist out-performs human operations -- which is true when the frame of view is fixed (i.e., when the camera is on a tripod) when the object is moving through the frame. AI assist will be worse if there are several identifiable objects or if there are unidentifiable interferences. But, hey, why not make the camera at lower costs (i.e., mirrorless) when they can be sold for the same price (read: higher profits).
Is it really available for Canon RF? They're blocking third-party manufacturers to use their RF mount.
They are blocking autofocus lenses only; they don't care about manual focusing lenses
u cant block the metal bayonet lol
@@regularplayer1 From what we know about Canon these days, they might try to anyway...
big L on Canon's part if true lol
these lenses are triggering my OCD by not selling lenses at f/1.
1, not into Manual lens that much but has a nice build quality 👌🏻. Sharpness is good.
Check out my recent 7 Artisans tests: ua-cam.com/video/AfQ0vPTyC18/v-deo.html
@Pepe Pupu grammar Nazis please go away
This looks better than the Mitakon Speedmaster.
i have both and its light years ahead, although the depth of field difference is noticeable
IMPORTANT QUESTION: Is the lens aperture de-clicked or does it have clicks so it is useable for photography? You never mentioned it.
Why wouldn't it be usable for photography de-clicked? Sure, you'll have to be a bit more careful not to accidentally twist it, but if the exposure is right, why does it matter if you're at f/1.4 or f/1.37? Also you buy these sorts of lenses to use them completely open most often, so I really don't see a problem here.
@@csorfab that's you, I hate de-clicked apertures, you constantly bump them and to me the aperture is the most important factor for the kind of photography I do.
It is de-clicked.
Whoever reads this, if you're in the market for a manual focus lens, don't bother with anything other than Voigtlander.
If you don't mind (or want to) using an adapter, then you can also consider old Hasselblad lenses, some of the old Nikkor lenses, Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses.
If you own a Sony E mount camera, then you already have native (no adapter) access to Voigtlander, Zeiss and Sonys Zeiss Approved glass. (ZA lenses have autofocus though.)
These cheap Chinese lenses are actually optically better than some old Nikkors which I own many， for example, my TTartisan 50/1.4 is far superior than my Nikkor AIS 50/1.4, according to Ken Rockwell, it's better than Leica's non-ASPH version 50/1.4. Also my 7artisan 28/1.4 is as good as Leica 28/1.4, I believe.
@@vocvoc9895 Optically superior how? Sharper? Less aberrations? Less vignetting? Even if so; none of that matters unless you're pixel peeping. What actually matters and what your clients and just about anyone who views your art is going to notice, is how pleasing to look at and how nice/not nice the image is or in other words; Rendering! Rendering is what matters, not sharpness, not colors, not aberrations... All of that can be fixed in post, rendering can't be fixed or I should say added in post - and they all render as flat as paper cutouts glued together and slapped onto a piece of canvas to form an image. No depth perception is being rendered in the images whatsoever.
@@nogerboher5266 Sharper， a lot more contrasty at f 1/4, after 2.8 they are mostly the same.
After reading like 200 comments and a few video, only 1 person noticed the same thing as I did with the one I bought. I was like: "Are all these reviewers or photographer stupid, lying, paid or what?". At F1.05 I DO NOT get twice the amount of light of F1.4 which I should according to the F-Stop chart! For example I looked up close to a spotlight on my ceiling with a fixed ISO then I've set the Aperture on the lens at F16, F8, F5.6, F4, F2.8, F2.0, F1.4... which ALL gave me 2x the amount of light so 1 extra stop as it should... but then when I went from F1.4 to F1.05 I got far less than a stop, at best F1.2 I would say.
For example I'd go from 1/200 to 1/250 when it should had been 1/400 if I would have gained 1 extra stop. Plus it's really soft, major vigneting and flare wide open, and the lights in the bokeh are extremly ugly at F1.05 they look like lemons or football shape even though it has 13 blades aperture but then at F1.4 everything gets nearly perfect. If I have to use this lens at F1.4 or higher otherwise it's crap or a lie from 7Artisans, then I'd rather just buy an actual real F1.4 lens with AF! (-_-) Cheap chinese garbage.
You'll have to use t-stops if you're concerned about light transmission. F-stops correlate with light transmission, but they aren't necessarily comparable between lenses.
But the cheaper f0.95 is an APSC lens as far I know
Cool. Funn. Thnx
4
3
Better quality than I expected but I wouldnt buy it.
2
Some kind of purple tint in the photo, the bokeh is somehow tasteless .. Not interested
I believe these cheap Chinese lenses are a waste of money; every time I tried one I was bitterly disappointed.
You get what you pay for
I've tested the ttartisans 50mm f1.2 and the 7artisans 50mm f1.8.
While the ttartisan was good, I've had more sharp photos with the 7artisans which actually was great for only 85€.
disturbing
really lol????
10th😎
These 7 artisans lie about the aperture values.
What makes you say that ?
Rubbish, money spent for nothing.