I have been using this lens for a couple of month's now on my Leica M240 and really happy with the images it produces.. I removed the stock metal cap and replaced it with a cheap pinch cap. The stock hood is very nice, but feel they could have done a better job on the mounting style. I feel it falls off easliy and don't want to lose it so it stays in the box with both metal caps.. Nice review...
No i didn't. The corner sharpness test and the centre sharpness test are using the same photo. This is actually something I have been thinking quite a bit. Whether i should refocus for corner shaprness or not. What do you guys think?
@@TheRealRichardWong You should do both. Field curvature is another aspect of lens design, and checking for it on wide angle lenses is important. In many occasions, field curvature robs resolution from the lens when shot for charts or other close subjects, but doesn't matter for mid distance or infinity photos.
@@TheRealRichardWong If possible I would like both; one refocused and one not, with a mention of which direction the refocus was in. This would show if there is any field curvature, which is very important to understand to best utilise a lens. If a lens has concave curvature then it could be better than a flat field for in focus group photos or interiors. And when it comes to out of focus areas, where convex curvature is worse for peripheral bokeh. To further complicate matters, the thick sensor filter stacks of some cameras (like the Nikon Z6) can induce field curvature with symmetrical wider-angle lenses (like this one), which is not present when used on Leica rangefinders or some thin filter modified cameras. I know this would probably not be possible for you to test, but it is still a factor. I don't know, after all this perhaps field curvature is too complicated to even bother testing.
@@parshua hey thanks for the feedback. I will consider doing both in the future! But yes, I don't do close distance test chart sharpness test for a few reasons. One important reason is lots of lenses close distance sharpness isn't optimised compared to the normal shooting distance. Unless i'm testing a macro lens, most of my sharpness test were done at distance between 2-5 metres or further away.
My copy has less vignette than my 28mm Summaron…which is a plus. And defraction seems less affecting than on my Summaron at f11. The lens hood on the TTArtisan is annoying due to it not staying on securely. Also, the focus lever feels cheap and flimsy as compared to the Summaron. I may pick up the black paint version.
I have been using this lens for a couple of month's now on my Leica M240 and really happy with the images it produces.. I removed the stock metal cap and replaced it with a cheap pinch cap. The stock hood is very nice, but feel they could have done a better job on the mounting style. I feel it falls off easliy and don't want to lose it so it stays in the box with both metal caps.. Nice review...
Yes it's retro design lens hood is not as easy/secure as a modern lens hood. But it's beautiful ❤️ so I don't mind it too much myself
Awesome you have a m240!
Did you refocus for the corner sharpness test? Just wondering whether there is any field curvature masking the sharpness.
No i didn't. The corner sharpness test and the centre sharpness test are using the same photo.
This is actually something I have been thinking quite a bit. Whether i should refocus for corner shaprness or not. What do you guys think?
@@TheRealRichardWong You should do both. Field curvature is another aspect of lens design, and checking for it on wide angle lenses is important. In many occasions, field curvature robs resolution from the lens when shot for charts or other close subjects, but doesn't matter for mid distance or infinity photos.
@@TheRealRichardWong If possible I would like both; one refocused and one not, with a mention of which direction the refocus was in. This would show if there is any field curvature, which is very important to understand to best utilise a lens. If a lens has concave curvature then it could be better than a flat field for in focus group photos or interiors. And when it comes to out of focus areas, where convex curvature is worse for peripheral bokeh.
To further complicate matters, the thick sensor filter stacks of some cameras (like the Nikon Z6) can induce field curvature with symmetrical wider-angle lenses (like this one), which is not present when used on Leica rangefinders or some thin filter modified cameras. I know this would probably not be possible for you to test, but it is still a factor.
I don't know, after all this perhaps field curvature is too complicated to even bother testing.
@@parshua hey thanks for the feedback. I will consider doing both in the future!
But yes, I don't do close distance test chart sharpness test for a few reasons. One important reason is lots of lenses close distance sharpness isn't optimised compared to the normal shooting distance. Unless i'm testing a macro lens, most of my sharpness test were done at distance between 2-5 metres or further away.
@@Bayonet1809 Thanks for the feedback! I will consider doing both in the future :)
My copy has less vignette than my 28mm Summaron…which is a plus. And defraction seems less affecting than on my Summaron at f11. The lens hood on the TTArtisan is annoying due to it not staying on securely. Also, the focus lever feels cheap and flimsy as compared to the Summaron. I may pick up the black paint version.
Thanks for sharing your experience with this lens vs the Leica with us
Great review again. Something to consider.
Thanks Steve!
Excellent review of a cute lens
Thanks Barry!
I have a TTartisans 23mm f1.4 and it is a splendid lens. This 28mm lens is it available in micro 4/3s ?
hey Malcolm, no not available in m43 mount natively, but you could easily get a M to m43 adaptor and use it that way.
Agree with logo)
Thank you!! and thanks for watching :)
Is it compatable with all Canon Camera's?
Not with the DSLRs, but if you shooting with mirrorless , yes it will work with a cheap M to canon RF or EFM adaptor