Received the TTArtisan 50/0.95. Surprised it's 100% centered on my M10-R. Field curvature way milder and actually inwards with this lens. (opposite than Nokton and Leica F/1 lenses), so expect a more even rendering.
I will post an infinity comparison + rendering at various distances. I also compared the the FE 50/1.2 GM to the Nokton f/1.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have measured the weight of the lenses tested in this review:
The official weight from Leica is 700 grams which is away off, unless they measured it 'without' the built-in hood...
I often found the weight of lenses in spec sheets to be rather optimistic, but never found it to be off by 10%. Very interesting find.
Perhaps it could be due to minor production changes and the weight was never updated? I.e. perhaps parts that were originally aluminum were swapped out for brass at some point.
rscheffler wrote:
Perhaps it could be due to minor production changes and the weight was never updated? I.e. perhaps parts that were originally aluminum were swapped out for brass at some point.
On the Leica site, they do say "Approx."
700g lets them round down to 1.5lbs versus having to round up to 1.7lbs, so maybe some creative license at work as well
I don't know man, I have both now (1.2 and f1), the f1 is fantastic. Sharp as hell in the center and to me, so far, at 1-3 meters I don't notice any field curvature wonky wavy Bokeh. Just mushy goodness and that's where I intend on using it..I'm loving it so far.
So, different strokes for different folks I guess.
(Granted, I've owned this lens for about an hour )
I really like the pace of his presentations. Quick and to the point. Pretty much his conclusion is he can't tell any diff for his shooting apart from the 1.0 has more vignetting. But the 1.2 is much lighter/smaller/cheaper.
As an aside... what actually is his business? Maybe I'm out of it but in this day and age is there a market to sell pics of lingerie models?
Not knocking his talent - his pics are great. Just trying to understand the flying to Poland thing over and over..
Desmolicious wrote:
I really like the pace of his presentations. Quick and to the point. Pretty much his conclusion is he can't tell any diff for his shooting apart from the 1.0 has more vignetting. But the 1.2 is much lighter/smaller/cheaper.
As an aside... what actually is his business? Maybe I'm out of it but in this day and age is there a market to sell pics of lingerie models?
Not knocking his talent - his pics are great. Just trying to understand the flying to Poland thing over and over..
Kinda wished he showed his film shots..
You never know with that genre – probably combines the models paying for his shots with other photographers paying for instruction/workshopping.
I think to really decide between these lenses, black and white's not enough to go on since it's hiding the bokeh fringing that is surely there in color.
Matt Kerby wrote:
I don't know man, I have both now (1.2 and f1), the f1 is fantastic. Sharp as hell in the center and to me, so far, at 1-3 meters I don't notice any field curvature wonky wavy Bokeh. Just mushy goodness and that's where I intend on using it..I'm loving it so far.
So, different strokes for different folks I guess.
(Granted, I've owned this lens for about an hour )
What about green bokeh fringing? My CV 35 1.2 III wide open at close distance had an absurd amount of it.
Desmolicious wrote:
I really like the pace of his presentations. Quick and to the point. Pretty much his conclusion is he can't tell any diff for his shooting apart from the 1.0 has more vignetting. But the 1.2 is much lighter/smaller/cheaper.
As an aside... what actually is his business? Maybe I'm out of it but in this day and age is there a market to sell pics of lingerie models?
Not knocking his talent - his pics are great. Just trying to understand the flying to Poland thing over and over..
Kinda wished he showed his film shots..
He does show his film shots, particularly in his model shoot reports such as this one:
As for his business model, he’s a hustler (and I don’t mean that in a negative way). He has a Patreon, does paid consulting, conducts workshops (as highdesertmesa suggested), gets affiliate revenue, etc. My guess is that he’s parlayed the eye candy model pix into a successful diversified business.
It has green and magenta fringing, but not bad, especially for an f1. I have surgery tomorrow, otherwise I'd post some samples. It's Fred's old lens anyways, and he's posted a ton. But, I'll say that Fred and I are 2 different people, and as such, will use the lens differently.
I don't pixel peep too much. I zoom in to 100% to check focus, but, I don't go looking for flaws in a lens. If I use a lens and enjoy the draw, I leave it at that and enjoy it. Some lenses have flaws I can't get past and I sell them. So far, this ones a beauty. I can't get over how sharp f1 is...I've owned a few Noctilux's F1's and .95's. This CV smokes em all.
Matt Kerby wrote:
It has green and magenta fringing, but not bad, especially for an f1. I have surgery tomorrow, otherwise I'd post some samples. It's Fred's old lens anyways, and he's posted a ton. But, I'll say that Fred and I are 2 different people, and as such, will use the lens differently.
I don't pixel peep too much. I zoom in to 100% to check focus, but, I don't go looking for flaws in a lens. If I use a lens and enjoy the draw, I leave it at that and enjoy it. Some lenses have flaws I can't get past and I sell them. So far, this ones a beauty. I can't get over how sharp f1 is...I've owned a few Noctilux's F1's and .95's. This CV smokes em all....Show more →
I found that axial CA was well behaved for such fast lens. Similar or better than what the 50/1.2 provides. The Leica f/0.95 has very noticeable purple fringing in comparison.
Compared to the f/1.2, the new CV 50/1 is noticeably sharper at close distance due to its floating system. Rendering is subjective and I found that both lenses have a pleasant draw to my eyes. The f/1.2 has a better controlled FC and therefore oof rendering is more even across the frame.
All in all, I think they are both great lenses and perhaps the deciding factor when choosing between them will be speed, price and size priorities.
Good luck with the surgery! Hope it goes well. Looks forward to seeing some samples...
Matt Kerby wrote:
It has green and magenta fringing, but not bad, especially for an f1. I have surgery tomorrow, otherwise I'd post some samples. It's Fred's old lens anyways, and he's posted a ton. But, I'll say that Fred and I are 2 different people, and as such, will use the lens differently.
I don't pixel peep too much. I zoom in to 100% to check focus, but, I don't go looking for flaws in a lens. If I use a lens and enjoy the draw, I leave it at that and enjoy it. Some lenses have flaws I can't get past and I sell them. So far, this ones a beauty. I can't get over how sharp f1 is...I've owned a few Noctilux's F1's and .95's. This CV smokes em all....Show more →
As you can see the TTArtisan is no match in terms of resolution compared to the Voigtlander 50/1 Nokton, especially away from the center area at large apertures. I will post an infinity comparison to the Sony 50/1.2 GM followed by rendering tests comparing these three lenses.
