TTArtisan AF 14/3.5

[John Bean (UK)]

I thought I'd give this a try (it's cheap!) but the one I got has problems with the IBIS on my X-T50, behaving much like a manual lens does if the focal length setting is wildly wrong - it's actually better with the IBIS turned off.

The lens works fine otherwise and the EXIF data shows the correct focal length so I'm guessing it's a lens firmware issue - and currently there are no updates available. Optically it's not great but neither is it terrible - as long as you keep the shutter speed high enough or disable IBIS altogether.

I have its brother the AF 27/2.8 that works perfectly on the X-T50 and despite all of its little idiosyncrasies I quite like it, so I was hoping the new 14mm and existing 27 would make a handy pocketable pair. But the IBIS issue is a show-stopper given the aperture of the lens, making it unusable except in bright light.

I've returned the lens as faulty but I'm posting this mainly to inform anybody looking at this lens that it might be a design/firmware issue rather than a faulty sample, so if you rely on IBIS for slow shutter speed hand-held shots it may not be a good choice.

 

[Sam in Hawaii]

Mine was terrible on my XT 30 ii , and it wasn't ibis; just crappy resolution at all apertures, improved from unusable to broken cell phone quality as I stopped down. It is not nearly as good as the little 27mm f/2.8. Pity; I too had dreams of a pocketable pair.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Mine was terrible on my XT 30 ii , and it wasn't ibis; just crappy resolution at all apertures, improved from unusable to broken cell phone quality as I stopped down. It is not nearly as good as the little 27mm f/2.8. Pity; I too had dreams of a pocketable pair.

Yes. Perhaps I wasn't being so critical when I said "not great" but you're probably right.

The nearest thing to "pocketable" I have is the XC 15-45 which at 15mm is closer to 14mm than it is to 16mm - certainly slightly wider than the stated 15 - but it's such an annoying lens to use despite the startlingly good imagery it produces, especially at its wide end.

The old XF 14/2.8 is excellent and available dirt cheap on the used market but it's much too clunky for what I had in mind. I'll make do with the annoying XC for now - or get bigger pockets ;-)

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I’ve found the 16/2.8 pairs nicely with the 27. Compared to the 14/2.8 it’s smaller, faster and quieter to focus, better built and (IME) just as sharp, in favourable conditions at least. And a similar price. Field of view is more like a 15.

Another one to consider is the Samyang 12/2 AF. No aperture ring, but usefully wide and fast. I picked one up recently for £120 (!), seems like it wants to be stopped down to at least f/4 before it hits maximum sharpness, but I’ve only taken a few shots so far.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I’ve found the 16/2.8 pairs nicely with the 27. Compared to the 14/2.8 it’s smaller, faster and quieter to focus, better built and (IME) just as sharp, in favourable conditions at least. And a similar price. Field of view is more like a 15.

That's interesting. I keep looking at this lens but 16mm is a bit narrower than I wanted. It's good to know that it's a touch wider though.

Another one to consider is the Samyang 12/2 AF. No aperture ring, but usefully wide and fast. I picked one up recently for £120 (!), seems like it wants to be stopped down to at least f/4 before it hits maximum sharpness, but I’ve only taken a few shots so far.

I've used one on Sony in the past and liked it, but it's not ideal for my current purposes in its size and focal length. My "ideal" would be a truly small (and light!) lens in the 13-14mm (true) range, hence my attempt with the TTArtisan.

That said I did try the X version a little while ago, bought new from Amazon. It didn't work at all on my X-T50 with some sort of infinite reset loop on switch-on. Apparently this was first reported following some firmware update on the X-T5 but also seems to effect newer models like the X-T50 as well.

Samyang may well fix it but I'd need to buy the stupid dock (and use its archaic software) to update it if and when they do, so I just returned it for a refund. I suspect this is the reason for the low used prices, but if you have a camera model/version that is unaffected then it's quite a bargain.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I’ve found the 16/2.8 pairs nicely with the 27. Compared to the 14/2.8 it’s smaller, faster and quieter to focus, better built and (IME) just as sharp, in favourable conditions at least. And a similar price. Field of view is more like a 15.

That's interesting. I keep looking at this lens but 16mm is a bit narrower than I wanted. It's good to know that it's a touch wider though.

If it’s any use, I currently have both the 16 and the 15-45, so I could take some comparison shots if I find time.

I suspect this is the reason for the low used prices, but if you have a camera model/version that is unaffected then it's quite a bargain.

Works fine on my X-Pro3. Not sure why this one was so cheap (at Wex); they mostly go for around double that price, again the same territory as the 16/2.8 and 14/2.8.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I’ve found the 16/2.8 pairs nicely with the 27. Compared to the 14/2.8 it’s smaller, faster and quieter to focus, better built and (IME) just as sharp, in favourable conditions at least. And a similar price. Field of view is more like a 15.

That's interesting. I keep looking at this lens but 16mm is a bit narrower than I wanted. It's good to know that it's a touch wider though.

If it’s any use, I currently have both the 16 and the 15-45, so I could take some comparison shots if I find time.

That would be good. There are currently some nice offers on this lens - £269 new, for example - so it's quite appealing even though it's surprising to see that it's both longer and heavier than the 15-45, albeit only by trivial amounts (but less fat!):



I suspect it's not that much better optically either, but it's more than good enough and the vastly better user experience definitely outweighs the tiny size and weight differences. I look forward to seeing the FoV differences.

I suspect this is the reason for the low used prices, but if you have a camera model/version that is unaffected then it's quite a bargain.

Works fine on my X-Pro3. Not sure why this one was so cheap (at Wex); they mostly go for around double that price, again the same territory as the 16/2.8 and 14/2.8.

I think the oldest model effected is the X-T5 and then only after some later firmware update. There were others including some X-S and X-H versions and (of course) my X-T50, along with a slew of other AF issues that may or may not have been related... you know what the internet is like when these issues pop up.

--
John Bean [GMT+1]

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

FWIW, a quick glance through them from my desk says there’s quite a noticeable difference in the field of view—more than I’d expected.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

FWIW, a quick glance through them from my desk says there’s quite a noticeable difference in the field of view—more than I’d expected.

I almost expected that. The XC 15-45 is much wider than the quoted FL implies; when I had a XF 14/2.8 I compared them, and the zoom at 15mm had almost the same FOV as the prime - more if you disable digital corrections - so even if the XF16 is wider than the quoted FL it's never going to equal the zoom at its widest. However like the zoom it's also heavily digitally corrected so some extra width is also available in situations where it's usable to advantage.

In any event I've ordered one as the £269 offer expires on Monday so I'll soon be able to see for myself and it's a handy lens to have anyway, for other purposes.

 

[LogJamExcalibur]

I’ve found the 16/2.8 pairs nicely with the 27. Compared to the 14/2.8 it’s smaller, faster and quieter to focus, better built and (IME) just as sharp, in favourable conditions at least. And a similar price. Field of view is more like a 15.

Another one to consider is the Samyang 12/2 AF. No aperture ring, but usefully wide and fast. I picked one up recently for £120 (!), seems like it wants to be stopped down to at least f/4 before it hits maximum sharpness, but I’ve only taken a few shots so far.

I thought the 14 is a class above the 16? I don’t own the 14 but I do have the 16 and I find the corners to be rather soft relative to the center of the frame especially for landscapes. I don’t find acceptable corner sharpness until stopped down to f/8. I wouldn’t say I’m super obsessed with sharpness either- it’s just that the difference in sharpness between the center and the corners makes the issue more apparent.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I’ve found the 16/2.8 pairs nicely with the 27. Compared to the 14/2.8 it’s smaller, faster and quieter to focus, better built and (IME) just as sharp, in favourable conditions at least. And a similar price. Field of view is more like a 15.

Another one to consider is the Samyang 12/2 AF. No aperture ring, but usefully wide and fast. I picked one up recently for £120 (!), seems like it wants to be stopped down to at least f/4 before it hits maximum sharpness, but I’ve only taken a few shots so far.

I thought the 14 is a class above the 16? I don’t own the 14 but I do have the 16 and I find the corners to be rather soft relative to the center of the frame especially for landscapes. I don’t find acceptable corner sharpness until stopped down to f/8. I wouldn’t say I’m super obsessed with sharpness either- it’s just that the difference in sharpness between the center and the corners makes the issue more apparent.

The XF14/2.8 is a well-corrected lens with very little distortion, so no (or very small) digital corrections is done. The XF16/2.8 relies heavily on digital correction and this contributes to the softer corners. This is the price you pay for the small size but for my particular use case size trumps corner IQ otherwise I wouldn't even have glanced at the TTArtisan 14/3.5.

The XF14/2.8 I described as "clunky" and I meant it in both senses - it's a bit big for what it is, and it really does produce "clunking" noises sometimes when focusing. But more importantly it also has a tendency to produce false positive AF locks more often than I'm happy with compared with other lenses I've used.