TTArtisan to release a limited-run 50mm F0.95 lens for Sony E and Fujifilm X mounts

sheesh .....religion rears its ugl......never mind

@PortraitLover: "APSC 0.95 = FF 1.4" It depends on what yo mean by 'equals'. If the proper exposure for a given scene and ISO is 1/60 at f/0.95, then that's the proper exposure for APS-C _and_ FF.
In short. proper exposure is invariant for different media sizes of the same sensitivity - 35mm or 8x10.

This again...at the same distance it will have the same depth of field as any other 50mm lens. It is a 50mm lens...does not matter what sensor size you are using. However, if you want the same framing on the size chip you are using you have to back up with a less than full frame sensor to get the same field of view image. When you are farther from your subject with any lens your depth of field increases, this is what you see on a less than full frame camera. Has nothing to do with the lens. This is a 50mm f/0.95 lens, period.

@PortraitLover Yawn. Only if you are trying to obtain the shallowest depth of field. We all know that larger sensors give shallower DOF with the same focal length (NOT equivalent focal length) lenses because you are closer to your subject for the same framing. As @tmascolo said, This is a 50mm f/0.95 lens, period.

They sell a M mount 50mm 0.95 that can be adapted if you want to. Its about the same price as well.
*oh its the kamlan who offers a 0.95, the Leica M mount is 1.1

It appears that you are the one who posted there in the comments section that you refer to? Maybe not. Anyway, none of the images that's linked to show the image in full resolution which means they can't be judged for sharpness. Actually they are very, very small, so completely and utterly useless if you want to check sharpness.

If you are happy with your sample of the lens, then fine. However, suggesting that the review at PhilipReeve.net is biased is subjective at best. If the lens he tested was bad, he should say it. It may be that he got a "lemon", but then others may have gotten lemons too. In fact, in one of the links in the comments after the article there is a link where the user refers to negative reviews.

If we are seeing several quite bad samples, then we are talking a rather bad quality control. Who wants to gamble on that? Not me.

I own and owned several of the lenses that Bastian Kratzke and others at that site have reviewed and their findings mirror mine quite well, so to me their reviews are trustworthy.

When you say that he "bashes Zenitar in general in the comment section" you have proved to me that you are quite biased about it yourself, because I see absolutely NO trace of it.

I consider your posts here purely subjective at best and will stop the discussion here. You may think you can persuade someone that the Zenitar 50mm f/0.95 lens is good, but your posts and links have proven the opposite to me. Have a nice day. (I won't respond further.)

"Not even in the same galaxy."

Price-wise yes. Quality -wise we would know when someone makes comparison.

If you believe a $400 lens has the same quality as an $8000 lens, I have some swamp land here in FL that is just as fertile as regular soil at a fantastic price. Promise.
Sure, brand mark up is real, but Nikon isn't Leica, and TTartisan isn't giving you a multi-thousand dollar lens for a few hundred bucks.

DarnGoodPhotos: Yes, but check their WWW site: this lens doesn't cover FF. So it's only APS-C on Sonys too.

Good catch. And definitely something that should have been noted in the article text.

There is also a large amount of software sharpening artifacts visible in those photos.

You don't buy a lens like this for sharpness. Nor do you buy it for getting focus perfect at a molecular level. Same with the ZY Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 and 50mm f/0.95, Handevision 40mm f/0.85, or even going right back to the original Canon R 50mm f/0.95 of 1961, the first production lens in the world with an aperture like this. You get them because they're capable of a rendering that no regular ol' first-party lens can do.
Who cares if they're not sharp or if you miss focus a bit. This kind of look is why premium £120+ pearl glow filters exist, to try (and not quite manage) to get ''better' lenses to look like this.

Why not just take up painting?

Eventually you would get something interesting, just from trying. Seriously, and I'm a fan of classic lens rendering with workhorse lenses. Past f/1.4 these lenses are specialty soft focus OOC - but mostly garbage that can be easily recreated if you have just a bit of post-process talent. And, frankly, that goes for the quality legacy brands, as well...

Photo of my boy with the Kamlan 50mm f1.1 mk2 wide open:
Using XT2, link is full 24mp picture.
Quite acceptable quality, I think, and focus is already very critical and difficult.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200326/b6e2dd4dfb4eaee770855a5796ea79fd.jpg

Very nice shot. Yes keeping good focus for something like this with the lens wide open is going to be quite difficult and I think you did it well.
The lens sharpens up and clears up quite a bit by F2 but the rendering is quite nice wide open as you have shown.
If the TTArtisan F0.95 version is as good, that will be an achievement.

@discombobulate - oh it focuses, you're just not going to notice because it's so bad at those apertures that you can't tell. If it takes Nikon $8000 to make an f/.95 lens that is actually worth using, how does anyone think a $410 f/.95 lens will be worth using at all?

The Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm F0.95 is a full frame lens. This is an APS-C design. The design may be similar, but its doubtful this is "an old batch of the earlier version.." The body doesn't look like any Mitakon Speedmaster as far as I can tell.

No, they are not.
Both brands belong to DJ-Optical. Though I don't see the reference on this lens, previous TTArtisan-branded lenses carried DJ-Optical inscription.

The 7artisans brand (trademark) belongs to Shenzhen 7artisans Photoelectric Technology Co., Ltd.

The TTArtisan brand belongs to Shenzhen Mingjiang Optical Technology Co., Ltd.

Both are based in Shenzhen but they are different companies with different managers.

Both companies sell lenses designed and manufactured by a third company, DJ Optical (white label).