Maybe pedantic but the crop is not because the sensor is a quarter the area (which it is) but because the image circle diameter is half, it's an optical thing not a sensor thing that gives us the "times two". Native MFT lenses deliberately throw an image circle diameter slightly bigger than the sensor diagonal to reduce vignetting and corner softness (which happens with all lenses on any format).
When TTArtisans released a 25mm M43 lens for $55 American (plus $9 shipping to the US) I thought, what the heck? And ordered it. I noticed what you did with the 50mm full-frame: the 25mm is an APS-C lens, so putting it on a M43 camera takes advantage of the best part of the lens: the centre. it is crisp all the way to the edges, with no vignetting. This is something of a "game changer" for M43 cameras -- thank you for pointing it out. And on my EM1 Mark 2 the focus peaking works! The lens has no electrical connections either, so... who knows? I ordered the lens directly from Peargear in Far Cathay: it took about 10 days to get here.
A common misconception using a FF lens on MFT is that it only sees the centre of the image, whereas the image is focused on the sensor, a slightly larger image circle than the sensor itself so that the whole sensor is encompassed. How do we show this? The f-stop is a measure of how much light. If we swap to a native lanes at the same aperture, the exposure value will be the same. All the light is seen. Aperture is objective diameter divided by iris diameter. We can rearrange 50mm at f/2 means a 25mm iris (maximum aperture) where this lens has a 43mm thread. A lot of objective diameter is sacrificed on this lens to use the centre and be sharper. Some lenses correct the vignetting and corners by making the objective bigger than necessary and placing a ring around it, an extra iris, discarding the lip of the lens.
I've found the Oly 60mm f/2.8 Macro to be a bit of a game-changer on my G9. Similar efl to the TTA, which is nice, as it helps you to exclude non-contributing elements to a composition. But what sets that lens apart is its macro capability, which opens up new (tiny) worlds and changes the way you approach many situations (excluding even more extraneous visual "noise"). More on-topic, my only other non-Lumix/Leica glass is the Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 (totally manual--as you say, a good thing). The DoF wide open is so razor-thin (anywhere near the minimum focusing distance of 25cm) that I often need to stop down to avoid a ridiculous-looking image (I see too many examples of overdoing shallow DoF) but it's nice to have flexibility (and near night vision). It's also relatively inexpensive at about US$400. For comparison, the Voightlander equivalent (also fully manual and lacking waterproofing, but MFD = 17cm) is US$800, the Oly 25mm f/1.2 is US$1,200 and the "FF" Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is US$13,000--that's right--$13K! Of course, the TTA coming in at a mere US$69 is mind-blowing, and I must say that those bokeh balls are very round and lack onion rings. I must agree that whatever your budget, going all-manual at least some of the time is one of many great ways to help you break out of the complacency in which we all find ourselves from time to time.
I don’t recall saying it is better than yours. However, it is smaller and lighter and costs less so if weight and size or price is an issue….then it’s better. If super shallow bokeh is your thing then it’s worseI think after seeing this lens id be very happy with the 1.2 too.
I have the Oly 45mm f/1.8 for AF convenience and adapted my beloved Asahi Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 because I love its beautifully knurled manual focus and aperture rings, it's sharpness and the fairy dust it generously sprinkles on the images I take with it. I must say though, I use the 45mm f/1.8 far more frequently, but I do agree with many of your sentiments (not specifically about this lens, because I haven't used it, but for good, fast manual 50mm FF lenses on MFT in general). Also, the Oly 45mm f/1.8 is pretty amazing too and can be bought used for
I should add that I own a Pergear 25mm f/1.8, TTArtisan 17mm f/1.4 and Meike 28mm f/2.8 pancake and like them all a lot (these 3 brands are all part of the same family, I understand). I had quality issues with the Pergear and Ttartisan lenses and had to get them replaced. The Meike was perfect. People should be take this into account, since it can take a month for them to arrive from China and if you have to return them, that's an even longer wait.
Hi Brian. Thanks for sharing. Not being able to use focus peaking on the Olympus would be a deal breaker for me. I don't understand why it won't work on the Olympus. I have tried a number of manual vintage lenses and they all work fine with focus peaking.
Another way they keep the price low on these cheap lenses is to not do quality control. I always wonder if manufacturers pick one of the best examples to send to reviewers.
You may be right but what do you base the assumption on? I do however know people who have bought from both TTartisan and 7artisans and they have been spot on.
I have observed that the perspective or foreshortening of e.g. a 50mm lens is the same on any format, it's optics, the focal length of the lens. Only the field of view alters. That is like taking a FF photo and cropping the middle quarter area out. This is why a 45mm or 50mm lens still works for portrait where one might think a 25mm was needed, but the ubiquitous 20mm will make portrait features 'pointy'. And why the 45/50 makes a 'pleasing to the eye' photo.
A 25mm lens in M43 and a 50mm lens in FF shooting the same subject at the same distance will have the exact same compression, and visible distortion, that is they are completely the same. Equally, cropping a 50mm FF image to a M43 equivalent (a quarter of the area) will render the same as a 100mm lens on that same sensor. Only DOF and resolution would change.
Maybe pedantic but the crop is not because the sensor is a quarter the area (which it is) but because the image circle diameter is half, it's an optical thing not a sensor thing that gives us the "times two". Native MFT lenses deliberately throw an image circle diameter slightly bigger than the sensor diagonal to reduce vignetting and corner softness (which happens with all lenses on any format).
This is something many people miss. I only ever use lenses designed for the native sensor size.
When TTArtisans released a 25mm M43 lens for $55 American (plus $9 shipping to the US) I thought, what the heck? And ordered it. I noticed what you did with the 50mm full-frame: the 25mm is an APS-C lens, so putting it on a M43 camera takes advantage of the best part of the lens: the centre. it is crisp all the way to the edges, with no vignetting. This is something of a "game changer" for M43 cameras -- thank you for pointing it out.
And on my EM1 Mark 2 the focus peaking works! The lens has no electrical connections either, so... who knows?
I ordered the lens directly from Peargear in Far Cathay: it took about 10 days to get here.
I've just had a browse at this lens online, and I noticed that they have a 25mm f/2 which does bring my curiosity.
A common misconception using a FF lens on MFT is that it only sees the centre of the image, whereas the image is focused on the sensor, a slightly larger image circle than the sensor itself so that the whole sensor is encompassed. How do we show this? The f-stop is a measure of how much light. If we swap to a native lanes at the same aperture, the exposure value will be the same. All the light is seen.
Aperture is objective diameter divided by iris diameter. We can rearrange 50mm at f/2 means a 25mm iris (maximum aperture) where this lens has a 43mm thread. A lot of objective diameter is sacrificed on this lens to use the centre and be sharper.
Some lenses correct the vignetting and corners by making the objective bigger than necessary and placing a ring around it, an extra iris, discarding the lip of the lens.
I've found the Oly 60mm f/2.8 Macro to be a bit of a game-changer on my G9. Similar efl to the TTA, which is nice, as it helps you to exclude non-contributing elements to a composition. But what sets that lens apart is its macro capability, which opens up new (tiny) worlds and changes the way you approach many situations (excluding even more extraneous visual "noise").
More on-topic, my only other non-Lumix/Leica glass is the Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 (totally manual--as you say, a good thing). The DoF wide open is so razor-thin (anywhere near the minimum focusing distance of 25cm) that I often need to stop down to avoid a ridiculous-looking image (I see too many examples of overdoing shallow DoF) but it's nice to have flexibility (and near night vision). It's also relatively inexpensive at about US$400. For comparison, the Voightlander equivalent (also fully manual and lacking waterproofing, but MFD = 17cm) is US$800, the Oly 25mm f/1.2 is US$1,200 and the "FF" Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is US$13,000--that's right--$13K! Of course, the TTA coming in at a mere US$69 is mind-blowing, and I must say that those bokeh balls are very round and lack onion rings. I must agree that whatever your budget, going all-manual at least some of the time is one of many great ways to help you break out of the complacency in which we all find ourselves from time to time.
Totally agree on that 60mm macro, awesome lens.
I already have TTArtisan 50mm f/1.2 and very happy with it. How is this better?
I don’t recall saying it is better than yours. However, it is smaller and lighter and costs less so if weight and size or price is an issue….then it’s better. If super shallow bokeh is your thing then it’s worseI think after seeing this lens id be very happy with the 1.2 too.
As always a very interesting video! Keep up your good work!
I have the Oly 45mm f/1.8 for AF convenience and adapted my beloved Asahi Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 because I love its beautifully knurled manual focus and aperture rings, it's sharpness and the fairy dust it generously sprinkles on the images I take with it.
I must say though, I use the 45mm f/1.8 far more frequently, but I do agree with many of your sentiments (not specifically about this lens, because I haven't used it, but for good, fast manual 50mm FF lenses on MFT in general). Also, the Oly 45mm f/1.8 is pretty amazing too and can be bought used for
I should add that I own a Pergear 25mm f/1.8, TTArtisan 17mm f/1.4 and Meike 28mm f/2.8 pancake and like them all a lot (these 3 brands are all part of the same family, I understand). I had quality issues with the Pergear and Ttartisan lenses and had to get them replaced. The Meike was perfect. People should be take this into account, since it can take a month for them to arrive from China and if you have to return them, that's an even longer wait.
Hi Brian. Thanks for sharing.
Not being able to use focus peaking on the Olympus would be a deal breaker for me. I don't understand why it won't work on the Olympus. I have tried a number of manual vintage lenses and they all work fine with focus peaking.
Focus peaking works perfectly fine, with this exact lens, on my E-M5II and OM-1.
Works perfectly on the E-M10 Mark II also
I find I have to set a button to turn on/off focus peaking for manual lenses.
Get the 27mm 2.8 AF!
I uses a pentax 50mm f2 when I want a f2 at 50mm. its got a stuck adapter.
how does this compare to the vintage olympus zuiko 50 mm 1.8 lens?
I have both and the zuiko is far better by far
Another way they keep the price low on these cheap lenses is to not do quality control. I always wonder if manufacturers pick one of the best examples to send to reviewers.
You may be right but what do you base the assumption on? I do however know people who have bought from both TTartisan and 7artisans and they have been spot on.
I’ll stick with my Panasonic 42.5mm 1.7. I need AF. I don’t enjoy manual focus on modern cameras with evf regardless of sensor size or brand.
I have observed that the perspective or foreshortening of e.g. a 50mm lens is the same on any format, it's optics, the focal length of the lens. Only the field of view alters. That is like taking a FF photo and cropping the middle quarter area out. This is why a 45mm or 50mm lens still works for portrait where one might think a 25mm was needed, but the ubiquitous 20mm will make portrait features 'pointy'. And why the 45/50 makes a 'pleasing to the eye' photo.
A 25mm lens in M43 and a 50mm lens in FF shooting the same subject at the same distance will have the exact same compression, and visible distortion, that is they are completely the same.
Equally, cropping a 50mm FF image to a M43 equivalent (a quarter of the area) will render the same as a 100mm lens on that same sensor. Only DOF and resolution would change.
Does this have peaking on panny bodies?
Yes, if set on in the menu
🙏🌹🇮🇳 PSSPPP 🇮🇳 PALOJU JAI SRIRAM 🇮🇳🌹🙏
I don't mf shoot, so it would be a waste of money for me. Even though it's really cheap. Sadly none of these 3rd party lenses have af.