The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

7 Artisans 50/1.1

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
From the official specs, I was wrong. It is the same Thambar design with a reflective filter and all.

20X the price of a 7Artisans 50/1.1? One needs an Instagram acct, first.
I thought the centre-spot filter was opaque rather than reflective. No?
 

sjg284

Member
Pretty neat lens
Build quality quite good actually

Bought it
I didn't read enough to realize it doesn't get to infinity focus on the SL with Leica M-SL adapter.

Not sure if anyone else has firsthand experience with this combo?
I don't think a different adapter will help, as it appears to be a rear element protrusion issue

Of course my film camera is an M5, which I won't dare mount this guy on as that seems a good way to lose the metering arm... haha
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Steve, As per the included instructions, you can adjust the focus. This might get you infinity on the SL. However, if the focus is spot on with any of your RF cams, you should not adjust the focus.
 

sjg284

Member
Steve, As per the included instructions, you can adjust the focus. This might get you infinity on the SL. However, if the focus is spot on with any of your RF cams, you should not adjust the focus.
Thanks I was just thinking of this
I have no RF camera with which I can mount this camera anyway, so RF precision isn't important.
I was just measuring and its really only about 0.2mm too deep to reach infinity on my SL..

I'll try adjusting and report back, thanks!
 

sjg284

Member
OK so adjusted as much as seems to be possible

Got max focus on SL out from ~3.5m to ~8.
DOF scale puts infinity within range if I stop down to f5.6 or so

Better, but not great
Probably all the range I need indoors, and even for most street

If I had the tooling to nick a few fractions of a mm of metal off the rear protrusion of the lens around the rear element.. could probably get to infinity

I guess I could also shim the mounting ring itself?
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Hi !

did anyone try this lens on a micro4/3 camera ? Should be great to have an equivalent 100/1.1 ... any foreseeable problems ?

C U
Rafael
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Pretty neat lens
Build quality quite good actually

Bought it
I didn't read enough to realize it doesn't get to infinity focus on the SL with Leica M-SL adapter.
On the M-L adaptor, mine focuses through to about 5 metres very easily; from there to ∞ it's really stiff, but it can be done. On the SL it does seem to focus correctly at ∞.

It's quite 'soft' at full aperture, but much improved at f/8.

On the M240, there is no 'stiffness' of focus to get to ∞. Again, soft at full aperture, much better at f/8.

Using the rangefinder, it was focusing accurately when I got it; I haven't adjusted it.
 

sjg284

Member
I took a Dremel to the metal around the rear element on my lens and shaved/sanded off few fractions of a millimeter.

I now have a lens that will comfortably focus to infinity on the SL :-D
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I bought one for the fun of it. Take your choice of one of the following characterizations:

- a lens of unique character that provides highly atmospheric images.

- or -

- the worst lens I've every had. Outer third of image is blurry even at f16. I've got an uncoated 1938 Zeiss sonar that does a lot better (albeit not at f1.1!).
 

sjg284

Member
I think you've described the superposition of characteristics of this lens.
unique character with atmospheric rendering or soft/blurry/vignettey

@$350 its a fun superspeed lens
I've found again and again anything faster than f1.4 is not worth the trouble.
Soft, vignette, terrible CA, focus shift, not flat field, weird bokeh, huge, heavy, expensive.

So for the occasion you want to shoot in the absence of light its an entertaining toy.
I'm contemplating building a parallel stable of "character" primes and "performance" primes.

The VC 40/1.2 recently released caught my eye, but @ 3x the price of this lens.. some of the bokeh/CA/etc did raise some concern.
 

sjg284

Member
And we have neglected to post images.

Sometimes the characteristics work well...

Lower ISO and faster shutter to work in poor light

S1040476
by Steve, on Flickr

Corners / edge zones wouldn't matter in this photo

S1040542
by Steve, on Flickr

Shooting in near dark, just light coming in from streetlights & stove nightlight

S1040462
by Steve, on Flickr

Kinda dreamy

S1040528
by Steve, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

Brando

New member
From my findings not a bad lens, picked up a used one for half the amazon listed price and gave it a test run. The main issue I have found with it is there seems to be some color shift on the left side of the image in some cases. Otherwise can produce some halfway decent images if you focus it accurately enough. In the first image you can clearly see the magenta creeping in at the bottom of the image, all pics were shot wide open on M240.

L1009119.jpg
L1009136.jpg
L1008934.jpg
 

D&A

Well-known member
From my findings not a bad lens, picked up a used one for half the amazon listed price and gave it a test run. The main issue I have found with it is there seems to be some color shift on the left side of the image in some cases. Otherwise can produce some halfway decent images if you focus it accurately enough. In the first image you can clearly see the magenta creeping in at the bottom of the image, all pics were shot wide open on M240.

View attachment 131527
View attachment 131528
View attachment 131529
I know Edwin Putts has already written about his comparison of this lens vs the Leica 50mm f1.0 Noct among others, but I would love to see side by side comparitive pics between these two lenses with both at approx f1, f1.4, f2 and maybe f5.6.

Dave (D&A)
 

DezFoto

New member
I'm sure you're correct, Vivek. If I was presented with two identical images in which all the parameters were identical save for the type of lens used, I might be able to see a difference, but I couldn't tell which types of lenses had been used.

But, if I wanted to get the bokeh from a Sonnar lens at f/5.6, why not get a f/2 lens (I'm assuming that such a lens is available). Is there a difference between an f/1.1 and f/2 when equally stopped down?

To me, getting an f/1.1 lens and using it at f/5.6 seems similar to buying a car to do local shopping — but getting a Ferrari.

What am I missing?
To continue your analogy, buying an f/1.1 lens and only shooting it wide open would be like buying a car and replacing the gas pedal with an on/off switch. Anyone who shoots wide open 100% of the time is probably not much of a photographer.

To point, sometimes you want to have more of your subject in focus but still want nice bokeh, thus shooting at f/5.6 and other times you either want less DOF or you need to gather more light, thus f/1.1.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
To continue your analogy, buying an f/1.1 lens and only shooting it wide open would be like buying a car and replacing the gas pedal with an on/off switch. Anyone who shoots wide open 100% of the time is probably not much of a photographer.

To point, sometimes you want to have more of your subject in focus but still want nice bokeh, thus shooting at f/5.6 and other times you either want less DOF or you need to gather more light, thus f/1.1.
Or using only first gear in the Ferrari?

Anyhow, I'd guess that people use such wide lens today because they exist. And they exist because rare earth glass made them possible. They were necessary then because of the rather dim viewfinders in SLRs, and the slowness of many films. The original Kodachrome was 10 ASA/ISO; many digital cameras have a base ISO of 200 or so.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
More than a year has passed since the start of the thread. Finally, I have a sample and it was a delight to have it spot on with the RF focus alignment.

Just snapped a few to check the focus and such.

Wide open:




at f/5.6




Both on MM, no sharpening applied.
 
Top