7Artisans M-mount lenses

[NB23]

Thanks. When in doubt and insecure about my choices I will definitely read it.
Does it matter that it was written 8 years after I seriously started photography? I mean who knows, maybe I could have written that book, yeah?

 

[Toasty]

I don't have experience with the 50mm but I've owned the 35mm f2 since it first came out, and it's been stuck to my M2 pretty much exclusively since then. It's a really nice lens especially for the price. It's very sharp and classically rendering, it can flare though and does have some barrel distortion (I rarely notice it).

 

[Huss]

I don't have experience with the 50mm but I've owned the 35mm f2 since it first came out, and it's been stuck to my M2 pretty much exclusively since then. It's a really nice lens especially for the price. It's very sharp and classically rendering, it can flare though and does have some barrel distortion (I rarely notice it).

I find the 7A 35 f2 flares less than my Summicron Asph. It has mild barrel distortion vs the mild pincushion distortion of the Summicron.
It is just as sharp as the Summicron, as seen from my comparison shots below @ f2 with both lenses:




And it is absolutely delightful on film, here using an M7:



with a 1:1 crop showing the detail on film:



I paid $200 for this lens! That is cheaper than just the lens hood for my Summicron Asph!

 

[ciniframe]

Thanks Huss. Your sample certainly puts to bed the notion that only certain 'name brand' lenses can produce excellent results.
Personally I'm "Mr. Cheap', and tinkering with cameras is just a fun hobby. My guiding principal regarding lenses is; 'If I can mount it I'll shoot it.' This spans anything from a 100 year old Kodak Anastigmat from a trashed folder to a single element +5 (200mm) close up lens mounted on a 4X5. That said who am I to tell anyone how to spend their money. There are certainly folks out there that, like poster NB23, will only buy Leica lenses and more power to them. If not for that market segment Leica might not be able to survive.

 

[Huss]

Leica lenses are fantastic, no doubt. What is great about the 7Artisans offerings is you are getting excellent lenses with no worry. As in no worry if you drop it, ding it, scratch it - at least compared to a big bux Leica lens!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Huss is not going to sell his Leica lenses, just because 200$ used lens is "fantastic".
If RF lens is correctly aligned... they are all sharp. My Russian Biogon is as sharp as my 35 ASPH Leica lens.
I have seen different examples of 7A 35 2. Some of them are far from mild barrel distortions, but awful.
I also know what "some" are posting lens samples with correction done in Photoshop.
But here on ex-APUG some of us still prints in the darkroom.

 

[dnyc]

Allegedly the 50 f1.1 and 35 f2 are a sonnar design. I buy it. They have a sonnar signature to me. On film I think of them as vintage glass with modern coatings. You can’t beat their value. The calibration is fiddly but once you get it you’ll likely never have to change it again.

 

[rgeorge911]

I love Leica lenses and agree they are the main reason to buy a Leica rangefinder. I do use a Zeiss Sonnar 50 f/1.5 for its unique and gorgeous character, and a few CV lenses as well. But, my 50 Summilux ASPH is unbeatable in my opinion.

In the case of the 7A 50 f/1.1, I just know I’m not going to buy a Noctilux. If I do need to shoot faster than f/1.4 (rarej, the 7A does quite nicely. I was concerned when I needed to do the focus adjustment when I bought it. The instructions led me through it and now it’s dialed in perfectly on my M10 Monochrom. Center sharpness is excellent, in my opinion. I’m glad I bought the 7A lens.

 

[Huss]

Love the 50 1.1: