TTArtisan AF 35mm F1.8 II Review | A Surprisingly Strong Lens for $125

0:00
[Music]
0:06
[Music]
0:10
hi I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to give you a review of a somewhat
0:14
unusual lens Not Unusual in the lens
0:17
itself but the fact that we have a
0:20
second generation 35mm f1.8 autofocusing
0:23
lens from TTR Artis only about a year
0:26
after the first generation was released
0:29
very unusual to get such a quick
0:31
turnaround but TT Artis obviously took
0:34
in the criticisms of the first
0:36
generation lens and they work to correct
0:39
pretty much all of them not perfectly
0:41
but mostly and so now we have a lens
0:44
that is smaller and comp more compact
0:47
has a more conventional and thus a much
0:49
better lens Hood design has less
0:51
fringing has a better minimum Focus
0:54
distance and it is smaller and lighter
0:56
and even a bit sharper to boot and still
0:59
only cost a minimal $125 us which is
1:04
pretty much the cheapest price that I've
1:05
ever seen for an autofocusing lens
1:07
particularly one that really works so
1:09
well so is this a lens worth checking
1:12
out for just 125 bucks well for this
1:15
we're going to explore today's review so
1:18
start by taking a look at build and
1:20
handling this lens is actually going to
1:22
be available in at least three different
1:24
apsc mounts uh including Fuji X which is
1:27
what I've reviewed on here Sony E Mount
1:29
and then also Nikon Z all of those being
1:33
apsc so this is an apsc lens and so on
1:36
all three of these platforms all have a
1:38
1.5 times crop factor so 35 mm becomes a
1:42
52 1/2 MIM fullframe equivalent so
1:46
pretty much a normal nifty50 type lens
1:50
now as noted the lens is actually shrunk
1:52
and it wasn't because the first
1:54
generation lens was unnecessarily large
1:56
I don't think that was the case at all
1:57
but obviously they have found a way to
1:59
cond it down further and that is always
2:01
going to be welcome here so now while
2:04
the lens retains a 60 mm diameter it is
2:08
only 49 mm long so that's nearly 25%
2:12
shorter than what the uh previous lens
2:15
was it clocked in at about 65 mm in
2:17
overall length so now we have a really
2:20
compact lens not quite pancake compact
2:23
but uh you know let's say a pancake and
2:25
a half in terms of thickness and so
2:27
really a very compact lens the weight is
2:30
also dropped as a part of that it's now
2:33
176 grams for the mark I version or 6.2
2:37
ounces we retain the 52mm front filter
2:40
threads up front and we have a similar
2:42
metal body very nice feeling with an
2:45
anodized kind of black satin finish on
2:47
it all very nice certainly doesn't feel
2:50
cheap in any kind of way now what we
2:53
don't have is any kind of features here
2:55
really there is no ammf switch or
2:58
aperture ring you know custom button any
3:00
of those things there the only thing on
3:02
the lens Barrel is the manual focus ring
3:04
itself now that manual focus ring like
3:06
in the first generation lens is actually
3:08
quite good it's a ribbed metal it feels
3:11
good has a nice damping and weight to it
3:13
so not a bad manual focus experience at
3:16
all there inside we have nine rounded
3:20
aperture blades though I say rounded it
3:22
doesn't really do an amazing job of
3:24
retaining a circular shape here even at
3:26
f2.8 as you can see in this shot you can
3:28
already see it uh somewhat of the
3:31
aperture shape that is there those
3:33
blades there now as noted we have a much
3:36
improved lens Hood design the previous
3:38
generation Hood it was made out of metal
3:41
rather than plastic but that wasn't the
3:42
problem with it the problem with it is
3:44
that it came to almost what looked like
3:46
an anamorphic adapter kind of a
3:48
rectangular opening which means that
3:50
number one you couldn't reverse it for
3:51
storage number two you couldn't use the
3:53
lens hood and filters at the same time
3:56
and number three you couldn't even use
3:58
the lens cap when you had the Hood
4:00
applied so this more conventional design
4:02
here it solves all of those problems you
4:04
can use filters you can reverse it for
4:06
storage you can use the lens cap and so
4:09
a much improved design there now the
4:12
actual rear lens cap is designed as has
4:15
become kind of the standard for TT
4:17
Artisan's autofocusing lenses to where
4:19
there is a USB C port on it and through
4:22
that you can do firmware updates I've
4:24
already done the firmware update process
4:26
it's just a matter of uh attaching it to
4:29
your computer and dragging and dropping
4:31
and the update file into the folder that
4:33
will pop up for the lens when it's
4:35
attached and allowing it to do its thing
4:38
disconnect it and Away you go with the
4:41
new firmware on there really quite a
4:43
simple process one of the other kind of
4:46
main critiques that I had had of the
4:47
first generation lens is that the
4:48
minimum Focus distance was a really long
4:51
60 cm they've reduced that by 50% to 40
4:55
cm now now the magnification level is
4:58
still not exceptionally good that's
5:00
still not really close Focus for this
5:02
kind of focal length so I estimated at
5:04
about 0.11 times magnification not
5:07
exceptional but what is much improved is
5:10
that if you're shooting video for
5:11
example you're not going to run into
5:13
that limit quite so often to where
5:16
you're going along and you can't focus
5:18
as closely as what you would like so
5:19
definitely an improvement there overall
5:22
this is a really nice package and
5:23
doesn't feel like $125 lens at all so
5:28
how about autofocus we have a lead screw
5:31
type STM autofocus motor here and
5:34
obviously there is a little bit of
5:35
change at least in the implementation
5:37
because we do have a new Optical design
5:39
as a part of the lens itself now in
5:41
terms of the raw Focus noise uh there's
5:44
very little Focus noise itself what you
5:47
will hear is if you kind of go on and
5:49
off the shutter button you will hear a
5:52
little bit of clacking from the
5:53
apperture blades as they open and close
5:56
and so outside of that however there's
5:58
very little real Focus no noise I can
6:00
hear a little bit of worring and whining
6:03
if I put my ear right next to it but
6:04
there's not enough there that's going to
6:06
be picked up by onboard microphones for
6:08
example so no issues with that as you
6:10
can see here Focus speed is roughly
6:14
average I would say it's not you know
6:16
blazingly fast but neither is it slow
6:18
the truth of the matter is it averag is
6:19
much better than what it used to be and
6:22
so I for most situations I suspect
6:24
autofocus speed will be perfectly fine
6:27
autofocus accuracy seems to be fine I
6:29
used a Fujifilm xh2 body for this test
6:33
and with the most recent firmware and I
6:36
found that my autofocus performance was
6:38
fine Fuji remains my least favorite
6:40
platform for autofocus but even so I
6:43
felt like the lens ruler did quite well
6:45
and I've certainly used first-party Fuji
6:47
lenses in the past that I felt like
6:49
autofocus was a fair bit poorer than
6:51
what I'm seeing from this lens here if
6:54
seems to work fine all of those factors
6:56
so no real uh concerns when it comes to
6:59
BS now on the video front um there is
7:04
the news is a little bit more mixed uh
7:06
for one thing video autofocus is still
7:10
relatively unsophisticated on any of the
7:12
Fuji platforms that I've tested so as a
7:15
byproduct what you're going to see here
7:17
is some visible steps and as is very
7:20
common on Fuji it takes the form of
7:22
traveling most of the focus distance
7:24
there will be a split set second
7:27
hesitation and then a final Locker
7:29
adjustment and in some cases coming back
7:32
I noticed that there would be a a
7:34
secondary kind of micro adjustment there
7:36
and so unfortunately not like a
7:38
completely smooth or cinematic process
7:40
but you know goes part of the way pauses
7:43
finishes it that's it's putting the step
7:45
in stepping motor most definitely I
7:48
suspect that if you're testing or using
7:49
the lens on either Sony or Nikon you'll
7:52
see less of that with my experience from
7:55
having tested lenses on multiple
7:56
Platforms in the past it seems like Fuji
7:59
kind of exacerbates this problem because
8:01
of the autofocus system there so I found
8:04
the same to be true with my hand test
8:06
that it did okay going back and forth
8:08
but there is some visible steps along
8:10
the way so again not really a cinematic
8:12
process in pulling that so just be aware
8:15
of those limitations and of course if
8:17
you happen to be on one of those other
8:18
platforms I suspect you'll see a little
8:20
bit more confident autofocus performance
8:22
in general but at the same time I will
8:24
say this this is performing uh well
8:27
within expectations for this particular
8:29
platform form doing quite a good job
8:32
overall now as noted uh they didn't just
8:35
recycle the same Optical formula the
8:37
previous lens had a design of 10
8:40
elements in eight groups this new design
8:43
is 10 elements in seven groups and so
8:45
there's one less overall element in the
8:48
design or excuse me one less group I
8:50
should say in the design but what they
8:51
have added is an additional extra low
8:54
dispersion element so now there are two
8:55
of those along with two HR or high
8:58
refractive index elements that are in
9:01
the optical design the MTF chart itself
9:05
shows just a different personality and
9:08
so what I what I'll show here is I put
9:10
together a chart with the two MTF charts
9:12
from the first generation and the second
9:14
generation lens side by side and what
9:16
you can see is that overall I would say
9:18
that the Mark I lens is better however
9:22
it's not like better in a consistent
9:25
fashion in fact if anything the profile
9:27
the signature from the new lens is a
9:29
little bit more up and down uh and it's
9:31
kind of an unusual profile in that there
9:34
will be some fairly major dips that will
9:36
be corrected and then dip again and so
9:39
on and so forth but what I did find is
9:42
that in terms of overall sharpness
9:43
there's more of the performance wide
9:45
open over the 80% threshold than what we
9:48
saw in the first generation lens and
9:50
also I noted when stop down that the
9:51
lens is definitely consistently better
9:54
with a fair bit above that line the
9:56
other thing that's interesting is that
9:57
the first MTF chart the stop down
9:59
measurement was taken at f8 the new lens
10:02
the stop down measurement was taking at
10:04
f5.6 suggesting that possibly the lens
10:06
is achieving a better performance faster
10:09
than what the old lens did now other
10:12
thing that's worth noting is that this
10:13
is obviously a really inexpensive lens
10:16
and it just so happens that I got it on
10:17
Fujifilm and the Fujifilm camera that I
10:20
own and I test on is a 40 megapixel body
10:23
which is the most demanding platform
10:25
that I've ever tested on it's the
10:27
equivalent of over 90 megap pixs on a
10:30
full-frame camera so really really
10:32
demanding for the best of lenses much
10:34
less a cheap lens like this so I want
10:36
you to take my results as we move ahead
10:37
with a bit of a grain of salt so here
10:39
for example if I if I downscale the uh
10:43
the result at 40 megapixels to a more
10:45
typical 26 megap pixel resolution point
10:48
you can see that the apparent sharpness
10:50
and contrast at 100% magnification looks
10:53
quite a bit better and that gives you an
10:55
idea of how that the performance will
10:58
kind of scale out
10:59
if you uh you know deal with that in on
11:02
a lower resolution platform so moving
11:05
ahead I'll give you an overview here and
11:06
then of course as always the optical
11:08
Deep dive is available at the end of the
11:09
video if you want that I found that
11:11
Distortion was the same just a tiny bit
11:13
of pen cushion Distortion quite
11:15
negligible but the vignette
11:18
unfortunately is actually worse on this
11:19
new model maybe as a part of condensing
11:21
the lens that's part of what gave in
11:23
this new Optical design and so now I had
11:26
to max out the slider to correct for
11:28
that vignette now on a positive note I
11:30
did critique the amount of fringing that
11:32
was present on the first lens definitely
11:34
reduced on this lens overall I found
11:37
while fringing is not eradicated
11:39
completely there is definitely less of
11:41
it and I didn't find it to be any kind
11:42
of real world issue in any of my actual
11:45
photos outside of my test charts I also
11:49
found that looking at resolution and
11:51
contrast and again I'm I'm just I'm
11:53
hitting this hard so we're going to see
11:55
results at 200% magnification on 40
11:57
megapixels and so it's a brutal place to
12:00
perform and I would say that the results
12:02
reflect that uh the center is decent but
12:05
not exceptional the midf frame it
12:07
depends on where you look in the
12:09
mid-frame because there's a lot of that
12:10
up and down roller coaster that's there
12:12
some places looks quite good other
12:14
places less good the corner is going to
12:17
depend on that whether you're in that
12:20
last few percentage points towards the
12:21
end not terrible but not exceptional
12:25
either if you stop The Lens down to f2.8
12:28
you will some improvement improving
12:31
contrast a little bit uh more consistent
12:33
performance across the frame real world
12:36
results by f5.6 actually look quite good
12:38
and the truth of the matter is that I
12:40
found out in the real world looking at
12:42
results at 100% rather than 200%
12:45
magnification that uh it really looked
12:47
pretty decent uh not exceptional
12:49
particularly at wide apertures but you
12:52
know not bad either and so certainly I I
12:54
felt like it was all tolerable as far as
12:58
the performance it seemed like f8
13:00
produced the peak results a little bit
13:02
sharper than f5.6 then of course by f11
13:05
and then more so by F-16 defraction will
13:08
start to soften that image and that's
13:09
particularly true again on a high
13:11
resolution body like the one I'm testing
13:13
on bouquet quality is okay it's not bad
13:17
it's not ugly but it's not exceptionally
13:19
creamy or beautiful either again this is
13:22
a budget lens and I think the results
13:24
are good for the price point but not
13:27
great in an absolute sense
13:29
I also found that an area of great
13:32
criticism on the first generation lenses
13:34
that was very flare prom this one is
13:36
actually considerably improved
13:38
particularly in certain situations like
13:40
if I was catching window or window
13:42
lighting sun coming through
13:44
directionally I found that the other
13:45
lens was quite flare prone I had to be
13:47
very careful to not allow Sun anywhere
13:49
near the frame in this case it handled
13:51
that kind of scenario just fine now if I
13:53
was shooting direct into very bright Sun
13:56
I would see a bit of veiling and also
13:58
then some kind of almost like flashing
14:01
type look and as you stop it down that
14:03
becomes a little bit more apparent as
14:05
you can see here and so I mean codings
14:07
are obviously not Sony G Master Level
14:10
but it definitely is improved over the
14:12
first generation lens to a not bad or
14:15
acceptable category so my conclusion is
14:18
this this really is a fairly complete
14:20
little lens for
14:22
$125 the only problem is that in that
14:24
intervening time there have been some
14:27
other options that have come on the
14:28
market so there's more competition
14:30
that's there now uh for example this vro
14:33
35mm f1.7 air lens yes it is plastic
14:38
rather than metal it's a tiny bit larger
14:42
but it's also has a slightly brighter
14:44
maximum aperture um it's optically I
14:47
would say it's a it's somewhat superior
14:49
to the uh TT Artis lens and it cost
14:52
about $25 more at the moment so not
14:55
exceptionally more expensive so
14:57
obviously you're going to have to make
14:59
some determinations based on that so
15:02
there is a definite lot of improvements
15:04
that have come over the first generation
15:06
lens but in that intervening year
15:08
there's more options that have come as
15:10
well so I I'll leave it at this this is
15:12
probably the best $125 lens that I've
15:16
tested to this point and if you're on a
15:18
very tight budget this is really quite a
15:20
good lens and if that's what you can
15:22
afford then I don't think you'll be
15:24
disappointed with it I'm Dustin Abbott
15:26
if you want more information you can
15:27
check out my text review that's Linked
15:29
In the description down below also link
15:31
is there to an image gallery and some
15:33
buying links and now if you want a
15:34
closer look at the optical performance
15:36
stay tune with me and we'll dive into
15:38
the optical Deep dive together okay to
15:41
start off we'll take a look at vignette
15:42
and Distortion so as mentioned
15:44
Distortion to be basically looks
15:46
identical to what I saw with the
15:47
previous generation of lenses so it's a
15:49
very very mild amount of pincushion
15:50
Distortion you can see it corrected very
15:52
lineally in a manual correction anywhere
15:55
betweenus 2 and minus three will do the
15:58
job V that however is really really
16:00
heavy and you can see that it's very
16:02
very concentrated in those corners and
16:03
you can see here at least as far as a
16:05
manual correction it also almost leaves
16:07
a little bit of a discoloration because
16:09
it is so pronounced and so it actually
16:11
almost causes an color imbalance there
16:14
so you can see that a manual correction
16:16
is somewhat imperfect now there is a
16:18
lens correction profile that just came
16:19
out uh yesterday I believe and it does a
16:22
fairly good job of cleaning things up
16:24
we'll come back to this shot but you can
16:26
see this is a shot that's just received
16:28
that manual correct or that automatic
16:29
correction I should say and you can see
16:31
there's bright Corners they look nice
16:33
and bright and so it does a good job of
16:35
cleaning everything up so how about
16:37
fringing there's definitely less
16:39
fringing this time around now you can
16:41
see it's not entirely banished but it's
16:44
more mild and what I found is that in
16:46
real world shots it's definitely less
16:48
extreme so for example this shot here
16:51
lots of shiny reflective surfaces places
16:53
for there to be fringing you can see a
16:55
little bit of fringing here in this
16:57
particular frame here but overall a
16:59
little bit I would say in some of these
17:00
bouh highlights but nothing that you're
17:02
really going to notice definitely at a
17:05
global level you just don't see it and
17:06
it's really not particularly obvious
17:08
even at a pixel level so that's definite
17:10
signs of improvement now when it comes
17:12
to lateral style chromatic aberration
17:14
once again uh on my chart I can see some
17:17
you can see them here in real world
17:19
shots I really didn't notice it much and
17:21
so it's only at extreme levels of
17:22
magnification that you'll really notice
17:25
it this is the kind that's very easy to
17:26
correct for so I don't think it's really
17:28
a sign significant issue myself so
17:30
before we jump into the resolution I do
17:32
want to point out one thing just for
17:33
those of you that are a little more
17:34
eagle-eyed before a firmware update this
17:37
lens was not correctly identified in
17:39
Lightroom so it showed up as a to tokina
17:41
33mm f1.4 so which none of that is right
17:45
uh it's not a tokina it's not 33 MIM and
17:48
it's not f1.4 fortunately uh there's a
17:51
firmware update that has corrected
17:54
things so now you can see it shows it's
17:56
TT Artis 35 mm it's F1 1.8 all of that
17:59
now correct so once again this is on a
18:02
40 megapixel xh2 body it's shown at 200%
18:05
magnification so extreme torture test in
18:08
the center of the frame you know not bad
18:10
detail contrast not off the charts and
18:13
so it looks pretty good not
18:15
exceptionally good mid-frame uh this
18:17
Zone looks pretty good this looks a
18:19
little bit soft here as you can see and
18:21
that's kind of the nature of this
18:23
particular lens like there's some real
18:25
ups and downs and so again this Zone
18:27
looks good looks quite soft here the
18:29
weirdest thing to me is here where it's
18:32
soft in this Zone but it's sharper right
18:34
off near the edge of the frame and so
18:36
it's a little bit of a weird Optical
18:37
signature but the resolution wide open
18:40
is what I would consider okay but not
18:42
exceptional I won't spend a lot of time
18:44
in comparisons but here here's a
18:46
comparison of some real world shots both
18:48
shot wide open uh like a minute apart so
18:51
this is with the TT Artis on the left
18:53
this is with the vro 35mm f1.7 air and
18:57
so what you can see is that the vro is
18:59
definitely the sharper and higher
19:01
contrast of the two lenses um by a
19:03
pretty obvious margin there out in the
19:05
real world I felt like you know the
19:07
resolution and contrast looked pretty
19:09
decent there I mean there's nothing
19:11
wrong with this shot this is at uh f1.8
19:14
and you can see it's holding up pretty
19:16
pretty much to the edge of the frame
19:18
looking fine there another shot here
19:20
this is shooting more at a distance so
19:22
probably a little bit more challenging
19:23
and so you can see that in this Zone it
19:26
doesn't look bad it's not exceptional
19:28
but it's certainly not bad and as we pan
19:30
off this way you can tell it gets a
19:32
little bit softer towards the edge of
19:33
the frame just to give you a little
19:35
perspective on how this lens is going to
19:36
perform on another platform however on
19:39
the left side I've got the full 40
19:41
megapixel uh result on the right side
19:44
I've got a downsampled version at 26
19:47
megapixels which is both common on Fuji
19:50
and on Sony as well so if we look at a
19:53
similar point in the frame and I'll just
19:55
line these up a little bit better so
19:57
this is the exact same image but the one
19:59
on the right has been down sampled so it
20:01
gives you an idea of how the apparent
20:03
and I want to stress the word apparent
20:05
resolution and contrast is going to
20:06
change on a lower resolution body the
20:09
lens does not become higher performing
20:11
but what you can see at a pixel level it
20:13
definitely looks brighter higher
20:15
contrast all of those things and so that
20:18
is gives you an idea that you will get a
20:20
more sharp looking result on a lower
20:23
resolution body so if I compare f1.8 on
20:26
the left to f2.8 on the right right we
20:29
can see in the center of the frame that
20:30
while you're getting a more even
20:33
illuminated image it doesn't necessarily
20:35
look exceptionally sharper there by this
20:38
point in the center of the frame however
20:39
if we look in this mid-frame result
20:41
again while it's not like amazing in
20:43
this Zone it's obviously getting better
20:45
a better contrast and then as we look in
20:48
this area just the detail of the writing
20:50
and the contrast in this kind of graphic
20:53
design here all looking better down into
20:56
the corners don't expect the corners to
20:57
look amazing yet still quite soft in
21:00
this Zone but off towards the very edge
21:03
looking brighter looking better overall
21:05
now between f2.8 and f5.6 we start to
21:09
see some significant Improvement so you
21:11
can see that contrast and detail is very
21:13
very improved in the center of the frame
21:15
looking nice and crisp there likewise
21:18
the mid-frame result it's not
21:20
exceptional in this Zone yet you can see
21:22
but overall it's looking quite good
21:24
overall down into the Ed the corners of
21:27
the frame again not looking amazing
21:29
there looking over on this side you can
21:31
see a little bit more obvious
21:33
Improvement um when it stopped down to
21:35
f5.6 and that's true to some degree up
21:38
here though not as significant looking
21:41
now in the real world I felt like
21:42
results were a little more favorable
21:44
than what my chart suggested so this is
21:46
F4 um 100% magnification and again on 40
21:49
megapixels you can see that the detail
21:51
on the contrast in this image I think
21:54
most people would be perfectly fine with
21:56
that likewise in this shot at F5 .6 in
21:59
the center of the frame lots of detail
22:00
and contrast that all looks good and if
22:03
I pan off here towards the edge it's not
22:05
as sharp here in the corner but I think
22:08
I think again I think at 40 megapixels
22:11
just about anybody could live with that
22:12
too this result I thought looked pretty
22:15
fantastic and so here on the area kind
22:18
of that I was focusing on the detail
22:20
looks really really great and we can pan
22:22
off towards the edges and again there is
22:24
a little bit of drop off there but I
22:26
mean as I pan along here that's that's
22:28
lots of detail and it's not until you
22:30
get to that extreme Corner that you can
22:32
see a visible softening Now by f11 and
22:35
then F16 defraction will start to soften
22:38
the image however it's counteracting
22:41
that by the fact that I think at f11
22:43
we're seeing a more consistent result
22:45
here in the mid-frame and so and also
22:48
down into the corners looking fairly
22:49
good so I would avoid F16 but I wouldn't
22:51
avoid F1 cuz I feel like the gains
22:54
you're getting from stopping down are
22:55
not fully offset by the effects of
22:58
defraction now the minimum Focus
22:59
distance as discussed has been reduced
23:01
by 20 cm and so at 40 cm you're getting
23:05
a little bit higher level of
23:06
magnification we're not getting an
23:08
amazing result not bad but you can see
23:11
the contrast is still quite low and so
23:13
if you're shooting up close you may want
23:15
to stop down a bit to improve that
23:17
detail and contrast how about bokeh
23:20
quality you know it's going to vary it
23:22
this is not an expensive lens and so
23:24
probably at the extremes you're going to
23:26
see some diminished results but here I
23:29
mean contrast is just okay but and
23:31
Bouquet quality is okay there as well
23:34
this shot I like this shot I I like the
23:37
look of the foreground blur and all of
23:40
this I think is handled relatively
23:42
artistically no complaints there
23:44
actually really liked this shot it was
23:46
just some child had lost their Boot and
23:48
it was left on a rail right at the trail
23:50
head going into these woods and I felt
23:52
like the background looked really quite
23:54
soft here it helped that there was a
23:56
little bit of fog this day and so that
23:57
makes the back background looks softer
23:59
but again I I think the image is Moody
24:02
and quite cool looking in this shot of
24:04
these gifts you can see a lot of the
24:06
geometric deformation but it does create
24:09
a little bit of a swirl type pattern and
24:12
for some people that's going to be a
24:14
look that appeals to him and in this
24:16
shot I think it works this shot here you
24:18
can see a kind of a a deep transition
24:21
kind of threedimensional transition
24:23
towards defocus and again there's some
24:25
edging and some outlining in all this
24:27
that's not amazing but again for 125
24:30
bucks that's a pretty cool looking image
24:32
finally we'll wrap up by looking at
24:34
flare so a huge area of improvement is
24:36
in this kind of shop where there is lots
24:38
of light that's flooding through this
24:39
window but the Coatings are improved
24:41
enough that you can't really tell and
24:44
here stop down um this is I think f11
24:47
you can see a nice Sunburst effect
24:49
coming through there but contrast is
24:51
holding up well now in this kind of
24:54
scenario this is also at f11 you can see
24:57
that that as that Sunstar is kind of
24:59
growing there's some Prismatic stuff
25:02
that's happening we've definitely lost a
25:04
bit of contrast here and there's this
25:05
ghosting blob here at f1.8 it's not as
25:10
bad you got a bit of a flash here a
25:12
little bit of veiling across the image a
25:14
tiny but undefined ghosting pattern not
25:17
too bad there so flare resistance is
25:19
improved but it's not yet perfect so as
25:22
always thanks to those of you that have
25:24
stuck around to the very end of the
25:26
video and I hope that the optical deep
25:28
Di is giving you a better sense of
25:29
whether or not this cheap little lens is
25:32
good enough for you as always thanks for
25:34
watching have a great day and let the
25:36
light in

TTArtisan AF 35mm F1.8 II Review | A Surprisingly Strong Lens for $125

Dustin Abbott

Viltrox AF 35mm F1.4 PRO FE | Did We Need Another Viltrox 35mm?

S-LINE vs SONGRAW | 85MM F1.2 SHOWDOWN

Nikkor Z 20mm F1.8 S Review | Nikon's Best Wide Angle Prime?

Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S Review | Still the Best?

Tamron 16-50mm F2.8 A Review | Your New APS-C Zoom

TTArtisan AF 24mm F3.8 VCM Review | Full Frame $99 Pancake Treat

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Up next in 10

TTArtisan AF 35mm F1.8 II Review | A Surprisingly Strong Lens for $125

Dustin Abbott