Up next in 10
TTArtisan AF 40mm F2 Review | a Tiny $168 Full Frame Gem?
0 views
Aug 2, 2025
Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a deep dive review of the TTArtisan AF 40mm F2 full frame prime for Sony FE and Nikon Z. Is this $168 tiny prime worth buying? | Read the Text Review: | Purchase the TTArtisan AF 40mm F2 @ B&H Photo Get the lens profile here: https://tinyurl.com/LKSamyangProfile Check out the DA Merch here: https://bit.ly/TWIMerch | Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/dustinabbott | On the Web: http://dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: http://bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: http://bit.ly/DLAinsta | Facebook: http://on.fb.me/1nuUUeH | Flickr: http://bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: http://bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu Follow Craig @ https://www.instagram.com/craigstoffersen/ Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at: B&H Photo: http://bhpho.to/1TA0Xge Adorama: https://howl.link/nt4zdz1goa7ql Camera Canada: http://bit.ly/DLACameraCan Sony Canada: https://www.thesonyshop.ca/?ref=abbott Amazon: https://amzn.to/3HrY64d Amazon Canada: https://amzn.to/3qG1p18 Ebay: http://bit.ly/DustineBay Into the AM Clothing: https://bit.ly/intotheAMda and use code DUSTIN10 for 10% off Fioboc Clothing: https://tinyurl.com/FiobocDA20 and us code DUSTIN20 for 20% off Make a donation via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/dustinTWI ============================= Table of Contents:
View Video Transcript
0:00
[Music]
0:11
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to give you my review of the TT Artisan
0:15
autofocusing 40mm F2 lens. Now, last
0:18
year I came to you with a review of
0:20
their 75mimeter F2 autofocus lens, which
0:24
was the first of their full-frame
0:26
autofocusing lenses. This is the second
0:28
in the series and it is coming to both
0:31
Sony E-mount which is what I'm testing
0:32
here today and then also on Nikon
0:35
Zmount. Throughout this review any of
0:38
the outdoor segments I will be filming
0:40
on the lens itself to give you an idea
0:41
of how it does in tracking me and also
0:44
how it does in rendering backgrounds and
0:46
out of focus areas. I'm filming at f2 at
0:49
the moment. So on each one of these
0:51
platforms it faces both a firstparty and
0:54
then a third-party competitor. On Nikon
0:57
Zmount there is the Nicor 40mimeter F2.
1:00
So a direct competitor there that
1:01
retails for about $299.
1:04
There is also the Viltrox AF 40mm f2.5
1:09
from their air series and it is
1:11
considerably cheaper at $168 which
1:14
coincidentally is the same price as this
1:16
TT Artisan lens. Now on Sony platform we
1:19
have that same Viltrox lens that will be
1:21
a direct competitor and then there also
1:23
is Sony's own 40 millimeter uh f2.5G
1:28
lens. Now the G lens is more of a
1:29
premium lens and it comes at a much more
1:32
premium price around $800.
1:34
So I'm not sure how much this lens will
1:36
be directly cross shopped with that
1:38
particular lens because of the
1:40
difference in price. However, this is an
1:42
interesting lens. I think for a lot of
1:44
people it's extremely compact. It has an
1:46
aperture ring, so and it build quality
1:49
is a little bit nicer than the Viltrox
1:50
Air series. It's not perfect as we're
1:52
going to see. However, it is a lot of
1:55
bang for the buck and I suspect for some
1:56
people this may be just the lens they're
1:58
looking for for a general purpose slash
2:01
walkaround kind of lens. We're going to
2:03
dive into it today in just a moment, but
2:05
first of all, I do want to say thank you
2:07
to TT Artisan for sending me a a testing
2:10
sample of this lens. Um, this as always
2:13
is a fully independent review and they
2:15
will not be seeing this content before
2:17
you do. Let's dive into the review. So,
2:20
let's talk build. The price, as
2:22
mentioned, is $168 and for that you are
2:25
getting an actually remarkably nicely
2:28
made lens. This is an all metal body.
2:31
It's metal and glass, metal mount, metal
2:34
body, metal rings, and then glass at the
2:36
front. And it does have quite a premium
2:39
feel to it. And it's really quite a
2:41
classic look here. They're not trying to
2:43
rock the boat with their designs here.
2:45
And so they while it's a conservative
2:48
approach, I think it largely works
2:49
because it just generally looks like a a
2:52
classic lens. So it has that black
2:54
anodized finish that we've seen on a lot
2:57
of lenses previously. I would say that
2:59
of the four lenses that we've discussed,
3:01
this is probably closest to the Sony
3:03
40mm f2.5G lens in terms of build
3:06
quality that is comparable in size and
3:09
and build. The Nicor lens and the
3:12
Viltrox are largely plastics. The Nicor
3:15
even has a plastic lens mount. Viltrox
3:17
has a metal mount, but it's engineered
3:18
plastics in its body as well. And so
3:21
they have managed to make this lens very
3:24
nice in terms of the build, but it's
3:25
also competitive in terms of the weight.
3:27
and it's because they've managed to keep
3:29
the lens extremely small. So, it weighs
3:31
in at just 167 gram or 5.89 O, which is
3:35
really lightweight. The size is 59 mm in
3:38
diameter or 2.32 in. Expect the Nikon
3:42
Zmount version to be a little larger in
3:44
diameter because it will flare out near
3:45
the lens mount to accommodate that
3:47
bigger Zmount. And it is 43 mm or 1.69
3:52
in in length. So, not quite pancake
3:54
size, but not a ton bigger either. It
3:57
has 52mm filter threads up front and as
3:59
mentioned it does have an aperture ring
4:01
and that feels just like well lots of
4:03
lenses. It feels good very definite
4:06
detents. Uh it has the one/3 stop clicks
4:09
along the way and then markings for that
4:12
and then there is a little bit more
4:13
pressure though not maybe enough between
4:15
F-16 which is minimum aperture and then
4:17
the automatic mode. So nice to have
4:19
that. There is however no uh custom
4:22
buttons or anything like that. There is
4:24
a metal mount as mentioned, but there is
4:26
no weather sealing there or any kind of
4:28
gaskets inside of the lens. Again, it's
4:30
$168. Most lenses in this kind of price
4:33
point don't come with weather sealing.
4:35
It does, however, come with a lens hood.
4:37
And this lens hood is metal. It is
4:39
probably the nicest lens hood in this
4:41
class. Um, it feels very premium and it
4:45
fits on there nicely. It's not large,
4:47
can be reversed for storage. All of that
4:49
is fantastic from them. Now, their
4:52
approach for firmware updates is not to
4:54
do a USBC port somewhere on the lens
4:56
itself, but rather they put it in the
4:57
lens cap. I would prefer it to be on the
5:00
mount like Viltrox does it. That's my
5:02
favorite of the various locations. The
5:04
cap just means that the rear cap is a
5:06
lot thicker than typical because it does
5:08
have some electronic contracts contacts
5:10
in it for doing the firmware updates.
5:12
But, you know what? It works. And so,
5:13
I'm glad that at least we do have that
5:15
option. One final thing to consider for
5:17
the build is that minimum focus distance
5:19
is unexceptional. Uh we have a 40 cm
5:22
minimum focus which is longer than any
5:24
of the other lenses and the resulting
5:25
magnification of 0.10 times is quite a
5:29
bit lower than everyone else. Next
5:31
lowest would be the Viltrox at 0.14 and
5:34
then the highest is the Sony I believe
5:36
that is somewhere in the 0.20 level. So
5:39
a whole lot more useful for that. One
5:41
final thing I will mention is that there
5:42
are seven aperture blades. The aperture
5:45
shape doesn't stay super circular and so
5:47
if you're looking for being able to
5:48
shoot at f5.6 six and have really round
5:51
specular highlights, maybe not the lens
5:53
for you. Overall, however though, this
5:55
is really pretty an pretty impressive
5:57
package for the money. It is a greatl
6:00
looking little lens and it is very much
6:02
little and lightweight and so all of
6:04
that is fantastic for a full-frame 40mm
6:07
f2 lens. So, let's talk autofocus. Uh
6:11
TTR has equipped this lens with an STM
6:14
focus motor, which is pretty ubiquitous
6:16
for this class of lens. Fortunately,
6:18
however, I do think that there is some
6:20
forward progress relative to the 75mm f2
6:24
as autofocus did seem to be a little
6:26
more stable in general. Now, you can see
6:28
that in my actual focus test that really
6:31
focus is fairly snappy here, whether it
6:34
be indoors or outdoors, focus moved
6:36
from, you know, point A to point B with
6:38
good rapidity and didn't seem to have
6:41
any kind of real lack of confidence in
6:43
doing so. Likewise, I found that in real
6:45
world shooting, my accuracy was good.
6:47
Whether I was taking photos of human
6:50
subjects, it detected the eye, it
6:51
focused accurately there. Or if I was
6:54
taking some shots of Ferrari, uh when he
6:56
was kind of laying and rolling around, I
6:58
shot at different angles. And whether I
7:00
was shooting in profile, shooting
7:01
straight on, you know, it it latched on
7:03
to the eye, it could see that it was.
7:05
And when I looked at the images, they
7:06
were accurately focused. Now, things do
7:09
change if the subject is moving. and
7:12
where this lacks either in the focus
7:15
algorithms or the speed. I I don't
7:17
really think it's speed. It's probably
7:18
focus algorithms because it just doesn't
7:20
seem like it keeps up with moving
7:22
subjects particularly well. So, if
7:24
you're looking for a lens that an
7:25
inexpensive lens to take pictures of
7:27
your kids or your grandkids, you might
7:28
want to look elsewhere because I think
7:30
that this lens might provide a bit of
7:32
frustration, at least as it stands with
7:33
the current firmware. Hopefully that's
7:36
something that will continue to improve
7:37
for TT Artisan, but right now I would
7:40
maybe suggest looking for someone else
7:42
if you have an active subject. For most
7:45
other things, however, for the way that
7:46
I actually use the lens for everything
7:48
outside of those moving shots Ferrari
7:51
really autofocus was quite excellent and
7:53
so I have no real hesitations outside of
7:55
that one caveat. So, as you've probably
7:58
seen already, autofocus for video isn't
8:01
too bad as long as I am moving in a
8:03
fairly linear fashion uh approaching the
8:06
camera as we've seen in some of these
8:08
shots. Now, as I come in towards and I
8:10
step in and out of the frame, you know,
8:12
it's not the most responsive focus motor
8:15
that we've seen out there, but but for
8:17
the most part, it's getting the job
8:18
done. What I did see when I was doing my
8:21
standard focus pull test that they
8:23
responded pretty well really and touch
8:25
to focus going back and forth. I didn't
8:28
see any kind of major issue there. That
8:30
did bring up something however that I
8:33
noted that I looked at again when I did
8:35
my actual test for focus breathing.
8:38
There is a bit of focus breathing but
8:40
what is more noticeable is that there is
8:42
definitely some shifting of the focus
8:44
plane. It's a little bit of a warping
8:46
that you can see uh with the plane of
8:48
focus as you move back and forth in
8:50
focusing. And so that definitely shows
8:52
up in going back and forth for video
8:54
work in a way that you wouldn't notice
8:56
for stills. I also noted that vignette
8:58
was somewhat situational depending upon
9:00
the focus distance. And so just uh some
9:03
quirks that I actually don't often see
9:04
in that kind of test that show up here.
9:07
When I did my hand test, because the
9:09
lens isn't super reactive, I found that
9:11
sometimes there was a little bit of
9:13
lagging going back and forth, but in
9:15
general, for the most part, it did
9:17
pretty good and I felt like the focus
9:20
transitions back and forth were
9:21
relatively confident. As you've seen for
9:24
the shots outside, if you're shooting
9:26
static shots, it's going to behave in a
9:29
stable fashion. And again, if I approach
9:31
the camera moving at a moderate and a
9:34
consistent linear pace, it does a good
9:36
job of tracking me and staying with me
9:38
on that. So again, you know, as long as
9:40
you have reasonable expectations for
9:42
this lens, it definitely does work for
9:44
video autofocus. Again, it's just not
9:47
the high-end kind of sophistication, but
9:49
frankly, it's $168 lens, and I think
9:52
you're getting pretty decent performance
9:53
for that kind of money. So, let's talk
9:55
image quality. We have an optical design
9:57
here of nine elements in six groups that
9:59
is includes two hyactive index elements,
10:02
one aspherical element and then one
10:05
extra low dispersion element. We look at
10:07
the MTF chart here. We can see that the
10:09
center is very sharp. There is a pretty
10:12
fair drop to the mid-frame, but then it
10:14
rebounds up towards the outer kind of
10:16
rule of thirds area of the midframe and
10:19
then it plummets again down into the
10:21
corners. And at f5.6, six, it does that
10:24
weird kind of climb again near the rule
10:26
of thirds. And that really is almost the
10:27
sharpest place in the frame. And so it's
10:29
not what I would call a conventional uh
10:32
MTF chart result. And I'll give you a
10:34
quick overview here. And if you want the
10:35
deep dive, that'll come at the end. We
10:38
can see that there is almost no
10:39
distortion. However, there is very heavy
10:41
vignette. I didn't need to correct
10:43
anything on the distortion side, but
10:45
vignette, I needed to dial in a plus 91,
10:47
which is nearly maxing out that
10:49
vignette. And as we saw earlier in the
10:51
video AF focus, we can see that there is
10:54
just that uh that vignette kind of
10:56
varies a bit depending on focus
10:58
distance. In this shot, for example, if
11:00
I compare before and after a manual
11:02
correction, you can see in this interior
11:04
shot that there's a pretty radical
11:05
difference in the look of the image
11:07
after that vignette is corrected. So
11:09
you're going to want to correct that.
11:10
And unfortunately, TT Artisan doesn't
11:12
always get the best profile support in
11:15
camera or for that matter in software,
11:17
unfortunately. Although if you look,
11:18
you'll probably be able to find a
11:20
correction profile once this lens has
11:22
gone to retail. There is a small amount
11:25
of longitudinal style chromatic
11:27
aberration fringing before and after the
11:29
plane of focus, but it's not excessive.
11:31
Uh likewise, a minimal amount of lateral
11:34
style chromatic aberrations near the
11:35
edge of the frame. But again, in neither
11:37
one of these are they exaggerated enough
11:38
that you're going to see them much in
11:40
realworld kind of results. Moving on to
11:43
sharpness, I am testing on a 61
11:45
megapixel uh Sony A7R Mark II for these
11:48
formal tests. And we can see here that
11:51
here off the test chart, if we look at
11:53
crops at 200% magnification, the center
11:55
crop looks very very good. Mid-frame is
11:58
still looking pretty good. And then the
11:59
corners are looking quite soft. And that
12:02
kind of mirrors what I see in a lot of
12:04
uh images outside that in many cases I
12:07
thought images look good. Though I will
12:08
note that the micro contrast is really
12:11
kind of situational. Always global
12:13
contrast I think looks pretty decent.
12:15
But if you're looking at a pixel level,
12:16
you're kind of a pixel peeping in
12:18
images. Contrast really is situational.
12:21
So in situations where there's um it's
12:23
not a high demanding situation. Contrast
12:26
looks better. In higher contrast
12:28
naturally situations, more challenging
12:30
lighting, uh the lenses the images tend
12:32
to look a little bit softer. Also, if
12:34
you're shooting near that minimum focus
12:35
distance, it just doesn't seem to
12:37
perform well there. It seems to be
12:38
optimized for a little bit further out.
12:41
So, you'll see better contrast in those
12:43
levels. Stopping down the lens, you see
12:45
a bit of a contrast boost uh by f2.8 and
12:49
then at f4 looking better. Corners don't
12:52
really start to look sharper until f5.6,
12:54
but I did note that I was never blown
12:56
away by corner sharpness, edge sharpness
12:59
in real world images. That's just not
13:01
where the lens shines. It's really best
13:03
used composing within the rule of
13:05
thirds, which is where most shots are
13:07
composed anyway. Defraction will start
13:10
to show up by f11 on a higher resolution
13:12
body and not be as bad by f-16 if you're
13:15
using the Nikon Zmount version. Even on
13:17
the 45 megapixel sensor there,
13:19
defraction will be a little less
13:21
exaggerated because it's a lower
13:22
resolution point than what I'm doing
13:24
here on Sony. The bokeh quality for a
13:27
40mm f2 is, I would say, generally
13:30
fairly good. This is not the kind of
13:32
lens that's going to crush backgrounds.
13:34
However, I would say the quality of the
13:36
background blur is typically pleasant
13:38
and in some advantageous situations.
13:40
Really very nice. And so I I'm going to
13:43
give it, you know, passing marks on
13:45
that. I would say probably the Nicor and
13:47
the Sony, the more premium lenses
13:49
probably have the nicest out of focus
13:51
rendering of these lenses, but I would
13:53
say that the the TT Artisans is not far
13:56
off of that. Likewise, colors are good.
13:59
Not exceptional, but I would say good.
14:00
and images that I took of the the lens
14:03
as I'm just looking at the images
14:04
themselves. I thought that they really
14:06
looked quite nice and so I'm happy with
14:08
that. Likewise, flare resistance is
14:10
somewhat of a mixed bag. Uh I found that
14:12
at large apertures mostly I didn't have
14:15
issues with any kind of flare and even
14:17
stop down I mostly didn't have issues.
14:19
There's just very certain positions
14:21
where you can get more ghosting
14:22
artifacts. So if you're careful with
14:24
your composition, I think that flare
14:25
won't be any kind of significant issue
14:27
for you. So, in summation, there are
14:30
some minor flaws and quirks here, but by
14:33
and large, I was able to get a lot of
14:34
images that I really liked. And again,
14:37
it's 168 bucks. That's pretty good
14:39
optical bang for the buck. So, in
14:41
conclusion, I would say that the TT
14:43
Artisan AF 40mm f2 is an interesting
14:47
option here on this platform. I
14:49
definitely like the form factor. It's
14:52
very compact. I like the build quality.
14:54
The materials feel nice there. And while
14:56
we don't have anything like weather
14:58
sealing, the addition of the aperture
14:59
ring is a nice bonus relative to
15:02
something like the Viltrox Air series
15:04
lens. Not to mention the fact that the
15:06
TT Artisan is a is that an F2 rather
15:10
than f2.5 lens. And so giving us that
15:13
additional light gathering capability.
15:15
And obviously at a price point of $168,
15:18
while the lens has some flaws, at that
15:21
kind of price, I feel like you probably
15:23
would be willing to overlook some of
15:24
those flaws. particularly considering
15:26
the fact that while image quality is not
15:28
pin sharp always at 100% magnification
15:31
on a super high resolution body like
15:33
what I've been shooting it on, it's
15:35
still the images it produces are very
15:37
good and very credible all across a
15:39
frame except for maybe just the outside
15:41
edges. And so, you know, I think that
15:43
for most people the image quality is
15:45
going to suffice. Autofocus performance
15:47
is probably enough and at the end of the
15:50
day it's a lot of lens and a lot of fun
15:53
for that kind of money. Looking back
15:56
seven or eight years ago, we would have
15:58
been delighted to get a lens of this
16:00
kind of quality for this kind of money.
16:03
So, the truth of the matter is is that
16:04
while a lot of things have gotten a lot
16:06
more expensive in recent years, camera
16:08
lenses in many ways, at least when it
16:10
comes to the budget end of things, have
16:12
really gotten cheaper actually. And so,
16:14
we are getting more for our money than
16:16
really what we ever have before. Hard to
16:18
argue with that. So, I hope TTR keeps it
16:20
up because they do have a unique take on
16:23
things. cuz it is different from the
16:24
Viltrox Air series and I think is going
16:26
to appeal to a certain kind of buyer.
16:28
Now, if you want more information, you
16:30
can check out my full text review which
16:31
is linked in the description down below.
16:33
And then also, I have a deeper dive into
16:36
the optical performance that we'll jump
16:37
into right into right after this for
16:39
those of you that are interested. Let's
16:40
take a look. So, we'll start by taking a
16:42
look at vignette and distortion.
16:44
Distortion basically doesn't exist. It's
16:46
almost perfect. I didn't see anything
16:48
worth correcting. Vignette on the other
16:50
hand is very heavy and a little bit
16:53
situational as we saw. You can see that
16:55
even using that plus 91 to correct it
16:58
takes all of that to definitely clear it
17:00
up. And in many situations you're going
17:01
to want to clear that up. Again, here's
17:03
a look toggling back and forth between
17:06
here's uncorrected, corrected,
17:07
uncorrected, corrected. It's a radical
17:10
difference and in many situations you'll
17:12
want that correction done. Now
17:14
longitudinal style chromatic aberrations
17:16
are not strong. You can see a little bit
17:18
of magenta before, a little bit of green
17:20
afterward. Not a big deal. If I take a
17:22
look at this image and I look at, you
17:25
know, fringing and things going out of
17:28
focus, I don't really see a whole lot of
17:31
fringing there. So, I'm not particularly
17:33
concerned about that. Uh, in this shot,
17:36
you can see that yes, there is a bit of
17:39
that kind of false color fringing that's
17:41
taking place on these transitions here
17:43
at the edge of the frame. It's it's
17:45
visible. Uh I didn't see it a lot in
17:47
real world shots, but there is some of
17:50
that present. So taking a look at our
17:52
overall contrast and resolution here. So
17:55
this is 61 megapixels on the A7R Mark 5.
17:58
This is 200% magnification. Center of
18:01
the frame, this lens resolves the
18:02
center. No problems at all. Good detail,
18:04
pretty good contrast. Looking over to
18:06
the midframe here, you can see it's a
18:09
little bit softer. Details aren't as
18:11
finely rendered, but you know, frankly,
18:13
it really doesn't look bad there. If I
18:15
pan down this way, we can see that yes,
18:18
there's some softening, but it's not
18:20
really all that different between here
18:21
and here. As we move out towards the
18:24
corner, it does definitely get softer.
18:26
And you can see that contrast is
18:28
diminishing here as well. Popping around
18:31
really quickly, we can see that this
18:33
side looks pretty much the same. This
18:35
looks largely the same. And up here,
18:38
again, largely the same. It's mostly
18:40
that drop off towards the edge where
18:42
where it's starting to really lose
18:44
resolution, but centering looks fine
18:46
here. So, for a frame of reference, here
18:49
is the Viltrox 40mm f2.5, and of course,
18:52
it's at f2.5 versus u f2 for the TT
18:56
Artisan. So, you can see that the
18:59
Viltrox has probably a little bit less
19:02
resolution, but also a little bit more
19:04
contrast in the center of the frame. Uh,
19:07
that's bill has changed. So, let's pop
19:09
down here. I would say in this zone,
19:11
there's no question that the Viltrox is
19:13
stronger very obviously here versus
19:16
here. Viltrox is better there. Moving
19:18
down into the corners, the Viltrox is
19:20
also sharper there. And so, um, maybe a
19:24
little less sharp in the center, but
19:25
with a little bit better contrast, but a
19:27
more consistent, uh, sharpness profile.
19:30
As we look across the frame, we can see
19:32
that it just looks better. So, putting
19:34
that in real world context. And so here
19:37
at 100% magnification on a real world
19:39
subject, I think that detail and
19:41
contrast look perfectly fine there.
19:43
Doubt you would really want much more
19:45
than that. In this shot of Ferrari,
19:47
again, it looks pretty good. Um, at this
19:50
range, a little bit further out, this is
19:51
a good distance for the lens. If you get
19:53
towards the closest part, that starts to
19:56
drop a bit. And likewise, I thought this
19:58
here looked good. Not exceptionally
20:00
good, but pretty good detail and
20:01
contrast there. And a fairly decently uh
20:04
defocused background. Now, stopping on
20:07
down, you can we can see some progress
20:09
in the center of the frame. Just a
20:10
little bit more detail and a little bit
20:12
more contrast. Elsewhere, I'm not yet
20:15
really seeing it. I think that there is
20:16
a bit more contrast there. The corners
20:19
are still looking pretty soft, however,
20:22
and so no radical improvement there. We
20:25
can see even at f4, there isn't a big
20:27
improvement over here near the extreme
20:29
corner. By f.6, however, it is starting
20:32
to look better. And we can see if we pop
20:35
up here for example again it's not super
20:37
sharp but you can see that that contrast
20:40
is improving. You can also see however
20:42
that there is that fringing that is that
20:44
kind of gets a little bit more
20:45
pronounced as you stop the lens down. So
20:48
by f11 defraction will start to soften
20:50
the image somewhat. And then you can see
20:52
by f-16 it's quite a bit more obvious.
20:54
And so you might want to avoid that here
20:56
on Sony unless you're shooting with one
20:58
of the lower resolution bodies. And
21:00
probably on Nikon it won't be quite as
21:02
bad. So our minimum focus distance is
21:05
not great and our magnification is not
21:07
great and neither is up close image
21:09
quality very great. And so this is not a
21:12
strength for this lens. So don't buy it
21:15
if you're wanting to use it at close
21:16
focus distances. Now bokeh quality uh in
21:20
some situations I think looks really
21:21
nice. There's almost a bit of a swirl
21:23
effect here that I think really works
21:25
for this type of image. And the
21:27
background is, you know, this image I
21:30
like. I actually like the image a lot. I
21:31
think the detail and contrast look
21:33
pretty decent. And the image as a whole
21:35
I'm partial to. Likewise here, this with
21:38
more of room defocus. And I think again
21:41
it's handling it pretty well. There's
21:42
not a lot of hard edges there. And so
21:44
again, it just it looks like nice. And
21:47
likewise here, you know, because of the
21:49
focal length, the background is not
21:52
strongly blurred, but I think the
21:53
quality of it is fairly good. It's
21:55
fairly soft there. So, no complaints
21:57
about that. Likewise, the colors, you
22:00
know, again, images looked good. I will
22:02
note that I think part of what makes the
22:04
edges look maybe a little less good is
22:07
the fact that there is some of that
22:08
lateral chromatic aberrations and so it
22:10
just it kind of impacts the edges. But
22:12
here, I actually, and by the way, it
22:15
shows that Ibis did a good job. I wanted
22:17
to drag the shutter to stretch the water
22:19
a little bit. So, this is just a
22:20
onetenth of a second shutter. But you
22:23
can we as we've panned around even on 61
22:25
megapixels you've seen that the image is
22:27
nice and stable. So I mean it can
22:29
produce nicel looking images. Flare is
22:31
yeah it's a bit of a mixed bag. So this
22:33
is f5.6. So we're starting to get a look
22:35
at the sun star but you can see little
22:37
bits of ghosting artifacts here at f2.
22:40
There's a little bit of a a prismatic
22:42
pattern there and a bit of a ghosting
22:44
artifact here as you stop the lens down
22:46
here at f-16. we get a more defined
22:48
sunburst, but also more defined ghosting
22:51
artifacts. And likewise here, this is
22:54
one of the one of the bad positions
22:56
where you're just getting both a that
22:58
blob right there is is an image killer.
23:00
And even this prismatic stuff, I don't
23:02
love that. It's a little too dominant.
23:04
Likewise here with the if we move up
23:06
just near the corner, you can see you
23:08
start to get that big ghosting blob. So,
23:10
I mean, I like it best here where it's
23:13
just that little bit of a a glow added
23:16
to the image. I think it does shift
23:18
colors maybe a little bit. So coatings
23:20
are not amazing here, but I can live
23:22
with this. Stop down, not so much. So
23:25
thanks to those of you who have stuck
23:27
around for the full image quality
23:29
segment, and I hope that it has helped
23:31
you, that deep dive has helped you to
23:32
decide whether or not this is the lens
23:34
that you're looking for. As always,
23:36
thanks for watching. Have a great day,
23:38
and let the light in.
23:40
[Music]
#Camera & Photo Equipment
#Film & TV Industry
#Online Media