mudlake wrote:
Scott, what is your overall opinion of the 75/2?
I love the 75/2! I reviewed it on the ZF but talked with the Sony shooters here to compare notes on what I was seeing.
Once they sorted out the hard vignette issue (which by the way no Sony shooter ever claimed to see), it became a no-brainer in terms of value proposition. I use it for driveabouts all the time, the aperture ring is quite good, and overall I enjoy 75mm more than 85mm and feel less constrained while shooting. Center sharpness is really nice, bokeh is pleasing without having all of the flaws you'd expect for the price. I have quite a few photos in that review at the bottom.
RoamingScott wrote:
I love the 75/2! I reviewed it on the ZF but talked with the Sony shooters here to compare notes on what I was seeing.
Once they sorted out the hard vignette issue (which by the way no Sony shooter ever claimed to see), it became a no-brainer in terms of value proposition. I use it for driveabouts all the time, the aperture ring is quite good, and overall I enjoy 75mm more than 85mm and feel less constrained while shooting. Center sharpness is really nice, bokeh is pleasing without having all of the flaws you'd expect for the price. I have quite a few photos in that review at the bottom....Show more →
The main competitor in terms of size is the Sony 40mm f/2.5G, but the TTArtisan 40/2 is about 2/3 of a stop faster and practically the same size in length (actually 1mm shorter) and noticeably thinner. Which one is better really depends on how you feel about lens character as the Sony is better corrected for SA.
The TTArtisan has a strong outward field curvature, while the Sony's curvature is neutral. That means the Sony's rendering is more predictable...things that should be out of focus towards the corners stay nicely blurred. (Not the case with the TTArtisan because of FC)
The TTArtisan struggles with corner sharpness at wide apertures and only cleans up when you stop down to f/5.6 or f/8, whereas the Sony performs well even wide open. So, the TTArtisan definitely shows more imperfections, but it gives you stronger blur, especially around the center's OOF areas. Both lenses have noticeable chromatic aberration, especially axial.
So far, this is just from checking out online samples. I might grab one to try it in person. It looks like a nice lens for general shooting, definitely has some quirks, but ones you can actually use to your advantage.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The main competitor in terms of size is the Sony 40mm f/2.5G, but the TTArtisan 40/2 is about 2/3 of a stop faster and practically the same size in length (actually 1mm shorter) and noticeably thinner. Which one is better really depends on how you feel about lens character as the Sony is better corrected for SA.
The TTArtisan has a strong outward field curvature, while the Sony's curvature is neutral. That means the Sony's rendering is more predictable...things that should be out of focus towards the corners stay nicely blurred. (Not the case with the TTArtisan because of FC)
The TTArtisan struggles with corner sharpness at wide apertures and only cleans up when you stop down to f/5.6 or f/8, whereas the Sony performs well even wide open. So, the TTArtisan definitely shows more imperfections, but it gives you stronger blur, especially around the center's OOF areas. Both lenses have noticeable chromatic aberration, especially axial.
So far, this is just from checking out online samples. I might grab one to try it in person. It looks like a nice lens for general shooting, definitely has some quirks, but ones you can actually use to your advantage....Show more →
A very important distinction is the Sony MFD is only 9.5" vs the honestly quite bad 16" of the TTA. While you have shallower max DOF on the TTA at equal distances, the Sony will do some interesting things they TTA simply can't when even closer to a subject wide open.
This is a similar difference of the Nikon Z 40/2 and the TTA, and one that I think a lot of people with experience with either the Nikon or Sony lens would notice immediately if they like close focusing. I keep having to take a half step back with the TTA where I'm not used to doing that.
RoamingScott wrote:
A very important distinction is the Sony MFD is only 9.5" vs the honestly quite bad 16" of the TTA. While you have shallower max DOF on the TTA at equal distances, the Sony will do some interesting things they TTA simply can't when even closer to a subject wide open.
This is a similar difference of the Nikon Z 40/2 and the TTA, and one that I think a lot of people with experience with either the Nikon or Sony lens would notice immediately if they like close focusing. I keep having to take a half step back with the TTA where I'm not used to doing that....Show more →
For the size, yeah, the Sony's 25 cm MFD is impressively close...almost as close as the RX1R III in macro mode. I believe the magnification is around 0.25x, which is pretty solid. The TTArtisan only offers about half of that, with 0.13x magnification and a MFD of 0.4m. It's not bad, but definitely not very impressive. The main attractions are the low price, faster speed by 2/3 of a stop, and the same size, plus good build quality.
which, as Fred mentioned, is 1/4. Unfortunately the bokeh up and close with the 40G is... not great.
For a walkaround lens like the TTArtisan 40/2 I think the speed is more important than the MFD. It the smallest thing covering the whole sensor can be somewhere around 300-350 mm that should be good enough (to me).
I feel like both this lens and the Nikon Z 40/2 made certain compromises to achieve the F/2 aperture, and personally, that’s not to my taste. The bokeh on both the TTA and the Nikon isn’t very smooth. The 40G may not win any awards for its bokeh either, but Sony made it a dependable tool with lightning-fast autofocus, solid image quality, and a few other nice touches. The main problem with the G is its price. Here locally, I can get it new for 50% off, which is quite reasonable.
hiepphotog wrote:
I feel like both this lens and the Nikon Z 40/2 made certain compromises to achieve the F/2 aperture, and personally, that’s not to my taste. The bokeh on both the TTA and the Nikon isn’t very smooth. The 40G may not win any awards for its bokeh either, but Sony made it a dependable tool with lightning-fast autofocus, solid image quality, and a few other nice touches. The main problem with the G is its price. Here locally, I can get it new for 50% off, which is quite reasonable.
Kieran Haves, at 7:35 of his video identifies barrel shaped distortion while
Martin at phillipreeve.net gets pincushion distortion shooting a brick wall at somewhat longer shooting distance than Kieran.
As I said, it will be interesting to get the lens and see what I get.
hiepphotog wrote:
I feel like both this lens and the Nikon Z 40/2 made certain compromises to achieve the F/2 aperture, and personally, that’s not to my taste. The bokeh on both the TTA and the Nikon isn’t very smooth. The 40G may not win any awards for its bokeh either, but Sony made it a dependable tool with lightning-fast autofocus, solid image quality, and a few other nice touches. The main problem with the G is its price. Here locally, I can get it new for 50% off, which is quite reasonable.
100%. The Sony is very dependable for autofocus, especially tracking. The whole point of using an AF lens is to have reliable and fast autofocus, and the Sony delivers on that. Bokeh preference varies, but to me, overly smooth bokeh can feel a bit boring. The Sony 40/2.5 offers a more characterful rendering and produces very nice images overall. As you mentioned, it is more expensive than the Chinese alternatives, and compared to the TTArtisan it is almost a stop slower. I've ordered the TTA btw.
I think the TTArtisan 40/2 will pair better with Sony bodies modified by Kolari with their thin sensor. Its pronounced outward field curvature would be corrected by the mod, resulting in a more even rendering when shot wide open.
I appreciate this review because I don't learn much from video reviews (just my personal preference) and I often can't even watch them. This write-up taught me more about the lens. It shows that the TTA 40/2 provides great resolution in the center and mid-field even wide open, which is where it really matters for this type of lens. There is some coma, which I like because it adds a unique character to the rendering. There is a bit of veiling flare, which I prefer over super contrasty images, and not much ghosting. The vignetting is strong, especially wide open but also when stopped down. That doesn't bother me at all because I like the look.
When it comes to rendering, it makes sense that the lens looks smoother at close distances since blur hides many imperfections. The real test is how it renders at mid and long distances where the transition zone is visible without blur to mask anything. I actually like how this lens renders because it shows many interesting quirks.
Overall, I'm glad I ordered it even though I already have the Sony 40/2.5. I will compare both and if the TTArtisan AF is great on the Sony A7CR, I might not even need the Sony 40.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I appreciate this review because I don't learn much from video reviews (just my personal preference) and I often can't even watch them. This write-up taught me more about the lens. It shows that the TTA 40/2 provides great resolution in the center and mid-field even wide open, which is where it really matters for this type of lens. There is some coma, which I like because it adds a unique character to the rendering. There is a bit of veiling flare, which I prefer over super contrasty images, and not much ghosting. The vignetting is strong, especially wide open but also when stopped down. That doesn't bother me at all because I like the look.
When it comes to rendering, it makes sense that the lens looks smoother at close distances since blur hides many imperfections. The real test is how it renders at mid and long distances where the transition zone is visible without blur to mask anything. I actually like how this lens renders because it shows many interesting quirks.
Overall, I'm glad I ordered it even though I already have the Sony 40/2.5. I will compare both and if the TTArtisan AF is great on the Sony A7CR, I might not even need the Sony 40....Show more →
Fred, I know the Batis 40mm is larger, heavier and more expensive but for the sake of comparison in that FL and aperture, if you feel like including the Batis, I can send mine on loan to you for that purpose. Please let me know.
There seems to be quite some LoCA with the TTA. About the same as with the 40G perhaps.
In 2021 when I reviewed the 40G the images from the lens were considered "uninspiring" (I thought so as well, and I still do).
The reason for me to keep the 40G is the feature set which is great: One of the "best" manual focusing experiences with Sony AF, the aperture ring click stops are good, the lens is weather sealed, the AF is fast and silent, "sharpness" is very good, close focus is fine and there is a good focus lock button.
It remains to see in what ways the TTArtisan can do better! More interesting and perhaps less "modern" rendering? I hope so!
Jonas B wrote:
It remains to see in what ways the TTArtisan can do better! More interesting and perhaps less "modern" rendering? I hope so!
I think so. The rendering is definitely a bit more imperfect. From Martin's test, it seems the corners don't perform as well because the TTArtisan probably pushed speed and size beyond a certain limit. The compromises are just different. The design allows for more field curvature, vignetting, and lower corner performance in exchange for a faster lens without making it bigger.
Looks like size and speed were the main goals here, and those trade-offs have become part of the lens's unique character. Whether you like that or not is the real question.
