TTArtisan 28mm f5.6

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Huss said:

.....I have Summicron, Ultron II and Cv 28 3.5 if I want a different look.  

You already had a CV 28mm f3.5 skopar and you spent another $300 on that Chinese thing? Are you mad?  You could have bought a roll of Portra 400 and processed it instead! 

The CV 28mm f3.5 is a very nice little lens,  especially in brassy black paint and it has a more sensible 39mm filter thread.  Such a good lens, in fact, that I never felt the need for a 28mm elmarit-m asph. 

It is still one of CV's best ever and it's long past the time since it should have been reintroduced in ltm and M mount.

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ray Vonn]

3 hours ago, pippy said:

Just for fun earlier on today I did a low-fi torture-test where I compared the TTA with a Voigtlander Ultron 28 f2 and a 28 Elmarit Asph v1. As the TTA only focusses down to 1m the snaps were shot at this distance(*). I used two apertures; f5.6 and f11.

As mentioned this was done as a 'just-for-fun' exercise to compare lenses and not an exhaustive Lines Per Millimetre test-session. For one thing the subject matter - books on three shelves of a bookcase - didn't have all the books on each shelf lined-up exactly on the front-edge of the shelves so there was some camera-to-subject variation going on(* again!) but, even so, it was easy to compare results as these variations were, if you like, a constant for all three lenses.

The results were as might be expected at a 100% pixel-peeping level. The Elmarit was sharper in the corners at both apertures. The Voigt. was half-way between the TTA and the Elmarit at f5.6 but by f11 these two were of a similar performance. Over the central-zone there wasn't really that much in it between any of the lenses at either aperture; certainly nothing which would make me think "I'd better not take that one out"...

Something else which should be bourne in mind is that the TTA was being used at MFD and Max. Aperture so was at a disadvantage straight away. If I get a chance I might try to do a similar test outdoors and with a more-usual (for me!) subject-matter.

Philip.

* The distance as measured from lens-to-central-subject-matter was actually 112cm. This distance, however, becomes 134cm from lens-to-top-left-corner-subject-matter which is an increase of some 20% so it was hardly surprising there was some softness as the lens wasn't focussed on that area of the image.

Many thanks, your comments I think are what many of us suspected.

[hdmesa]

5 hours ago, pippy said:

Just for fun earlier on today I did a low-fi torture-test where I compared the TTA with a Voigtlander Ultron 28 f2 and a 28 Elmarit Asph v1. As the TTA only focusses down to 1m the snaps were shot at this distance(*). I used two apertures; f5.6 and f11.

As mentioned this was done as a 'just-for-fun' exercise to compare lenses and not an exhaustive Lines Per Millimetre test-session. For one thing the subject matter - books on three shelves of a bookcase - didn't have all the books on each shelf lined-up exactly on the front-edge of the shelves so there was some camera-to-subject variation going on(* again!) but, even so, it was easy to compare results as these variations were, if you like, a constant for all three lenses.

The results were as might be expected at a 100% pixel-peeping level. The Elmarit was sharper in the corners at both apertures. The Voigt. was half-way between the TTA and the Elmarit at f5.6 but by f11 these two were of a similar performance. Over the central-zone there wasn't really that much in it between any of the lenses at either aperture; certainly nothing which would make me think "I'd better not take that one out"...

Something else which should be bourne in mind is that the TTA was being used at MFD and Max. Aperture so was at a disadvantage straight away. If I get a chance I might try to do a similar test outdoors and with a more-usual (for me!) subject-matter.

Philip.

* The distance as measured from lens-to-central-subject-matter was actually 112cm. This distance, however, becomes 134cm from lens-to-top-left-corner-subject-matter which is an increase of some 20% so it was hardly surprising there was some softness as the lens wasn't focussed on that area of the image.

The TTA 28 5.6 was plenty sharp for me wide open. It was the lower contrast wide open that I didn't like compared to the 28 Summaron reissue, which was super snappy even at 5.6. Maybe I wasn't shooting the TTA in the right light, though. I didn't have it for long.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The TTA 28 5.6 was plenty sharp for me wide open. It was the lower contrast wide open that I didn't like compared to the 28 Summaron reissue, which was super snappy even at 5.6. Maybe I wasn't shooting the TTA in the right light, though. I didn't have it for long.

Interesting to read that, hdmesa, because low-contrast has never been an issue when, in London, the sun makes an occasional appearance!

The camera used for my play-time today was an M-D Typ-262 therefore nothing in terms of a lens' profile could be set so bearing that in mind, FWIW, here is a patchwork - grouped by pairs - made up from the f5.6 and f11 images mentioned earlier. DNG to JPEG conversion apart these (obviously lo-res) are effectively SOOC. Not much difference in terms of contrast to my eye between all three.

Which pair (Top and Lower are f5.6 and f11) is from which lens? Voigtlander / TTA / Elmarit ASPH are the candidates;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Philip.

Edited July 13, 2023 by pippy

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, pippy said:

Interesting to read that, hdmesa, because low-contrast has never been an issue when, in London, the sun makes an occasional appearance!

The camera used for my play-time today was an M-D Typ-262 therefore nothing in terms of a lens' profile could be set so bearing that in mind, FWIW, here is a patchwork - grouped by pairs - made up from the f5.6 and f11 images mentioned earlier. DNG to JPEG conversion apart these (obviously lo-res) are effectively SOOC. Not much difference in terms of contrast to my eye between all three.

Which pair (Top and Lower are f5.6 and f11) is from which lens? Voigtlander / TTA / Elmarit ASPH are the candidates;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Philip.

I guess people in some parts of the world live low contrast lives, at least outdoors 😂

I've never shot the Elmarit, but if I had to guess, I'd say the TTA was in the center because it looks to improve from 5.6 to 11. The lens on the left looks like it was best at 5.6 and took a hit from diffraction at f/11, so I would guess that is the Ultron.

Edited July 13, 2023 by hdmesa

[pippy]

5 hours ago, hdmesa said:

...if I had to guess, I'd say the TTA was in the center because it looks to improve from 5.6 to 11. The lens on the left looks like it was best at 5.6 and took a hit from diffraction at f/11...

Although you have them slightly the wrong way around, hdmesa, your reasoning is (*AFAICR) spot-on. L-R they are Elmarit; Ultron; TTA.

It is the TTA which suffers most through diffraction probably (*again!) because at f11 the aperture is so tiny that by the time light has passed through there is an awful lot of work to do to cover the 36x24 frame without this amount of degradation in IQ. This is something I've noticed previously and with this lens I tend to stick to f8.

One thing which came out of this experiment was seeing by how much each lens required correction from barrel-distortion at this focussing-distance; a correction which I don't remember having to make with either of the lenses when using them under 'normal' conditions. Again it is the Elmarit which comes out on top receiving a +1 (at both apertures in P'shop). The Ultron was given a +2 (ditto) and the TTA had a +2 at f5.6 and +2.5 at f11.

As the images shown are effectively SOOC these changes had not been applied.

Philip.

* From such stuff as I can remember from 'Optics Theory and Lens Design' classes which, admittedly, took place a long time ago...

Edited July 13, 2023 by pippy

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

You already had a CV 28mm f3.5 skopar and you spent another $300 on that Chinese thing? Are you mad?  You could have bought a roll of Portra 400 and processed it instead! 

The CV 28mm f3.5 is a very nice little lens,  especially in brassy black paint and it has a more sensible 39mm filter thread.  Such a good lens, in fact, that I never felt the need for a 28mm elmarit-m asph. 

It is still one of CV's best ever and it's long past the time since it should have been reintroduced in ltm and M mount.

 

 

What Chinese thing are we talking about?  I'm expecting a BrightinStar 28 2.8 to be delivered today.

[Huss]

23 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

..The CV 28mm f3.5 is a very nice little lens,  especially in brassy black paint and it has a more sensible 39mm filter thread.  Such a good lens, in fact, that I never felt the need for a 28mm elmarit-m asph. 

It is still one of CV's best ever and it's long past the time since it should have been reintroduced in ltm and M mount.

 

 

yeah, not sure why they haven't.

[Huss]

16 hours ago, pippy said:

Interesting to read that, hdmesa, because low-contrast has never been an issue when, in London, the sun makes an occasional appearance!

The camera used for my play-time today was an M-D Typ-262 therefore nothing in terms of a lens' profile could be set so bearing that in mind, FWIW, here is a patchwork - grouped by pairs - made up from the f5.6 and f11 images mentioned earlier. DNG to JPEG conversion apart these (obviously lo-res) are effectively SOOC. Not much difference in terms of contrast to my eye between all three.

Which pair (Top and Lower are f5.6 and f11) is from which lens? Voigtlander / TTA / Elmarit ASPH are the candidates;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Philip.

You have the most colourful selection of books!

[SamMen]

Just got my TT two weeks ago. I have the Black version. I tested it and really enjoy it.

My question, has anyone coded their lens and does the camera read the code?

I have tried coding it multiple times, but my M240 says UNCODED LENS, when in Automatic mode. I do have the last available firmware on this camera.

I have coded it correctly, as I have another lens that I coded, a Canon 135 f3.5, and the M240 reads it correctly. I used the same coder template and paint.

The code used was from Akaralabs lens code list 001011. It is listed for the Summaron 28mm f5.6.

Thank you in advance for any assistance with this.

 

 

Edited May 1 by SamMen

[pedaes]

22 minutes ago, SamMen said:

M240 says UNCODED LENS

The 28mm Summaron-M may post-date the 240 and if so it will not be in the f/w. If you scroll through the lenses you can select manually you will know, if it is not there it will never be recognised. If it is there, keep trying!

[SamMen]

Thank you pedaes for your response.

I was thinking tyhe same thing, as I have been browsing the forums. The reissue date for the Summaron was 2016, so I was hoping that the new firmware, from 2019?, would have incorporated this in the lens profiles. 

 I guess not.

I will continue with my quest, until then, I will manually input the 28mm  f 2.8. If the quest fails, I will code the lens into submission, with the f2.8 coding, and go from there.

 

 

[pippy]

53 minutes ago, SamMen said:

...My question, has anyone coded their lens and does the camera read the code?...I have coded it correctly...The code used was from Akaralabs lens code list 001011. It is listed for the Summaron 28mm f5.6...

Are you aware, SamMen, that the optical design of the TTA lens has nothing in common with that of the Leica Summaron?

Just for clarification the Summaron uses, in essence, the same 6-Element in Four Groups in a classic Symmetrical Double-Gauss design as chosen by Leitz for their 1955 original. It is, by now, using a 70-year old formula and renders as one might expect.

That of the TTA, by contrast, is a (non symmetrical: non double-gauss) 7-Element in Four Groups design which employs glass with a high refractive index for elements 1 and 7 and one further lens (2 IIRC) composed of low-dispersion glass. It is a very Modern formula and renders as such (I have compared it directly back-to-back with an Elmarit ASPH v1 and the results were nigh-on indistinguishable).

As such coding the TTA as a Summaron might turn out to be a fairly pointless exercise; I really don't know one way or the other.

If you do manage to code it as something/anything, however, and the results obtained are improved by the effort then please do let us know.

Good Luck!

Philip.

Edited May 1 by pippy

[SamMen]

Thanks pippy, (Philip)

Yes, totally aware that they are different lenses, in all the ways that you have mentioned.

My intenttion was more in not having to manually select the lens, everytime I put it on the camera. I just want the EXIF data to automagically tell me what lens was used.

Edit: thanks for the tip on the Elmarit. I will have to try the versions in the camera and see what they do to the images photgraphed.

Edited May 1 by SamMen

[pedaes]

14 minutes ago, SamMen said:

I just want the EXIF data

Be careful you do not also get some vignette correction you do not need (as cautioned by @pippy ).

[SamMen]

I finally got the M240 to read the coding that I was able to put on the lens.

Read in a forum, don’t remember which one, that the M240 code reader LEDs might be more sensitive than the newer M digital cameras, so I added another layer of paint to the coded area. Success, the camera reads and displays the code and EXIF correctly.

Now to test the built in code and this painted code, and see what the results look like in photo processing compared to what the rear of the camera looks like, for each setting.

thank you all, once again for your support and patience.

sam

Edited May 6 by SamMen

[pedaes]

6 minutes ago, SamMen said:

displays the code and EXIF correctly.

 As in 28mm f5.6. Leica call it fraud😀