M mount lens explosion!

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back to the original question about the lenses: I've tried a few of the TTA & 7A lenses, and I'd agree with the above idea that TTA seem to be higher quality - but the 7A lenses I tired were very early ones. Overall design and manufacturing quality seem very good, and the optical performance can be OK. The lenses I've tried tend to suffer from "veiling flare" with light sources just outside the frame. I've noticed that the edges of the lens elements don't appear to be painted flat black like Leica, which can certainly add to the flare issue, and the inside rear of the barrels tend to also be shiny, even if black. Better attention to such details could help the optical performance. The last I bought was a TTA 35 f1.4, but the size and weight were too much for me to try it seriously. Because of the low cost trying them was an easy choice for my curiosity, but I don't plan to try more of the 7A or TTA offerings. I might try the LLL 8-element copy though, as the Leica original I have is a goggled version and it would be an interesting comparison.

The only additional lenses that appeal to me are all Voigtlander - Leica's exotic designs leave me cold.

[Advertisement]

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

[Danner]

4 hours ago, pippy said:

Are the Chinese M-mount bodies really that good?

Philip.

To my knowledge, they don't exists.  I was thinking much lower cost, and more accurate shutter times.

[pippy]

4 minutes ago, Danner said:

To my knowledge, they don't exists.  I was thinking much lower cost, and more accurate shutter times.

Ah!

In that case you must have missed posts #7 to #9 on the previous page. Here is one link (from #9) which might be of interest;

https://kimon.hosting.nyu.edu/physical-electrical-digital/items/show/1241

Philip.

[RexGig0]

If this discussion is meant to be like a poll, well, I have not yet felt any compelling desire to acquire any of the Chinese-made lenses. Cosina Voigtlander, and Zeiss ZM lenses, yes, but nothing yet, from China. I have seen some Speed Panchro II images, posted on-line, that I Iiked, but have also seen far more that I found annoying, so, decided that I would probably not use such character/rendering, in my shooting, having already owned a Leica lens known for its early vintage character, when used wide-open, but which I have always tended to stop-down.

[KFo]

I find the various modern copy lenses by chinese makers uninteresting.  Mostly because I’d already acquired the Leica versions of what interests me so I don’t need the copies and don’t feel the need to experiment for the sake of experimenting.  But really do these lenses add that much value to the 100 year library of Leica LTM and M mount lenses?

Edited April 15, 2024 by KFo

[Al Brown]

There are two major problems with Chinese lenses (I have used, abused, broken, inspected from inside and tested a fair amount of them):

- Quality control. Getting a great, not decentered copy with firm mount and all the gears not grinding or being to loose is as random as the answers on this forum - sometimes you get a great one and sometimes it is just an unprovoked insult to fill someone's ego.
- Build quality inside. So many people say these lenses are "built like a tank" yet 99,97% have never seen one from the inside. From the plastic diaphragm blade holders to super fragile helicoid mechanisms that go out of alignment at the slightest encounter with any hard surface, these lenses are most surely not built for any abuse.

Other than that, the image quality can be quite good and the price-performance ratio is unbeatable. Even Peter Karbe was scratching his head on how the Chinese could build a knock-off of his Noctilux and offer it so cheaply (at 1:55:11). He said "design wise it looks good, but who paid the price for it being so cheap?" and comments on the (non)durability.

 

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own and have used often the TTArtisan 11/2.8 fisheye M lens both on digital and with my film-based M cameras. I also have the much more expensive Canon 8-15/4 EF lens for my DSLR camera. The quality of this TTArtisan lens stands in nothing behind the Canon lens - I can't see a difference optically at the same focal length and f-stop applied. The TTArtisan lens has no rangefinder coupling, but is very easy to zone focus - only an issue when getting very close to a subject. 

The photos I have taken with this lens speak for themselves - I couldn't be more happy with it. Neither Leica nor Voigtlander currently make any ultrawide fisheye lens for M-mount. I am glad this Chinese manufacturer saw the niche to fill. I have not used any other Chinese-branded M-lens, but I would certainly consider if I see use for any of them in my photography. 

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!

TTArtisan 11/2.8 M-lens @ f/8.0 with FP4+ 125 film

 

TTArtisan 11/2.8 M-lens @ f/4.0 with Leica M-E 240 and focused with LiveView

 

TTArtisan 11/2.8 M-lens @ f/8.0 with Leica MM 246 

 

TTArtisan 11/2.8 M-lens @ f/2.8 with Leica MM 246 

[Martin B]

59 minutes ago, KFo said:

I find the various modern copy lenses by chinese makers uninteresting.  Mostly because I’d already acquired the Leica versions of what interests me so I don’t need the copies and don’t feel the need to experiment for the sake of experimenting.  But really do these lenses add that much value to the 100 year library of Leica LTM and M mount lenses?

I am in the same boat regarding redundancy with M-lenses which I already have. But if I plan a trip and might venture in let's say - lesser safe - areas, I might simply get a cheaper Chinese M- lens instead of using my $$$$ Leica lens. I know that this defeats the purpose of using the Leica M lens to its fullest, but I really don't like to be robbed or stolen from when it comes to venturing into such scenario. I also think that these kind of good in quality but for lower price available Chinese M lenses are an excellent option for new users of Leica gear to start out with. 

[Martin B]

30 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Even Peter Karbe was scratching his head on how the Chinese could build a knock-off of his Noctilux and offer it so cheaply (at 1:55:11). He said "design wise it looks good, but who paid the price for it being so cheap?" and comments on the (non)durability.

 

Reason for it is the Chinese government heavily subsidizing their companies to enter Western markets.  

[RexGig0]

An additional reason I tend to disregard Chinese lenses is that I started Leica M shooting with a specific Leica M lens, that I had been researching for some time, before trying one at a Leica dealer, on pre-owned and demonstrator M9 and M Type 240 cameras, coached by patient employees. I decided to buy that specific pre-owned Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, before I knew which M-mount camera I would be acquiring, to complete the combination. This is still my favorite lens. As I see it, I started at the top. I have added third-party lenses, but I did so because they were really good lenses, rather than because they were relatively less expensive.
 

Notably, in 2010, when I was deciding which DSLR system I would become my primary system, I tended to favor a specific Nikon DSLR, but, it was more important to have the best possible image-stabilized macro lens, which I would use in all weather conditions. The Canon EOS EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS was considerably better than its 105mm Nikon competitor. I chose Canon, because of the lens. In 2018, I added the Leica M system, because of a lens.
 

Some people choose a camera, and then add a lens, almost as an afterthought. I am the opposite, prioritizing  lenses. 

Edited April 15, 2024 by RexGig0

[Martin B]

14 hours ago, RexGig0 said:

An additional reason I tend to disregard Chinese lenses is that I started Leica M shooting with a specific Leica M lens, that I had been researching for some time, before trying one at a Leica dealer, on pre-owned and demonstrator M9 and M Type 240 cameras, coached by patient employees. I decided to buy that specific pre-owned Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, before I knew which M-mount camera I would be acquiring, to complete the combination. This is still my favorite lens. As I see it, I started at the top. I have added third-party lenses, but I did so because they were really good lenses, rather than because they were relatively less expensive.
 

Notably, in 2010, when I was deciding which DSLR system I would become my primary system, I tended to favor a specific Nikon DSLR, but, it was more important to have the best possible image-stabilized macro lens, which I would use in all weather conditions. The Canon EOS EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS was considerably better than its 105mm Nikon competitor. I chose Canon, because of the lens. In 2018, I added the Leica M system, because of a lens.
 

Some people choose a camera, and then add a lens, almost as an afterthought. I am the opposite, prioritizing  lenses. 

Certainly a reasonable approach! Did the same when first getting my feet wet with Leica - long before I purchased my first M camera, I bought my 50/2 Vers. V lens to adapt it on my Sony MLC. Advantage of starting from the top of Leica M lenses is also the resale value - it will be always possible to resell and get most of the initial price back. This said, I am not stuck to one brand only and consider as well alternative options if I see fit. For example I have multiple 50 mm rangefinder lenses, and if I would take more portrait photos, I likely would get the Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton M-lens. Here I wouldn't consider for example a current Chinese-branded lens model (even they seem also quite decent!). I wouldn't consider the Leica 50 mm Noctilux either - regarding current alternatives, I find it no longer worth its value (at least not for my photography). But opinions will vary here for sure. 

[pippy]

15 hours ago, RexGig0 said:

...in 2010, when I was deciding which DSLR system I would become my primary system, I tended to favor a specific Nikon DSLR, but, it was more important to have the best possible image-stabilized macro lens, which I would use in all weather conditions. The Canon EOS EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS was considerably better than its 105mm Nikon competitor. I chose Canon, because of the lens...

At risk of straying off-topic for a second...

In 2008 I needed to go down the DSLR route. I had been using Nikon SLR cameras since 1979 and, understandably, their products were the first I considered. At the end of what turned out to be a fairly 'In At the Deep End' week-long learning-curve I ended up jumping ship to Canon. Not because their cameras were better; not because their lenses were better but because Canon's software was better and by a HUGE amount.

16 years on and I've still never 'bonded' with the Canon kit; not even close. But taken as an all-round package it simply worked better for my particular set of needs.

Philip.

Edited April 16, 2024 by pippy

[lioness731]

I have a Mitakon Zhongyi 50mm f0.95 lens for M mount. It's decent to play around with. I had a Mitakon 35mm f0.95 for Fuji X when I was a Fujifilm user that had a surprisingly nice rendering wide open so  decided to give this M mount version a try. I also did not want to drop the coin for Nocti even used. I have several 50s (2 by Leica and 2 other manufacturers) and my main squeeze is the Leica 50 Summilux followed by the 50mm f2 APO Lanthar Voigtlander. The Mitakon and a Leica 50 Summicron Rigid round out the group. 

I will agree with other posters that the TT Artisan and 7 Artisan lenses were not to my liking. Shipping a lens with a screwdriver and shims? Good luck. 

 

[pgk]

Chinese lenses obey the same laws of economics as any others. To sell at the prices they do (even subsidised perhaps) they have to design, build and assemble as cheaply as possible. Which means simplifying everything and putting the lenses together as quickly as possible. I am told, by someone who desgins lenses for a living, that Quality Control is key to making consistently high performing lenses and QC is expensive as it is time consuming and requires skilled technicians to carry it out and make adjustment. My experience mirrors Al Browns (#26) in that I had a decentred Chinese made lens which I sent to a very well known Leica repairer who told me that nothing could be done to adjust it and that the internals, whilst made of brass and aluminium were not particularly well made and offered no way of adjusting anything. So I figured that in essence you get what you pay for and getting a good and very cheap lens is going to be very hit and miss. Interestingly, many of the more expensive Chinese lenses seem to have a far better reputation and whilst not as expensive as EU bulit lenses, there are hardly 'cheap'. The reality of lens production is that it is costly to produce consistent high quality.

[sometimesmaybe]

On 4/16/2024 at 7:48 AM, RexGig0 said:

Some people choose a camera, and then add a lens, almost as an afterthought

confession time - i am that person 😅 albeit for the m246

[RexGig0]

On 4/20/2024 at 12:40 AM, sometimesmaybe said:

confession time - i am that person 😅 albeit for the m246

Well, a Monochrom is a special case. 🙂 If one wants to shoot a monochrome-only camera, there are very few options, on the market. When I first started using the Leica M system, in 2018, I was aware that the original Monochrom had been marketed, and that the M Type 246 Monochrom was extant, but, I was so in love with the original M10’s color palette, I had little interest in buying a Monochrom. Something about shooting with only black, grays, and white did, however, get my attention, so that when my M10 was down, after a mishap, I bought a pre-owned M Type 246 Monochrom that happened to appear, available for purchase, at the local “enabler.” (Houston Camera Exchange, an official Leica dealer, in Texas.)