I think the key to medium format look is the longer focal length given the same field of view rather than a very large aperture. After all, large format brings that look even further and large format lenses are often f/8 or higher. One could argue about equivalent f/ stops between formats but my opinion is that background separation and illusion of tridimensionality are more in the realm of focal length (composition aside).
Cool video and good point about emulating the DOF of a larger format with a lens like this. I've always found it hard to focus properly with them wide open, but another advantage of these is that you can stop down a couple of notches to get maximum optical performance while still getting a decent aperture. I used to shoot my 50mm/f1.4 at f2.8 for that reason. Thanks for the video!
Very nice. While I don’t own a .95 lens in any format I have shot one and found that using manual focus and focus peaking on a digital camera did make hitting focus easier and more consistent. I’ve been looking for one of the Canon LTM 0.95 lens for my Canon 7 rangefinder but they are scarce as hens teeth and EXPENSIVE
Sophie, they occasionally have a few of them turn up on eBay. I've seen upto 10 or so online at the one time, but they're not in top of the line condition. If you get one that's unused (now, they are rare!) and in the original case, take out a mortgage on everything you own because that's how much it'll cost to buy one. Most of the eBay ones are still in great condition, though. But, be prepared to spend anywhere from $5000 and upwards for one.
Thanks Lucy. Laowa also have a good reputation for being very sharp with crazy bokeh on a micro 4 3rds camera. They are very well priced. I am sure they would make an APS-C version.
The RBs are a little too expensive these days for what you get. On top of the hefty price tag a lot of them are prone to mechanical malfunction due to lack of servicing, I talked to several people who owned one or more and most of them had to spend extra cash shortly after the purchase
@@jacopoabbruscato9271 I've got two, one bought used in 1994, used heavily until about 15 years ago and have had no mechanical issues with either. I suspect user error is damaging them. They're built like tanks.
Great video! Now I am really intrigued by this lens! (My current favourite “dream” type lens is my 1960ish Helios 44, shot wide open. The 44 or 44/2 is a lens that everyone should own, but I think I’ll have to get one of these .95’s as well!)
Alternative: The Kipon Baveyes 0.7 focal reducer. I have a Mamiya 150mm 645 lens mounted to my Sony A7 and it gives great results, with true medium format effect. It gives my 35mm sensor an equivalent to 50x35, just a bit smaller than 645. Plus, I can easily swap it on any of the Sony E mount cameras.
i got my hands on a TTArtisan 50 f/0.95 for my Leica M10 and i'm having so much fun ! the lens is really really nice and sharp but it's made for portaits, if you focus on far away subjects that's where the lens's sharpness and contrast fall apart. But when you do landscape you'll want to close down the iris anyway which brings back the details and clarity.
I don't have the 35mm, but I do have the 50mm f0.95 lens from TT. That's a beast of a lens! If you like plenty of glass, it certainly has that! I do have a 35mm f1.8, a 25mm f1.8 and a 55mm f1.4. i like the screw on lens caps as well. Very secure fit and being metal they protect the lens well. I want to get the 35mm f0.95 lens. I use my lens on my Olly EM1, so i get a x2 crop factor.
I wouldn't quite compare this to medium format when it's basically the equivalent DOF of a f1.4 50mm in FF which is quite achievable and common focal length/aperture. That said, I have liked this video a lot more than others. I thing you're right about nailing focus and you're buying this lens for tact sharp pictures edge to edge anyway. Great photos!
The images you've shared are excellent, both the ones shot on 120 and on the digital. I completely agree with working with digital for potrait work, it helps with nailing down your technique especally if you're new to working with people. But I also love working with film, but will tend to go for b&w film for all my film work both paid and unpaid. And Medium Format does sing for my style with shooting portraits. As for fast lenses, I generally will stop at f/1.4 for my fast lenses, and still will 90% of the time at least have it stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 as I find it hard to nail and get a good depth of field that will make for good subject seperation while maintaining enought depth to ensure the whole face is in focus. While the f/0.95 lens is good, I feel that is a little to fast for my taste.
Good stuff and interesting video. I wanted to highlight that you can’t replicate the looks of a higher format due mostly to lens design and lens intrinsic features, meaning focal length for the specific coverage (angle of shot). The nuances are there and even if you can mimic bokehish style they don’t look the same.
Just feed that beast black and white film. Last time i did the math it was 10 bucks for me to shoot and process kentmere. If i went all in on color it's about 25 bucks a roll for me to shoot and process color. The ttartisan 1.2 50mm is a gem of lens. Glad to see that the faster options are good as well.
Oh, I see what you were trying to achieve, this is actually pretty smart, it was worth a try. I may have a trick for you. Get a cheap M42 adapter on your fuji and find yourself a 135mm Tair 11A. This forgotten soviet era beast has an insane amount of blades, beautiful bokeh.
I think that medium format always has a bit of a different look cause of how the sharpness falls off the subject, at least in my experience. Getting shallow depth of field on a medium format camera is not that expensive if you know what you're doing, as there are cinema projection lenses that you can cheaply adapt to either 645 Mamiya/Pentax or 6x7 Pentax and get stunning results with shallow depth of field and the Planar/Biotar juicy bokeh that you often don't get from the "name brand" medium format portrait lenses. In Europe you can always go with a Pentacon Six / Kiev 60 and a Volna 80/2.8 or Arsat 80/2.8 for basically dirt cheap and get amazing results without additional complications :)
Lucy I have found when using manual focus lenses I need to slow down as my camera only uses spot focus live view is fine as well as focus peaking but you still are forced to slow down. My od CCD sensor cameras don't have live view anyway. My fastest manuel focus lenses are 1.4 and I have used zone focus effectively but it probably wouldn't work on a ultra fast lens like a 0.95 with such a shallow depth of field
That looks like a fun lens, but 35mm on Fuji is a little short for the type of portrait shots you have here IMO. I have three lenses I consider "dream" lenses for bokeh and portraits. They are the Canon FL 58mm f1.2, the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 and the Canon EF 135mm f2 L, all mounted on my Fuji bodies.
It could be a solution for you. Many of the shots you did with it are very nice. Besides the issue of film versus digital and what that might mean in overall look, my only nitpick is that the bokeh might be considered *too* blurred out for some scenarios where you might want the viewer to be able to read the background more, such as when there might be an implied story in the background or markers for locale that give context and meaning to the portrait. In a sense, all of those lush locations get flattened out to a generic blur of colors and geometry, which isn’t bad in itself-it actually looks cool-but could become a little one-note after a while. But if you intend to direct the viewer solely on the portrait subject regardless of background, then it’s superb. The same thing happens with the overuse (or misuse) of a Petzval lens just to enhance crazy swirlies-I know because I used to do that on large format. 😊
I also have a few 0.95 lenses for my Fuji-X cameras and yeah, it’s fun, using them sometimes … but I would not see them as a medium format replacement. First thing is, they are mostly not perfectly sharp full open ( I started using them more at 1.4, but why buying a 0.95 lens then ? ). Second, I wish, they would be autofocus lenses, which would help a lot with moving subjects and last but not least, 35 mm are not 80 mm, so you always get some kind of distortion, which you wouldn’t want for portraits. Plus the „film look“ ( certain color palettes ), real film provides. In the end, it’s simple. As you pointed out, it’s a budget question. If you have a client, who is willing to pay for that little bit of extra beauty, medium format film provides, your Texas Leica is the weapon of choice, but if it’s just about adding a few pictures to the already thousands on social media, the 0.95 does a good enough job. And … not to forget, 0.95 can be a plus in low light … with an high ISO sensor anyway.
This lens would be equivalent to a Equivalent on 35mm to a 50mm F1.33 so the bokeh should be pretty good. That 90mm lens on the GW690 would need an aperture of 2.44 to match the look of your digital solution. ❤
Owned a few 7Artisans lenses and had the very first iteration of this lens a few years back. Overall, they're a lot of bang for buck, but the build quality can be very hit and miss, and longevity of use is a big issue. Ended up selling the 35/0.95 as it was way too heavy and unbalanced on my X-Pro1. I still have the original 50mm f1.1 on M-mount, and I only now use it adapted to Fuji X mount as a 75mm portrait lens, as the focusing ring is now a little loose. I can't trust it on my Leica M9 to focus accurately. If you're shooting digitally, and haven't done so already, try the Bokeh Panorama method (or Brenizer method as it's called) to get that medium format look. It's more time consuming as you have to stitch images together, but the results can be better controlled.
Yeah fair enough - I find for me it ends up the same if not more to shoot B&W as the lab charges more for it to be hand processed. If you dev at home it’s totally more affordable though! Thanks for watching
So, that 6x9 f/3.5 is like shooting a FF f/1.5 and the APS-C f/0.95 is like a FF f/1.4 so the DOF is similar, just not the resolution and dynamic and tonal range. Fun to shoot both!
You cannot get the medium format look on smaller formats unless you stitch multiple images to get to the same projection area for the same focal length. The look of a format is heavily associated with the focal length (in mm, not field of view equivalence). A 40mm on a 35mm camera does not produce the same look as the 90mm even though they have the same field of view and you might be able to open up the 40mm on 35mm "full frame" to the equivalent DoF aperture. It's not the same thing. Because it's not the same focal length. That said, this is one of the main reasons why I would not consider the current crop (pun intended) of digital "medium format" cameras to actually be medium format. They're slightly larger than 35mm full frame. The crop factor is ~0.85, the sensor is not really much larger than 35mm full frame which is why many full frame lenses work on digital "medium format" cameras. They should be called "Full Frame Plus" rather than medium format. The smallest medium format frame size on 120 film is 6x4.5 which is MASSIVELY bigger than what is being sold as digital medium format. The exception being Pentax I guess? I wouldn't obsess too much over the DoF capabilities of medium format. That's not why anyone should shoot medium format. Shoot it, when you want to show off lots of details with a deep DoF rather than the opposite. Smaller formats can obliterate backgrounds with faster lenses just as well - as demonstrated in the video. Great images as always.
I would agree with you. A medium format look cannot be replicated with a smaller format. The MF lenses are of a much higher quality as they need to record images across a much larger diameter. The exposed 120 film naturally creates a much image quality compared to a 35mm. The lens that has been used here is the weakest link. I am not a fan of Chinese lenses at all. In fact I would not consider one at all of them. The lens, costing between 200 and 250 bucks has no resale value if you don't like the out put all. Further, I maybe have a strong objection and a prejudgement toward Chinese lenses, I would rather look around for a lens with a strong field curvature to mimic a medium format effect - Zeiss 28/2 comes to mind, but re-compsoing a frame would be more difficult.
@@oliverlison Its not just the detail in the film/sensor size, since 35mm digital sensors can produce massive detail, and APC-S digital sensors are usually on par with 35mm film. The key to medium and large format DOF is using the longer focal length at a shorter distance.
The Fuji looks nice although you are dealing with a crop sensor and 0.95 is probably equevlant to F1.8. I use Canon 5D Classic Full Frame with an 85mm F1.2 L lens and the Bokeh is incredibly dreamy not to mention the film like colors on the OG 5D.
Video @ 1:25 "there is something about medium format" - Yes, the fact that a 90mm lens mounted to a regular 35mm camera, it's a telephoto ! But a 90mm lens on the "Texas Leica" - - - it's a NORMAL. This is similar to the reaction folks get when they see an image shot with a 4x5 camera (i.e. 150mm is a Normal, a 300mm is a 90mm equivalent !). So, they're not just noticing the DOF, but mainly the higher millimeter perspectives...
@@LucyLumen I know you were talking about an inexpensive alternative. You have clearly stated so. I heard that. Legitimate. Now suppose you can spend $$$$ for the film, you see the TRANSITION of bokeh in the medium format film is smoother.... 😊That is, the transitions of bokeh, as you hit the permissible circle of confusion, are rather, eh, sharp, so to speak, on the APS-C sensors... When you go over the threshold, everything quickly becomes TOTALLY out of focus with the APS-C sensors. Thus, the bokeh transitions on the medium film are always nicer to eyes .... But as righteously you stated, taking photographs with the medium film costs $$$$$, thus like I said what you have said is legitimate.
The mf look goes beyond just shallow DoF; it’s the unique perspective that results from shooting a longer lens and while getting the same angle of view. And it’s the smoother transition from focus to unfocused areas, what people refer to as fall-off. These two things contribute to the mf look more than shallow DoF, in my book.
Can you please tell me that what kind of photographic film did Margaret Bourke White used in her cameras in her entire photojournalism career ? This question is teasing me for many weeks. Please I want a valid answer.
I don't know the answer but after a quick google she had orthochromatic films that weren't sensitive to red light so she used a white magnesium flare to balance out her subjects.
Well, there kinda is, if your ISO floor is low enough and your lens is fast enough. Although, at the same time, yeah, nah, not with a crop sensor..... Maybe with a full frame sensor.... I dunno really, medium format is worthy of about 60 to 80megapixels, you would also need a noise floor of about ISO25 on digital to achieve something close to the native ISO of medium format with digital, even with a full frame sensor. The latest sensors from Sony/Nikon come close but then at the same time, there is the issue of baking noise reduction into the sensor.... I'm just not a fan of it. One of the many reasons I shoot film, is the reality of it.... If I don't like something, I have to resort to the facts that "your negatives don't lie." There is no "do over" with medium format and especially not with 690. Lets face it, you can't just keep pressing the shutter button to get another shot when you've only got 8 shots on the roll... You're either shit, or your not, and about a decade ago I realised, especially with cameras like this that have even less protections for making mistakes, without a shutter lock to prevent double exposures, I shot a lot of shit, that really wasn't that good. And that's the devil of it... A lot of people would give up film for a more "scatter gun" hap hazard approach where you can just delete the shots you don't like... That doesn't really serve to make you a better photographer though... I did also shoot some of my best work, but I had to lean into that and learn how to earn good shots. Then there is the baked in noise reduction... Fuji were the first ones to do this, with X-Trans but now the entire industry does that to some extent or another 35mm and crop sensors have had about the same noise ceiling for the last 10 years, what do they do instead? Cheat and put the noise control on the sensor... so you can't ever not have a photo without some kind of noise control baked in... I don't really like that... What you get with actual medium format (film) is the truth... And I've shot some of my best shots on medium format that make me want to go back to 690, but not with the camera I have which is a Mamiya Universal. The truth doesn't lie, you either expose correctly or you get a whole bunch of noise, and a shot that is either washed out, or too dark to use... I kinda like it that way though.... I wish more people did... It's harsh, but so is life, it's either the truth or you're lying to yourself... And a lot of pure digital photographers are lying to themselves about how good they are when they have so many things to save themselves built into the camera they use... What medium format taught me, especially with older scanners back in the day before I stepped up and bought a Nikon Coolscan myself, was how to expose in camera to get the look that I wanted. It also taught me about Ansel Adams and his zone system for light and the facts that you can't stuff around so much when you've only got about 12 stops of light to work with. But if you kinda can weigh out an average of about enough light to achieve what you want, then 12 stops is really enough.
No true equivalence between formats exists- if you want the "look" - meaning perspective and deformations but NOT actual field of view/crop okay, or the other way round, then the f-stop thing, and then you got the T-stop scandal. What do I mean? Well not all "dream lenses" are cine lenses of course and talk of T-stop in a photo lens might seem superfluous- but what to do with a "0point something" lens that has such a bad light transmissivity that it is indeed equivalent to a "f/ 1. much" or even "f/2.something " as a lot of CCS are? (cheap Chinese stuff). All that said, I still got a 0.92 lens for...Canon M mount where a smaller-than-average-crop sensor lives (x1.6) and had substantial bits of fun with it, shooting portraits and daylight scenes but also tripod long night exposures- astro and the like. It's a matter of finding the "feel"- it's a matter of catching the light - it's a matter of transmitting the mood. And your pictures did catch the feeling, well done! At the end of the day it does not need to be a "radioactive" or "Noctilux" lens polished with fairy hair and unicorn tears and f/0.nothing to be good. Any manual lens (even some cheaper than this) produced in these later years has a unique signature look so as long as we're not very technical about it , not minding some distortion, some vignetting and some internal reflections , embracing said flaws and shooting with them, or despite them even - can bring about nostalgia in sizeable quantities. Use a too-high ISO to get the grain out, (plus points if it's a naturally noisy but noisy in a nice way sensor) , desaturate all color and put on a lens with low contrast and bad coatings, get lots of flare, and there, Hipster Dream INC. back in business. No, seriously, one can get interesting "way back when" vibes with a setup like that. And every MFT camera out there should have at least one fully manual f/0.9 lens. The cheap and cheerful kind. For focus on such lenses- always go manual or go nuts. Wide lenses like these are harder on AF systems - but combine that with the traditional internal reflections/ haze present on many cheaper lenses today and that will surely throw any contrast-based AF system. After all these years and having read people's comments about these and many other similar problems, I wonder how did Grandpa do it back in the day, with the 6X9 and matte screen focus only ? Oh yes, he ditched the prism on his heavy 6X9 for a matte screen and a set of two magnifiers. Played a lot with that camera as a kid (never loaded expensive film in it) but at least to my eyes focus was easily nailed using the magnifier on the split screen (remember those?)...
Why not manually focus? Shooting with very Expensive lenses that I sure can not afford and apparently you would not want to spend that much for if your saying Medium Format film is too much money are the types of lenses that nail focus almost every single time. But the lenses lower income people can afford just tend to have cheaper focusing .. It sucks but is often true.. But the good thing about them is like you said often when they do nail focus they are pretty darn nice photos.. I gave up on trusting auto focus with cheaper lenses and just manually focus them now..
@@LucyLumen Oh I did not even pay much attention . I hear a lot of people complain about lower priced lenses not auto focusing that great lol.. Figured you was getting the random hit and miss auto focus lol. Also noticed you was using the XT-4 and the auto focus on the older models have been said to be not so great either.. But now that I watched your video closer if you was shooting at wide open its often hard to focus any lens at those F values anyway.. I should have paid more attention lol.. Sorry
Sorry, fully awake now. Peter Coulson doing Hasselblad said interestingly, he never sharpens ever and even deliberately would slightly change focus live, thus never autofocus. He puts his hand on the monitor comparing the image and anything looking sharper than his hand is unacceptable. His view as world foremost bw very large format certainly carries weight. In any case, no model wants to see her skin pores and blemishes. So any serious photographer would see this lens as a particular tool and any debate becomes moot. David Hamilton on occasion took sandpaper and vaseline to Takumar and Pentax lenses. Leica design philosophy is officially that they dial back definition when the Leica look is lost and couldn't care less about sharpness wars.
This just make me want to shoot portraits with a 210mm on my 4x5😏 Though I do shoot some 35 professional level quality starts with medium format.
I think the key to medium format look is the longer focal length given the same field of view rather than a very large aperture. After all, large format brings that look even further and large format lenses are often f/8 or higher. One could argue about equivalent f/ stops between formats but my opinion is that background separation and illusion of tridimensionality are more in the realm of focal length (composition aside).
Love the positive review for this lens, great to hear someone looking at the good things instead of all the negatives 👏👏
I could tell that you liked and enjoyed your newly acquired lens. It is always a pleasure to see someone love their gear. Thank you for a fun video.
Thank you lovely. X
Cool video and good point about emulating the DOF of a larger format with a lens like this. I've always found it hard to focus properly with them wide open, but another advantage of these is that you can stop down a couple of notches to get maximum optical performance while still getting a decent aperture. I used to shoot my 50mm/f1.4 at f2.8 for that reason. Thanks for the video!
Woooowwwzaaasss I’m shook. Some absolutely stunning visuals with that
Very nice. While I don’t own a .95 lens in any format I have shot one and found that using manual focus and focus peaking on a digital camera did make hitting focus easier and more consistent. I’ve been looking for one of the Canon LTM 0.95 lens for my Canon 7 rangefinder but they are scarce as hens teeth and EXPENSIVE
Sophie, they occasionally have a few of them turn up on eBay. I've seen upto 10 or so online at the one time, but they're not in top of the line condition. If you get one that's unused (now, they are rare!) and in the original case, take out a mortgage on everything you own because that's how much it'll cost to buy one. Most of the eBay ones are still in great condition, though. But, be prepared to spend anywhere from $5000 and upwards for one.
Ive the 7artisans 35mm 0.95 and i agree using these sorts of lenses with patience can be magic 💕
Thanks Lucy. Laowa also have a good reputation for being very sharp with crazy bokeh on a micro 4 3rds camera. They are very well priced. I am sure they would make an APS-C version.
I know Fuji cameras have a feature that shows dots when things are in focus.
Before you buy the Fuji, try a Mamiya RB67. A wonderful interchangeable lens camera.
The RBs are a little too expensive these days for what you get. On top of the hefty price tag a lot of them are prone to mechanical malfunction due to lack of servicing, I talked to several people who owned one or more and most of them had to spend extra cash shortly after the purchase
@@jacopoabbruscato9271 I've got two, one bought used in 1994, used heavily until about 15 years ago and have had no mechanical issues with either. I suspect user error is damaging them. They're built like tanks.
@@jacopoabbruscato9271 RBs are fantastically cheap, at worst the same price as the Fuji 6x9
Great video! Now I am really intrigued by this lens! (My current favourite “dream” type lens is my 1960ish Helios 44, shot wide open. The 44 or 44/2 is a lens that everyone should own, but I think I’ll have to get one of these .95’s as well!)
Alternative: The Kipon Baveyes 0.7 focal reducer. I have a Mamiya 150mm 645 lens mounted to my Sony A7 and it gives great results, with true medium format effect. It gives my 35mm sensor an equivalent to 50x35, just a bit smaller than 645. Plus, I can easily swap it on any of the Sony E mount cameras.
i got my hands on a TTArtisan 50 f/0.95 for my Leica M10 and i'm having so much fun ! the lens is really really nice and sharp but it's made for portaits, if you focus on far away subjects that's where the lens's sharpness and contrast fall apart. But when you do landscape you'll want to close down the iris anyway which brings back the details and clarity.
I don't have the 35mm, but I do have the 50mm f0.95 lens from TT. That's a beast of a lens! If you like plenty of glass, it certainly has that! I do have a 35mm f1.8, a 25mm f1.8 and a 55mm f1.4. i like the screw on lens caps as well. Very secure fit and being metal they protect the lens well. I want to get the 35mm f0.95 lens. I use my lens on my Olly EM1, so i get a x2 crop factor.
Yashica D or Pentax 645 is a cheap and great medium format portrait setup! Lovely photos btw ❤
I wouldn't quite compare this to medium format when it's basically the equivalent DOF of a f1.4 50mm in FF which is quite achievable and common focal length/aperture. That said, I have liked this video a lot more than others. I thing you're right about nailing focus and you're buying this lens for tact sharp pictures edge to edge anyway. Great photos!
Dev & Scan at home, and you can blast away with GW690... Well almost, but it certainly makes it easier to take pictures
The images you've shared are excellent, both the ones shot on 120 and on the digital. I completely agree with working with digital for potrait work, it helps with nailing down your technique especally if you're new to working with people. But I also love working with film, but will tend to go for b&w film for all my film work both paid and unpaid. And Medium Format does sing for my style with shooting portraits. As for fast lenses, I generally will stop at f/1.4 for my fast lenses, and still will 90% of the time at least have it stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 as I find it hard to nail and get a good depth of field that will make for good subject seperation while maintaining enought depth to ensure the whole face is in focus. While the f/0.95 lens is good, I feel that is a little to fast for my taste.
The content I was needing!
Oh thank you Jessica! Hope you enjoyed this one. We are editing another as we speak so that should be out soon too! Xx
Good stuff and interesting video. I wanted to highlight that you can’t replicate the looks of a higher format due mostly to lens design and lens intrinsic features, meaning focal length for the specific coverage (angle of shot). The nuances are there and even if you can mimic bokehish style they don’t look the same.
Just feed that beast black and white film. Last time i did the math it was 10 bucks for me to shoot and process kentmere. If i went all in on color it's about 25 bucks a roll for me to shoot and process color.
The ttartisan 1.2 50mm is a gem of lens. Glad to see that the faster options are good as well.
I own and love this lense.. use it permanently on the X-Pro2.. they look amazing together.. it becomes a manual camera from old times..
Oh, I see what you were trying to achieve, this is actually pretty smart, it was worth a try. I may have a trick for you. Get a cheap M42 adapter on your fuji and find yourself a 135mm Tair 11A. This forgotten soviet era beast has an insane amount of blades, beautiful bokeh.
I wonder how accurate focus would be if this was paired with one of those new fancy autofocus adapters (I don’t know the term for the adapter)
I think that medium format always has a bit of a different look cause of how the sharpness falls off the subject, at least in my experience. Getting shallow depth of field on a medium format camera is not that expensive if you know what you're doing, as there are cinema projection lenses that you can cheaply adapt to either 645 Mamiya/Pentax or 6x7 Pentax and get stunning results with shallow depth of field and the Planar/Biotar juicy bokeh that you often don't get from the "name brand" medium format portrait lenses.
In Europe you can always go with a Pentacon Six / Kiev 60 and a Volna 80/2.8 or Arsat 80/2.8 for basically dirt cheap and get amazing results without additional complications :)
You can get the Pentacons and the Kievs relatively cheap out here in Oz as well.
Lucy
I have found when using manual focus lenses I need to slow down as my camera only uses spot focus live view is fine as well as focus peaking but you still are forced to slow down. My od CCD sensor cameras don't have live view anyway. My fastest manuel focus lenses are 1.4 and I have used zone focus effectively but it probably wouldn't work on a ultra fast lens like a 0.95 with such a shallow depth of field
That looks like a fun lens, but 35mm on Fuji is a little short for the type of portrait shots you have here IMO. I have three lenses I consider "dream" lenses for bokeh and portraits. They are the Canon FL 58mm f1.2, the Canon EF 85mm f1.8 and the Canon EF 135mm f2 L, all mounted on my Fuji bodies.
It could be a solution for you. Many of the shots you did with it are very nice. Besides the issue of film versus digital and what that might mean in overall look, my only nitpick is that the bokeh might be considered *too* blurred out for some scenarios where you might want the viewer to be able to read the background more, such as when there might be an implied story in the background or markers for locale that give context and meaning to the portrait. In a sense, all of those lush locations get flattened out to a generic blur of colors and geometry, which isn’t bad in itself-it actually looks cool-but could become a little one-note after a while. But if you intend to direct the viewer solely on the portrait subject regardless of background, then it’s superb. The same thing happens with the overuse (or misuse) of a Petzval lens just to enhance crazy swirlies-I know because I used to do that on large format. 😊
I also have a few 0.95 lenses for my Fuji-X cameras and yeah, it’s fun, using them sometimes … but I would not see them as a medium format replacement. First thing is, they are mostly not perfectly sharp full open ( I started using them more at 1.4, but why buying a 0.95 lens then ? ). Second, I wish, they would be autofocus lenses, which would help a lot with moving subjects and last but not least, 35 mm are not 80 mm, so you always get some kind of distortion, which you wouldn’t want for portraits. Plus the „film look“ ( certain color palettes ), real film provides.
In the end, it’s simple. As you pointed out, it’s a budget question. If you have a client, who is willing to pay for that little bit of extra beauty, medium format film provides, your Texas Leica is the weapon of choice, but if it’s just about adding a few pictures to the already thousands on social media, the 0.95 does a good enough job. And … not to forget, 0.95 can be a plus in low light … with an high ISO sensor anyway.
This lens would be equivalent to a Equivalent on 35mm to a 50mm F1.33 so the bokeh should be pretty good. That 90mm lens on the GW690 would need an aperture of 2.44 to match the look of your digital solution. ❤
Owned a few 7Artisans lenses and had the very first iteration of this lens a few years back. Overall, they're a lot of bang for buck, but the build quality can be very hit and miss, and longevity of use is a big issue. Ended up selling the 35/0.95 as it was way too heavy and unbalanced on my X-Pro1. I still have the original 50mm f1.1 on M-mount, and I only now use it adapted to Fuji X mount as a 75mm portrait lens, as the focusing ring is now a little loose. I can't trust it on my Leica M9 to focus accurately. If you're shooting digitally, and haven't done so already, try the Bokeh Panorama method (or Brenizer method as it's called) to get that medium format look. It's more time consuming as you have to stitch images together, but the results can be better controlled.
I need a fast lens for night photography!!
Perfect timing then! Thanks for watching 🙏🏻🙋🏻♀️
Dreamy and bokehlicious. I'll give that lens a try.
Haha yes!! 📸🙋🏻♀️ thanks for watching
I majority shoot cheap B&W stocks like Kentmere or Arista on 120 due to how expensive it is to shoot colour.
Yeah fair enough - I find for me it ends up the same if not more to shoot B&W as the lab charges more for it to be hand processed. If you dev at home it’s totally more affordable though! Thanks for watching
So, that 6x9 f/3.5 is like shooting a FF f/1.5 and the APS-C f/0.95 is like a FF f/1.4 so the DOF is similar, just not the resolution and dynamic and tonal range.
Fun to shoot both!
Aperture equivalent is similar. but that 90mm focal length used that close on the 6x9 changes the depth of field significantly.
zombies and bokah! it doesn't get better than that 😀
You cannot get the medium format look on smaller formats unless you stitch multiple images to get to the same projection area for the same focal length. The look of a format is heavily associated with the focal length (in mm, not field of view equivalence). A 40mm on a 35mm camera does not produce the same look as the 90mm even though they have the same field of view and you might be able to open up the 40mm on 35mm "full frame" to the equivalent DoF aperture. It's not the same thing. Because it's not the same focal length.
That said, this is one of the main reasons why I would not consider the current crop (pun intended) of digital "medium format" cameras to actually be medium format. They're slightly larger than 35mm full frame. The crop factor is ~0.85, the sensor is not really much larger than 35mm full frame which is why many full frame lenses work on digital "medium format" cameras. They should be called "Full Frame Plus" rather than medium format. The smallest medium format frame size on 120 film is 6x4.5 which is MASSIVELY bigger than what is being sold as digital medium format. The exception being Pentax I guess?
I wouldn't obsess too much over the DoF capabilities of medium format. That's not why anyone should shoot medium format. Shoot it, when you want to show off lots of details with a deep DoF rather than the opposite. Smaller formats can obliterate backgrounds with faster lenses just as well - as demonstrated in the video.
Great images as always.
I would agree with you. A medium format look cannot be replicated with a smaller format. The MF lenses are of a much higher quality as they need to record images across a much larger diameter. The exposed 120 film naturally creates a much image quality compared to a 35mm.
The lens that has been used here is the weakest link. I am not a fan of Chinese lenses at all. In fact I would not consider one at all of them. The lens, costing between 200 and 250 bucks has no resale value if you don't like the out put all. Further, I maybe have a strong objection and a prejudgement toward Chinese lenses, I would rather look around for a lens with a strong field curvature to mimic a medium format effect - Zeiss 28/2 comes to mind, but re-compsoing a frame would be more difficult.
@@oliverlison Its not just the detail in the film/sensor size, since 35mm digital sensors can produce massive detail, and APC-S digital sensors are usually on par with 35mm film. The key to medium and large format DOF is using the longer focal length at a shorter distance.
The Fuji looks nice although you are dealing with a crop sensor and 0.95 is probably equevlant to F1.8. I use Canon 5D Classic Full Frame with an 85mm F1.2 L lens and the Bokeh is incredibly dreamy not to mention the film like colors on the OG 5D.
Technically it’s more like f/1.4 ish FF equiv.
Video @ 1:25 "there is something about medium format" - Yes, the fact that a 90mm lens mounted to a regular 35mm camera, it's a telephoto !
But a 90mm lens on the "Texas Leica" - - - it's a NORMAL. This is similar to the reaction folks get when they see an image shot with a 4x5 camera (i.e. 150mm is a Normal, a 300mm is a 90mm equivalent !). So, they're not just noticing the DOF, but mainly the higher millimeter perspectives...
This or the sony 35mm 1.8?
Check out this little gem of a lens here - ttartisan.myshopify.com/?ref=fm8qfiw0
That's pretty wild! Hard to believe that is on APS-C 😳😳😳
I know right!!!!
@@LucyLumen I know you were talking about an inexpensive alternative. You have clearly stated so. I heard that. Legitimate. Now suppose you can spend $$$$ for the film, you see the TRANSITION of bokeh in the medium format film is smoother.... 😊That is, the transitions of bokeh, as you hit the permissible circle of confusion, are rather, eh, sharp, so to speak, on the APS-C sensors... When you go over the threshold, everything quickly becomes TOTALLY out of focus with the APS-C sensors. Thus, the bokeh transitions on the medium film are always nicer to eyes .... But as righteously you stated, taking photographs with the medium film costs $$$$$, thus like I said what you have said is legitimate.
Lens looks super fun though I must admit I sometimes have trouble focusing at 1.8 lol
Lol haha me too - I always boost about how I never miss focus but that cause I’m normally shooting at like f16 lol Hahhaha
@@LucyLumen that's why I stay at 5.6
The mf look goes beyond just shallow DoF; it’s the unique perspective that results from shooting a longer lens and while getting the same angle of view. And it’s the smoother transition from focus to unfocused areas, what people refer to as fall-off. These two things contribute to the mf look more than shallow DoF, in my book.
Can you please tell me that what kind of photographic film did Margaret Bourke White used in her cameras in her entire photojournalism career ? This question is teasing me for many weeks. Please I want a valid answer.
I don't know the answer but after a quick google she had orthochromatic films that weren't sensitive to red light so she used a white magnesium flare to balance out her subjects.
She had a long career. She probably shot both ortho and panchromatic. Super XX would most likely be one of them.
Well, there kinda is, if your ISO floor is low enough and your lens is fast enough. Although, at the same time, yeah, nah, not with a crop sensor..... Maybe with a full frame sensor.... I dunno really, medium format is worthy of about 60 to 80megapixels, you would also need a noise floor of about ISO25 on digital to achieve something close to the native ISO of medium format with digital, even with a full frame sensor. The latest sensors from Sony/Nikon come close but then at the same time, there is the issue of baking noise reduction into the sensor.... I'm just not a fan of it.
One of the many reasons I shoot film, is the reality of it.... If I don't like something, I have to resort to the facts that "your negatives don't lie." There is no "do over" with medium format and especially not with 690. Lets face it, you can't just keep pressing the shutter button to get another shot when you've only got 8 shots on the roll... You're either shit, or your not, and about a decade ago I realised, especially with cameras like this that have even less protections for making mistakes, without a shutter lock to prevent double exposures, I shot a lot of shit, that really wasn't that good. And that's the devil of it... A lot of people would give up film for a more "scatter gun" hap hazard approach where you can just delete the shots you don't like... That doesn't really serve to make you a better photographer though... I did also shoot some of my best work, but I had to lean into that and learn how to earn good shots.
Then there is the baked in noise reduction... Fuji were the first ones to do this, with X-Trans but now the entire industry does that to some extent or another 35mm and crop sensors have had about the same noise ceiling for the last 10 years, what do they do instead? Cheat and put the noise control on the sensor... so you can't ever not have a photo without some kind of noise control baked in... I don't really like that...
What you get with actual medium format (film) is the truth... And I've shot some of my best shots on medium format that make me want to go back to 690, but not with the camera I have which is a Mamiya Universal. The truth doesn't lie, you either expose correctly or you get a whole bunch of noise, and a shot that is either washed out, or too dark to use... I kinda like it that way though.... I wish more people did... It's harsh, but so is life, it's either the truth or you're lying to yourself... And a lot of pure digital photographers are lying to themselves about how good they are when they have so many things to save themselves built into the camera they use...
What medium format taught me, especially with older scanners back in the day before I stepped up and bought a Nikon Coolscan myself, was how to expose in camera to get the look that I wanted. It also taught me about Ansel Adams and his zone system for light and the facts that you can't stuff around so much when you've only got about 12 stops of light to work with. But if you kinda can weigh out an average of about enough light to achieve what you want, then 12 stops is really enough.
Nooooo people should stop calling the GW 690 the Texas Leica. Because it's Japanese I call it the... Kamehameha....Leica... 😂
Hahhaha lol 😆 I love that!
fyi...the stripes are a homage to the zebra lens
I'm so early!
In my opinion the portrait shot has too much noticeable distortion.
No true equivalence between formats exists- if you want the "look" - meaning perspective and deformations but NOT actual field of view/crop okay, or the other way round, then the f-stop thing, and then you got the T-stop scandal.
What do I mean? Well not all "dream lenses" are cine lenses of course and talk of T-stop in a photo lens might seem superfluous- but what to do with a "0point something" lens that has such a bad light transmissivity that it is indeed equivalent to a "f/ 1. much" or even "f/2.something " as a lot of CCS are? (cheap Chinese stuff).
All that said, I still got a 0.92 lens for...Canon M mount where a smaller-than-average-crop sensor lives (x1.6) and had substantial bits of fun with it, shooting portraits and daylight scenes but also tripod long night exposures- astro and the like.
It's a matter of finding the "feel"- it's a matter of catching the light - it's a matter of transmitting the mood. And your pictures did catch the feeling, well done!
At the end of the day it does not need to be a "radioactive" or "Noctilux" lens polished with fairy hair and unicorn tears and f/0.nothing to be good. Any manual lens (even some cheaper than this) produced in these later years has a unique signature look so as long as we're not very technical about it , not minding some distortion, some vignetting and some internal reflections , embracing said flaws and shooting with them, or despite them even - can bring about nostalgia in sizeable quantities. Use a too-high ISO to get the grain out, (plus points if it's a naturally noisy but noisy in a nice way sensor) , desaturate all color and put on a lens with low contrast and bad coatings, get lots of flare, and there, Hipster Dream INC. back in business.
No, seriously, one can get interesting "way back when" vibes with a setup like that. And every MFT camera out there should have at least one fully manual f/0.9 lens. The cheap and cheerful kind. For focus on such lenses- always go manual or go nuts. Wide lenses like these are harder on AF systems - but combine that with the traditional internal reflections/ haze present on many cheaper lenses today and that will surely throw any contrast-based AF system.
After all these years and having read people's comments about these and many other similar problems, I wonder how did Grandpa do it back in the day, with the 6X9 and matte screen focus only ? Oh yes, he ditched the prism on his heavy 6X9 for a matte screen and a set of two magnifiers. Played a lot with that camera as a kid (never loaded expensive film in it) but at least to my eyes focus was easily nailed using the magnifier on the split screen (remember those?)...
Why not manually focus? Shooting with very Expensive lenses that I sure can not afford and apparently you would not want to spend that much for if your saying Medium Format film is too much money are the types of lenses that nail focus almost every single time. But the lenses lower income people can afford just tend to have cheaper focusing .. It sucks but is often true.. But the good thing about them is like you said often when they do nail focus they are pretty darn nice photos.. I gave up on trusting auto focus with cheaper lenses and just manually focus them now..
I’m a bit confused by this comment lovely these lenses are manual focus only. Thanks for watching.
@@LucyLumen Oh I did not even pay much attention . I hear a lot of people complain about lower priced lenses not auto focusing that great lol.. Figured you was getting the random hit and miss auto focus lol. Also noticed you was using the XT-4 and the auto focus on the older models have been said to be not so great either.. But now that I watched your video closer if you was shooting at wide open its often hard to focus any lens at those F values anyway.. I should have paid more attention lol.. Sorry
@@Jennifer_Prentice xt4 is one gen old. Not that old at all. Also, with these cheaper lenses, most of the time they only have manual focusing
Sorry, fully awake now. Peter Coulson doing Hasselblad said interestingly, he never sharpens ever and even deliberately would slightly change focus live, thus never autofocus. He puts his hand on the monitor comparing the image and anything looking sharper than his hand is unacceptable. His view as world foremost bw very large format certainly carries weight. In any case, no model wants to see her skin pores and blemishes. So any serious photographer would see this lens as a particular tool and any debate becomes moot. David Hamilton on occasion took sandpaper and vaseline to Takumar and Pentax lenses. Leica design philosophy is officially that they dial back definition when the Leica look is lost and couldn't care less about sharpness wars.