Good question.

To be honest, it is a fun lens in the way I work. I really like the manual, slower oriented work when doing images like Tulip photography. It acts kind of like a Mamiya Sekor Z lens on a rail. But a lot smaller, lighter and more convenient useful. Even if setting the exact sharpness is not as easy as it looks like. Due to the very short throw that lens has.

Also when scanning 120-film negatives, it takes a while to set the correct sharpness.

When scanning negatives, the lack of extreme corner sharpness does bother me. But it is manageable still - and in the end results like here in my Diary, you see absolutely nothing of it.

The Olympus OM-1 with it's 60mm macro lens, was perhaps the most convenient one: as even the AF worked to set the correct focus onto the 6x7 negatives. While Pixelshift went actually quick on the OM-1 (but takes longer on older cameras). very evenly lit negatives, no dark corners... but the slight blur / and blotchyness in the natural silver grain in negatives... did bother me. I felt like the images more easily could fall apart if doing too much with the RAW files.

So, I am inclined to keep the TTArtisan 100/2.8 2x Macro lens, due to that it works flexible - by being a really wonderful close-up lens without dark corners - as long you don't go down to 2x macro. It sucks totally as a normal lens used at infinity - but that doesn't bother me at all.

I see it more as a specialized lens. For scanning and taking close-ups with the Fujifilm GFX camera.

So yeah. I keep it

After all, the price of 4550 SEK, is from a relative perspective not that much. I mean even a second hand Tamron SP 90/2.8 lens at eBay would cost me more after import fees etc.

I guess, as of now, there is no perfect GFX macro lens, really. Not even the native Fujifilm GF 120/4 Macro lens is that perfect. Especially not in the corners. But at close-up range it is a very sharp lens - but does fall apart when using 1:1 with help of a extension tube. And the price for lens and tube is somewhere around 35000 SEK / 3150 Euro.

No thanks.

Another alternative: Pentax 645 SMC 120mm Macro lens

In theory there is one more alternative. Often proven as many people have actually used this very combo for the Fujifilm GFX. It has the reputation being the sharpest of the 645 lenses.

The Pentax 645 SMC 120mm ƒ4 Macro lens.

It supports macro natively down to 1:1 and regarded to be a sharp lens. However, it would cost me surely another 5-6 or even 7000 SEK + I then need a Pentax 645 to GFX adapter - adding another 1700 SEK.

I might do that one day. It will give no dark corners, and the corners will be sharp. Why ? Because the image circle of 645 lenses cover the Fujifilm GFX sensor with a large margin - that's why.

Nevertheless - this is neither the day nor the time to buy the 645 Pentax 120 mm macro lens.

Oh gosh, I almost forgot, why I didn't buy that lens instead (for scanning) - that lens DOES extend physically when you focus close. Now being a manual lens, it might be OK that it extends. No AF motor can get damaged when using it with the GFX and the VALOI Easy120 device.

The TTArtisan 100/2.8 however does not extend - no matter what distance you "dial" in.

It's physical length always remains the same.

Loving the results

In the mean time, I'll keep the TTArtisan 100/2.8 2x Macro lens - because it is demanding fun to work with. I simply love the results from yesterday with it. It ain't perfect. But it has a poetry dwelling, which i really appreciate. Because I already have super sharp macro solutions. I sometimes find them too perfect sharp - that a part of me appreciates the more airy, romantic, fantasy-inducing not so super perfect images, you know.

The bokeh with the TTArtisan 100/2.8 Macro is so lovely !!!

In good light, you can also use it easily handheld the lens - do wonderful outdoor close-ups (but - I'll use a lens hood !!).

No corner shading visible from portrait distances, to close-up distance and down to 1:1 macro ! That is the most useful range without disturbing dark corners. That the extreme corners are not critically sharp is forgivable, simply because most close-up images, usually don't focus on the extreme corners in real life, when you are out and about taking images of flowers and details.