I have decided to send back the TTArtisan Macro lens with GFX mount. Despite its poetic rendering style (in 0.5 - 1 meter distance), i feel that the lens does not perform to my satisfaction in my the key areas (which is scanning 6x7 mediumformat film negatives).
So, this is my overall description of the TTArtisan 100mm ƒ2.8 2x Macro lens (on GFX) so far:
The Bad (GFX mount)
• It does NOT cover the larger Fujifilm GFX sensor
• The extreme corners are NOT sharp
• Overall performance at infinity is mediocre, especially in the corners , even stopped down
• It shows hard black corners at 2x macro
• When scanning 6x7 negatives (at 1:2), the extreme borders are never truly sharp
• When used at infinity you get blue glare in the lower extreme corners (from the sky)
• Lens hood recommended
due to the very exposed front element
• Very short focus throw (making it more difficult to set the exact focus in macro mode)
The Good
• It has a wonderfully enchanting bokeh quality [mediumformat look] in the near field (1.5-0.5 meter)
• Rounded aperture, even when you stop down
• It is sharp at Macro and close-up distances (organic kind of sharpness, very natural)
• It is perhaps best used as a near-field, closeup, up to 1.3x macro lens on GFX (no vignetting, sharp)
• In essence a fullframe lens (24x36 mm image sensors), and as such it performs much better
• Affordable price around 400 €, but there are many other options (for fullframe), not so for GFX, though
• Solid metal, beautiful finish, robust looking (i like it)
• Has internal focus, e.g. the physical size does not change when focusing
Unexpected Bokeh quality
It was indeed unexpected, to see that this lens mounted on GFX, shows an unusual quality in the near field distance, whether you use it at aperture ƒ2.8 or ƒ5.6 - it gave a truly mediumformat looking rendering style in the bokeh. Absolutely enchanting - but that was never my goal, you see.
I like the lens for it's special character. But it bugs me that the extreme corners are not sharp on the GFX, plus that it is basically useless for normal photography at infinity. There, it really shows mediocre performance.
Requirement: Sharp scans from 6x7 negatives
Essence: for me personally - the lens misses my main goal; sharp scans from 6x7 negatives. The works of scanning negatives is so extensive, that i don't want to put the effort down and still have blurry corners in the original, digital scans.
It is an area, where it needs to be perfect.
Everything else doesn't need to be perfect, and i am fine how the TTArtisan performs as a macro lens on GFX. But I need macro for scanning, not a flower macro lens. Therefore I feel that I spend my money on the wrong thing - and then still have to buy another macro lens, just in order to get those sharp scans from large negatives (In this case it would be the Tamron SP 90/2.8 VC Macro).
If the poetic TTArtisan lens is important in the future. Fine. I can re-buy it. But right now, I'll send it back and will be using the money on a Tamron Macro lens, i saw on eBay in Germany.
Supposedly with working AF *LOL*
The issue with the larger GFX sensor
The TTArtisan shows that the extreme corners are always are more or less blurry. It is NOT a real GFX mediumformat covering lens ! In a way, you could say, it is a cheat. It just "happens" to "almost cover the GFX sensor", so to speak. You are probably much better off, buying the TTArtisan with a normal Canon EF mount - and via adapter you can still use it on GFX, when / if you want to. Since I bought it was a GFX mount lens, i can't really use it on a fullframe camera.
Reality check: It's primarily a fullframe covering lens.
Basta !
Scanning mediumformat film
So, when i scan large negatives, the corners are not critically sharp: especially not at ƒ5.6 or ƒ6.7. Even at at ƒ11 it isn't really satisfying. Even at ƒ16 i can see some blur in the extreme corners. Plus that diffractions starts to kick in, resulting into an overall blur everywhere. But hey, it doesn't vignette.
The Sigma ART 70/2.8 Macro does the opposite in the same situation; sharp all the way into the corners - but it vignettes (e.g. resulting into dark corners)
Be aware; i am talking about a 6x7 negatives - which means I already cut off everything beyond the negative. The performance of the TTArtisan regarding the true GFX sensor area content, is even worse ! When scanning a 6x7 negatives, part of the worst in the corners, you cropped away already.
So, it shows again, that the TTArtisan does not truly cover the GFX sensor. And that becomes a problem with FLAT OBJECTS (Negatives, Repro, flat surfaces)
In normal photography, this isn't of such great concern due to the nature of 3D objects, where extreme corners almost never are shown sharp (Except at infinity and greater distances). Well, and there the lens doesn't perform well either., when used at infinity.
Sigma ART 70/2.8 Macro
While I send back the TTArtisan 100mm Macro, I'll be using the Sigma ART 70mm Macro on the Fujifilm GFX with Tulips again. Just for the sake of it - since I am already into Tulips as I did with the TTArtisan 100 lens. In order to see the difference in rendering style.
Maybe I also should compare it also with Pentax 67 SMC 90mm ƒ2.8 lens, the Pentax 67 Takumar 105mm ƒ2.4 and the Mamiya RZ67 110mm ƒ2.8 lenses. Those that are closest to the TTArtisan 100mm Macro, I mean.
Then; comparing all their rendering styles.
Now, the Pentax 6x7 lenses when used at wide open aperture will show chromatic aberrations in details. It is like a aura of green/red around finer details. That i know. The Mamiya lenses fare a bit better. The Sigma ART macro on the other hand, will likely be razor sharp, while the background be more "even" where the outlines of further away standing Tulips sort of ... get a more clinical rendering style. Kind of boring looking.
Maybe the magic of the bokeh rendering style, is the difference between digital bokeh, and "analog bokeh". But that doesn't make sense. the TTArtisan is a modern lens with 14 lens elements... why does it render backgrounds so differently compared to most other lenses ?
Another puzzling difference:
The Pentax 67 Takumar 105mm ƒ2.4 lens, shows perhaps the strongest "mediumformat" style bokeh. Very analog and magic, when used at wide open aperture ƒ2.4 with near field objects. As you stop it down from ƒ2.8 to ƒ5.6 - that character quickly disappears, and becomes more uniform, kind of "boring".
The TTArtisan 100 Macro on the other hand, retains that beautiful bokeh-magic style up until aperture ƒ5.6; there is really no difference or change visible in bokeh character / between ƒ2.8 and ƒ5.6 when you take images of flowers in the close-ish range 0.5-1 meter [not macro or too close].
I find that difference very puzzling.
The 1980s Leica Noctilux-M 50/1 is like the 6x7 Pentax 105/2.4 a switcher in character - if you go from aperture ƒ1 to ƒ2.8 - the unique character and rendering style switches completely. Going from unique to being ordinary smooth.
I hope it isn't just in my head...
No, the TTArtisan is special in the near field area. Gosh, the last couple Diary photo clearly show this. Every time i look at the recent images - i see that it has a very particular rendering style, which I don't see with other lenses.
I guess why it is call MAGIC.
"Spirit of a lens"
The word implies that something harbors secret - or we believe it has. Or we attach that ourselves to something.
Magic; by not revealing the underpinnings straight onto a silverplatter. The ethereal quality and feeling, like a "spirit" inside of something, if you like - giving off an elusive feeling, a fascination, a special character of something we can't quite put finger on, what exactly that is. Whether it is an object, an animal's character/personality, or people as well those we fall in love with.
That's why we call magic magic
| 
