TTArtisan 75mm f/1.5 'Swirly Bokeh' lens review

[@AAJJ007]

This is a copy of the Carl Zeiss Biotar 75mm f/1.5 from the 1930s for a fraction of the cost of the OG lens ($269 vs. $2,000+)! TTArtisan's CEO is a vintage lens enthusiast with a huge collection of vintage glass. I can't wait to see which legendary lens he decides to resurrect next at an affordable price point. This lens fully covers the GFX sensor producing even more swirl on the GFX. I haven't seen this much excitement about a lens release for quiet some time.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

I need to use it with a speed booster on a full frame to verify that extended cover 😎

[@shtosuchilis]

Jupiter 9 Russian lens copy

[@AAJJ007]

@@shtosuchilis Not quite. When the Russians "liberated" Jena, they "liberated" the entire Zeiss factory (including its workers, management, machinery, inventory) over to Mother Russia. (It was the choice between that or the Siberian gulags...) There, they produced various focal lengths of the Biotar until the early 1990s with very little modifications. That's why we can buy a Glorious Helios 44 for $30-50 as opposed to paying $2,000 for the OG Zeiss Biotar. The Russians made millions of copies of the Helios 44 and other Helios and Jupiter lenses. I love them all. My childhood lens was a Helios 103, 53mm f/1.8. Fantastic lens!

[@Loki_Highlock]

Checked to see if had a review on this lens, but you didn’t. Ordered it anyways. An hour later and here is your review 😂

[@larsltj]

Another legandary lens reborn. Ttartisan has become my favorite Chinese lens maker. Keep up the good work 🎉

[@anupew3276]

2:00 reason why it wont work properly on Nikon F mount is flange distance, which is 1mm shorter on M42 than Nikon F. Effectively you could mount M42 lens on Nikon F, but you cant focus to infinity, only works to about 2m distance. Thats a general problem. Another one that supposedly happens with some of M42 lenses is they might hit the mirror inside F-mount (fortunatelly I only had the focus problem myself).

[@selkiemaine]

I've been using this lens for a couple of days, and I've been loving it! The softness off center is definitely part of the package - and for my work, it's a selling point. The center sharpness is adequate wide open, and, honestly, stopped down, the center is extremely crisp, the corners are adequate, and I could use it as a walkaround lens. As you said ... special effects lens. With modern tests, it's ... interesting. I've done a couple of portraits with it, and it's working beautifully. For me, some lenses just fight me and some cooperate. This one works. And, at this price, I'm a happy camper.

[@CartyCantDance]

Oh yes! This is the best Chinese lens release since the Laowa 12mm. I’m happy it’s on M42 mount because you can shoot this lens on older film cameras and still get that character.

[@corktail7900]

making it for the m42 mount is genius, you can get an adapter with tilt function for even more goofy effects

[@thecaveofthedead]

So for those who want to understand - someone has already mentioned that this is a much more affordable copy of the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar - many of those in the market for this lens will already be adapting M42 screw mount lenses like the Helios 44-2. So having this in its original M42 mount means it will slot right into their process. And the lack of sharpness will not be such an issue to videographers who I'm guessing are the majority of the market for this lens. They're looking for an 'organic', vintage, and 'filmlike' look that this has in spades for far less than the vintage Biotar.

[@davepastern]

I've seen stunning looking images (stills) with this lens for portraiture (see Phil Thach's review).

[@thecaveofthedead]

@@davepastern yep. No one says it won't work great for portraiture - another area in which sharpness is seldom a prime consideration. And of course lack of critical sharpness is only really an obstacle to a minority of applications.

[@Oxygenumpl]

I have all M42 TTArtisan lenses ;-) , 75 swirly , 100 bubble and 250 donut bokeh lenses. Very easy use on Pentax DSLR (Pentax K-70).

[@herrreinsch]

If TTartisan makes a copy of the Cooke Speed Panchro's I'll buy it the second it gets released.

[@FabriceLeblus-jf1xd]

Light lens lab did

[@miguellozanofinez5033]

Just a guess: it won't work on Nikon F because of the flange distance the mirror could hit the lens. This is, you can adapt Nikon F on M42 but not the other way around. Anyway, thank you very much for the review as always, it's always nice to get more and more information for those who like lens reviews.

[@michakrajewski8744]

I will actually work with proper adapter with lens inside of it.

[@giklab]

@@michakrajewski8744 I'd normally complain about the image quality impact that glass adapter has, but on this lens... that might not be a problem.

[@marksieving7925]

@@michakrajewski8744 Maybe. On a lot of M42 mount lenses the rear element extends quite a way into the camera body when focused to infinity, far enough to hit the lens in a Nikon F adapter before reaching infinity. On Canon DSLRs it can hit the mirror when it flips up.

[@simonmackenzie4227]

Excellent review. You took the raison d'etre of the lens into account. The softness in the middle personally steers me away from it but I can see why someone could enjoy it. Bravo.

[@somegeezer]

M42 is a technically not very clever mount, but it is simple, cheap, and very adaptable. It's also a mount with a lot of lenses to choose from. At all kinds of quality and price points. The Carl Zeiss lens this one is based on, was a very early lens made in that mount, too. TT Artisan have made a few lenses using the mount now, based on historical lenses using the same. and at the prices they ask for these remakes, they are incredible value, compared to the sometimes thousands you would now have to pay for originals. Without losing the quality and qualities of those lenses.

[@JayfunFilms]

Thank you always, Chris!

[@jfilmtech]

The classic sims music at the end hits the nostalgia

[@davepastern]

The lens is based on the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 75mm f1.5 lens (the version 3). Every other review I have read has indicated that this is a very well built lens. Others have reported the focus sharpness as being very good wide open centre, and even better when stopped down 1 stop. I wonder if you either misfocused or got a poor quality unit? This is more a specialised lens for creating that swirly bokeh effect with brighter speckled backgrounds to enhance portraits. The original biotar has the same sharpness issues as this lens btw. But, this lens is much, much cheaper than a used Biotar these days. The m42 mount means it can be easily adapted to any MLC. It is also much easier for TTartisans to make it for m42 rather than a gazillion mount options. I can also adapt it easily to multiple cameras with different mounts that I might own with just the singular lens and adaptors to suit, rather than having to buy a different version of the lens at full price for every camera. I think you missed the raison d'etre of the original Biotar.

[@matthewneleigh567]

I do seek out M42 lenses because they can be adapted (or used directly!) with a lot of film cameras as well as digital- Pentax K, Canon EF, et al. As for Nikon F, the flange distance on the F mount is longer than M42.

[@danm3d]

Nikon F-Mount has an unfortunate 46.50mm flange distance, M42 is 45.46mm, so focusing to infinity is difficult to achieve. I've seen some people try to sink their adapters slightly inside the bayonet to get around this, but it's a bit dicey depending on how much the particular M42 lens protrudes from the back, as the mirror could end up slapping the rear element.

[@swistedfilms]

I've still got my Lomography Mark I. It's a fun lens!

[@thatguyoverthere115]

This would go so nicely adapted to my Pentax film cameras

[@Filmgoblin]

I know you don’t do cine lenses normally but thypoch released their cine version of the simera “simera c” in 28,35,50,&75 with 21 on the way in e mount. I was wondering if you could see if you could get a hold of those lenses for a review?

[@Munichvintagelens]

I did a comparison with the original biotar 75 1.5 and do not see any differences except for the better flare resistance of course, which is insanely bad on biotar. One has to add though, that lenshoods were a part of the calculation and hence the biotar was not corrected for stray light, one has to use it with hood. Probably best for tt as well

[@musa7606]

M42 is so easy to universal mount, and keeps TTArtisans from having to make/keep stocks of multiple mounts. Most of my M42 mounts have EF adapters that let me bayonet mount them. I'd love to see this on an old Pentax Spotmatic.

[@budthecyborg4575]

3:32 "Sharp image in the middle" Ahh music to the ears of all crop shooters. Best of all the M42 mount means I can share one lens between my Fuji and Canon cameras.

[@brownbear100]

I had the legendary Helios 44-2. On a cropped body you lose a lot of the swirliness, and you have to really work to get it anyway. Ended up selling as it just wasn't as impressive on APSC. I've seen some images on Fuji with this though that seemed to show swirl already from the centre. Must have hit the jackpot! Honestly the Viltrox 75 and 27 are both designed for APSC and have thus swirl going on too. I might have got excited to swap my lump of a 75 1.2 for this if it wasn't also such a lump... and that's before the adapter.

[@megadjc192]

The lens looks sharp from T1.5 in the center. The lens suffers from a lot of ghosting so you can't easily see it without some post processing but it's there.

[@Jeffasaurases]

Im glad its on m42, so I can get it on my Pentax k3 iii

[@nk__]

So happy TTartisan is doing stuff like this As far as I know this lens is based on the Helios 40 2 (No not 44-2)(Also If I'm wrong please correct me!) which costs at least 400€ on ebay (from the things I have seen) The TTartisan one costs either 250€ or 350€ depending on if you buy it from the offical page or not

[@nk__]

Also I believe the Helios 40-2 was a copy of a Carl Zeiss lens but I'm not entirely sure

[@carlosandreviana9448]

​@@nk__ yes. Carl zeiss Biotar. Third version. 1950's

[@davepastern]

@@carlosandreviana9448 correct

[@davepastern]

no, it was never based on the 40-2, but the original CZJ Biotar 75mm f1.5 (3rd version, released in the early 1950s). The original CZ lens is now like 3k USD on the used market...

[@joeXjoeX]

Using m42 allows this lens to be used on any camera body via adapter, allowing it to be used no matter what mount system you move onto so long as you get a $10 adapter. It makes so much sense for a manual lens, not sure why it's so hard for a supposed photographer to understand?

[@christopherfrost]

... that's what I said in the video...

[@KyleJones-kk8vw]

Speaking of artistic 75mm optics, really hoping to a see a review of the Voigtlander 75mm f/1.5 eventually.

[@Paul_Rohde]

That flaring is actually beautiful, if it was wanting to be used.

[@slr7075]

1:51 Makes sense for the 7 people still using Nikon F mount

[@FerrumMaster]

TT artisan. Do Pentacon 6. Just one lens. But M42 is a bold move. Chris did not read the room here, it is intended for film, sharpness is enough.

[@barnesurban8165]

Them announcing and releasing this M42 Mount lens and I can finally tell my Canon EF Camera that there's finally a new lens lol

[@campbells0ups]

awesome! always wanted the 75mm Zeiss Biotar, now i might be able to afford a similair lens

[@dch2896]

You'll review this, but you won't review the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 SC.

[@olesbadio1496]

Thanks so much Chris. I expected that one of the Chinese companies will eventually make a copy of the Biotar 75/1.4, for which they have been asking exorbitant amounts of money lately. I am sure that it would be interesting for all Biotar supporters to compare them. I won't be surprised if they think of making a copy of the Tomioka 55/1.2

[@Vigi011]

Reason that doesnt work on Nikon (D)SLR (it doesnt have infinity focus) is flange distance.

[@mattl8723]

M42 mount with swirly bokeh? Sounds suspiciously like an Helios 44 -2, but in 75mm.

[@nk__]

Ooooooooo I've been waiting for this review

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

The flange distance would not allow most m42 lenses to work properly on Nikon F SLR/DSLRs.

[@RealRaynedance]

I honestly thought my eyes glazed over when I saw the wide-open shots. Technically that looks horrible. I would immediately buy one if not for the swirly bokeh. I know that's the point, but it's not my thing. Everything else the lens does is right up my alley.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

You are completely missing the point of these kind of lenses

[@RealRaynedance]

@@carlosandreviana9448 Tell me how I'm missing the point when I directly acknowledged it and said the only thing stopping me from buying it _was_ its main point.

[@myoth5663]

would you consider testing this lens on film cameras ?

[@dumchidumchi]

I'm surprised that no mention of the Big B, "Original King of Bokeh", the Carl Zeiss Biotar 75mm f/1.5 on this review. I'm sure most of the people who are interested in this lens know that this TTArtisan lens is a copy of Carl Zeiss Biotar.

[@tenekevi]

M42 is a wise move. If you are after swirly bokeh, you probably have a Biotar or a Helios lens. Both are m42 so you probably have an adapter for them. I have 2 adapters for Canon DSLR and Fuji Mirrorless. It's so nice that I can swap, even with the bulk of the Fuji adapter. I think they picked their strategy well.

[@lionheart4424]

Would you recommend a lens to get the swirly bokeh on Fujifilm X mount? Or arr you referring to GFX?

[@tnlewan6262]

@@lionheart4424 For Fuji, you need a turbo adapter, like the Zhongyi Mitakon Lens Turbo adapter. Tha'ts what i've done for my Helios.

[@tnlewan6262]

Honestly, i don't really get it. The results are too soft to be interesting for someone who as a good Helios copy. Also on APS-C dslr, it requires a speed booster adapter to really enjoy the swirley bokeh.

[@QuangHaiinh]

5:25 with that contrast, CA become a non-issue

[@SyntheticFuture]

It's interesting how the images before the test chart looked pretty good. But on the chart it really looks rather bad 😅 I guess my Helios is not going anywhere soon 😎

[@omonimname6667]

Dont trust TTartisan for info. This lens has 13 aperture blades, not 9. Great review anyway.

[@Whybal]

They copy the Zeiss Biotar 75mm f/ 1.5

[@carlosandreviana9448]

Thank you TTArtisan

[@purecolormedia]

This "whatever reason" why it won't work with Nikon F is called flange distance 😅

[@chamithathukorala1985]

W O W

[@masodef84]

looks the same as my helios 44-2

[@cottonbomb8272]

An adults' toy for your partner/friend

[@greentea7180]

Seeing people say the m42 mount is good because you can use it on other systems confuses me, more or less any lens will work given the correct adapter, I'm still using my old canon 50 despite having moved to fujifilm lol. Plus adapters can be really frustrating, my K&F m42-xmount works great, but my K&F tamron-xmount leaks light. Also for the price I'd take a helios 44-2, 44-3, or 44m-4 over this any day, you trade a tiny bit of center sharpness, corner performance, and half an f stop but the helios has superior swirly bokeh and saves you 200+ dollars. The helios is also m42 mount if that gets you excited for some reason lol. Just not seeing the value in this one unless you're a lens nerd or someone that shoots primarily on vintage equipment.

[@thecaveofthedead]

I think what's good is that people using the likes of the Helios are a key market for this lens, and they already have M42 adapters. And it keeps the 'authenticity' as a copy of the old Biotar. You may prefer the Helios, but the Biotar sells for upwards of $2,000. So the demand for this optic is there. And a great many people will likely want both. The Helios is cheaper for sure. But this is hardly a bank-breaker.

[@davepastern]

Say I own a Sony A73 and Canon RP. I'd have to really buy 2 copies of this lens if it was made in Sony E mount and Canon RF mount. Being in m42 means I can just buy an adaptor for each camera, and that is much cheaper than buying a separate lens for each camera system... Plus, as others have pointed out, many people buying this will already be using vintage lenses, many of which will probably be m42 on their MLCs. Having it in m42 saves these very people money. A lot of people that want perfect lenses, that well, might be technically perfect, but have all of the character of a dead snail nailed to the floor, won't be interested in this lens. Those of us who want some actual character and "3D pop" which this TTartisans copy (and the original Biotar) have in spades, will buy this lens. I think Christopher really missed it with this review.

[@joeXjoeX]

@@davepastern this is why I avoid manual lenses made specifically for any of the mirrorless lens mounts. They're not adaptable to any other system. If you want to move on from one mount to another, those mirrorless manual lenses aren't coming along... and making it worse, their resell value is usually pretty low.

[@pabloalvaradolopez3941]

Bokeh balls with hard outlining?... hmmmmm 🤨 maybe it would be better to get a helios 44M which is not only swirlier and cheaper, but also sharper depending on the version. Anyway, art doesn't care about that and can be and incredible option for the ones looking for a brighter 75mm lens

[@knnay]

otrageous

[@Patrick-vi9xr]

This is the most distracting bokeh I ever seen, so many edges, cat's eye balls, fringing, edgy transitions, etc., like all defects possible combined in one lens... definitely not my taste :D

[@knnay]

now you have to bring the Nokton. RF Z E M