7Artisans is one of those Chinese lens manufacturers that have popped up in the last 10 or so years. I played around with 7Artisans on the EOS-M mount, and they were pretty fun bang-for-the-buck lenses, but quirky ergonomics.

7Artisans is known for its manual focus, and manual aperture lenses, and this 9mm F5.6 full-frame lens is no different. However, with 16 elements and 11 groups, it's not exactly a simple lens either.

The craziest thing about this lens? It should cost somewhere around $375 if this specification sheet is correct. What grabbed my attention was the MTF data. If this is actually what this lens can do, it's a pretty good lens. Yes, it's all manual but who needs AF at 9mm anyways? As an example, the widest Canon-made RF lens (Canon RF 14-35mm F4L) falls off more to the corners and has greater astigmatism according to the MTFs – and it's 14mm versus 9mm.

Craig actually has the lens, so hopefully, we'll be updating this post with some real-life examples.

This has the makings of a very interesting lens for the RF Mount.

Specifications

Lens specifications
release dateSeptember 25, 2023Initial price2790 yuan
mountE/Z/RF/LMinimum shooting distance0.2m
formatfull sizeMaximum shooting magnificationnot clear
Focal length9mmFilter diameterincompatible
Lens configuration16 elements in 11 groupsImage stabilization
open apertureF5.6Teleconference
minimum apertureF22coatingnot clear
aperture blade5 sheets
Size, weight etc.
sizeφ70×86mmDustproof and splashproofincompatible
weight463gAFMF limited
othersNo electronic contacts/non-fisheye

Elements / MTF

Source: Asobinet.com

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Go to discussion...

29 comments

  1. Hi, I worry about almost everything so here it is ;)
    Could it be possible that third party RF mount lenses have slightly less quality of the RF mount itself? I mean, could it be possible that due to 'worse' third party tolerances the mount on the camera be 'damaged' because of third party RF mounted lenses? Just wandering about the RF mount (or any mount) tolerances of Canon versus third party fabricated lens mounts.
    Please help me getting some sleep over this one ;)
    • 0
  2. Hi, I worry about almost everything so here it is ;)
    Could it be possible that third party RF mount lenses have slightly less quality of the RF mount itself? I mean, could it be possible that due to 'worse' third party tolerances the mount on the camera be 'damaged' because of third party RF mounted lenses? Just wandering about the RF mount (or any mount) tolerances of Canon versus third party fabricated lens mounts.
    Please help me getting some sleep over this one ;)
    I see no incentive for Canon to approve lenses that damage their cameras.
    If there is a positive part of only approving certain lenses it would be an indication that those lenses are safe.
    • 0
  3. I see no incentive for Canon to approve lenses that damage their cameras.
    If there is a positive part of only approving certain lenses it would be an indication that those lenses are safe.
    When I saw, "No electronic contact," I thought this lens is not approved by Canon. That could be wrong, of course.
    • 0
  4. 14mm may be the widest Canon have made on the RF mount, but there's nothing to stop anyone fittind a EF 8-15mm F4 L fisheye or the mighty EF 11-24mm f4 L lenses with an adapter. Those two are the widest full frame lenses Canon have produced this millenia.
    • 0
  5. Hi, I worry about almost everything so here it is ;)
    Could it be possible that third party RF mount lenses have slightly less quality of the RF mount itself? I mean, could it be possible that due to 'worse' third party tolerances the mount on the camera be 'damaged' because of third party RF mounted lenses? Just wandering about the RF mount (or any mount) tolerances of Canon versus third party fabricated lens mounts.
    Please help me getting some sleep over this one ;)
    Well, we never had any problems of that sort with the canon EF mount and 3rd party lenses....and back then, they had to worry about a mirror slapping around behind it too.

    I can't imagine this would be of any sort of problem just because it is now an RF mount.

    The only real difference I see at this point is, due to Canon's legal team...they're not allowing 3rd parties to interact with the AF system like they were able to with the EF system (and then was reversed engineered).....Canon is wanting to keep the $$ to themselves I think at this point, but at some point it will be opened up to 3rd party.

    But just for a mechanical connection between a lens and the camera....that "mount" is pretty much Childs play for any company of a decent sort to handle.

    It's not rocket surgery we're talking about here...

    HTH,

    cayenne
    • 0
  6. But just for a mechanical connection between a lens and the camera....that "mount" is pretty much Childs play for any company of a decent sort to handle.
    Thanks for the reply. I did indeed try to explain that I was looking for this. I can imagine that the physical tolerances on the mount are extremely limited so therefore a third-party manufacturer would not be able to be compliant. (ie, too wide or too loose so there would be friction to the camera part of the mount). Guess my imagination runs too wild sometimes. :rolleyes:
    • 0
  7. 14mm may be the widest Canon have made on the RF mount, but there's nothing to stop anyone fittind a EF 8-15mm F4 L fisheye or the mighty EF 11-24mm f4 L lenses with an adapter. Those two are the widest full frame lenses Canon have produced this millenia.
    Adapted 11-24/4 can have advantages for CPL/ND filters in lieu of front filters but filters aren't an option for the 8-15/4 @8mm (180 degree).
    Is there a use case for filters on the 8-15/4? It has a rear filter gel option but I haven't used it. My experience with it (underwater, astro, quirky architecture, one-time big nose portraits) hasn't needed them. CPL should get artifacts if the sky is in it (and rarely wouldn't it be @8mm :))
    ND filters for video use maybe?
    • 0
  8. Adapted 11-24/4 can have advantages for CPL/ND filters in lieu of front filters but filters aren't an option for the 8-15/4 @8mm (180 degree).
    Is there a use case for filters on the 8-15/4? It has a rear filter gel option but I haven't used it. My experience with it (underwater, astro, quirky architecture, one-time big nose portraits) hasn't needed them. CPL should get artifacts if the sky is in it (and rarely wouldn't it be @8mm :))
    ND filters for video use maybe?
    The EF 8-15mm fish eye is an amazing lens, possibly the last word in fisheye lenses. I use the rear drop in filter adapter so that I can employ filters (and the same settings) across any and all of my lens collection. This includes my EF 24-70/2.8 II, EF 11-24/F L and EF8-15/4 L. I've not had the need for filters on my EF 8-15mm since I swapped out my TS-e 17L for a EF 11-24. However, I have used a 6 stop ND to slow down water in a landscape at the 15mm end and then defished the image. For some reason Adobe have walked back the defish capability in Lightroom somewhat compared to about 5 years ago when it was really good. These days the defish function seems to make a lot of mushy corners. Where as the EF 11-24mm is an amazing optic and needs almost no correction at all.
    • 0
  9. Thanks for the reply. I did indeed try to explain that I was looking for this. I can imagine that the physical tolerances on the mount are extremely limited so therefore a third-party manufacturer would not be able to be compliant. (ie, too wide or too loose so there would be friction to the camera part of the mount). Guess my imagination runs too wild sometimes. :rolleyes:
    I think mech tolerance it's pretty easy for anyone able to design a somewhat decent and relatively complicate optical system; what I was not entirely trusting in the EF era was actually the lens/accessory lock, and its release switch.

    Usually on lenses the releases are decently sturdy (because lenses are usually somewhat heavy), but I encountered many macro tubes, extenders, etc, with a very lousy bayonet locks; also in RF days, when I first got the R6 I couldn't find a genuine RF to EF adapter, so I got one from Meike, that was as good as the genuine in AF end electronics functionality, but the lock was yes sturdy but not UBER sturdy...so as soon as I got ahold of a Canon one, I sent the Meike back to Amazon.

    So I'm very third party open, and always happy to save money, but there are some things, like adapters, where I prefer to buy original stuff, because I wouldn't entirely trust to affix for example my 1.3kg 70-200 (and my 40 Art weights almost the same, but has no tripod ring to swap lock point) to a chinese accessory, and let it dangle from my strap for hours during a wedding; another things where I never save are tripod plates, or camera straps that connect to the quarter inch thread on the bottom of the camera. Any thing that may affect stability of the camera and/or prevent the camera to detach/fall/move, is something you should never ever save on.
    • 0
  10. The EF 8-15mm fish eye is an amazing lens, possibly the last word in fisheye lenses. I use the rear drop in filter adapter so that I can employ filters (and the same settings) across any and all of my lens collection. This includes my EF 24-70/2.8 II, EF 11-24/F L and EF8-15/4 L. I've not had the need for filters on my EF 8-15mm since I swapped out my TS-e 17L for a EF 11-24. However, I have used a 6 stop ND to slow down water in a landscape at the 15mm end and then defished the image. For some reason Adobe have walked back the defish capability in Lightroom somewhat compared to about 5 years ago when it was really good. These days the defish function seems to make a lot of mushy corners. Where as the EF 11-24mm is an amazing optic and needs almost no correction at all.
    I use a Nisi 100mm filter set for CPL/ND/grad ND and the 77mm adaptor is fine for my EF16-35/4 and RF70-200/2.8. I don't use the 8-15/4 very much under water as it is so wide and even then only at 8mm or 15mm and it is tricky to get good compositions. If I ever go to Tonga for the humpback whales, I think I will upgrade to the RF14-35/4 and the fisheye will get even less use then. @14mm, it will be close to the same FoV as a defished 15mm fisheye.
    • 0
  11. I use a Nisi 100mm filter set for CPL/ND/grad ND and the 77mm adaptor is fine for my EF16-35/4 and RF70-200/2.8. I don't use the 8-15/4 very much under water as it is so wide and even then only at 8mm or 15mm and it is tricky to get good compositions. If I ever go to Tonga for the humpback whales, I think I will upgrade to the RF14-35/4 and the fisheye will get even less use then. @14mm, it will be close to the same FoV as a defished 15mm fisheye.
    I can't comment on filter use below the water line. However, with drop in filters where the filter is behind the lens, I'm seeing a lot less ghosting, flare and refelcted artifacts in my images. Particularly in direct sunlight or harsh lighting.
    • 0
  12. Hi, I worry about almost everything so here it is ;)
    Could it be possible that third party RF mount lenses have slightly less quality of the RF mount itself? I mean, could it be possible that due to 'worse' third party tolerances the mount on the camera be 'damaged' because of third party RF mounted lenses? Just wandering about the RF mount (or any mount) tolerances of Canon versus third party fabricated lens mounts.
    Please help me getting some sleep over this one ;)
    I've never seen any 3rd party lens on EF or RF mount do any physical damage to a Canon camera. Emotional damage on the user...that's a different subject! I've not touched a Sigma lens in over 10 years after for really good reasons. Canon gear is the best available on the Canon mount.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment