Calling the whole thing 'just wrong,' Cicala and team mounted the Petzval on their Trioptics MTF bench.
Being a hipster is expensive.
Takes one to know one.
Still way too expensive for what we get. Helios 85/1.5 has proper aperture, more than one stop faster and cheaper (used to be WAY cheaper)
That is not Petzval but a Biotar design. From the 1920's. Cheaper biotar is the Helios 44 (2, M(1 to 6))
I find great results with the Helios 44-2 adapted to my Nikon and Pentax cameras.
As i wrote into the Petzval Lens Introducing here weeks before - the Helios 44-2 does the same job, 'til F2.8. I use mine with anM42 to E-Mount Adaptor on my Sony DSLR...err, DSLM Cameras.
It was previously tested at Ephotozine too
Their conclusion:'Even though the performance is quite respectable, this lens will still divide people as to whether it's a genuinely exceptional product, or a bit of a gimmick, especially given the high price tag. It's certainly not for everyone, but those who love the effect will probably cherish this lens, providing they picked up a good copy.'
and given all the reactions on this message and the earlier review they were right
Very interesting: huge sample variation and apparently better results from the better (later serial number one) than LensRentals got.
Sample variation from a Lomography product? Surely you can't be serious!
Worst. Quality. Control. Ever.
Every wedding photographer should have one
;) it's very steam punk
But what does it all mean?
Petzval lenses are the give away lenses included with the very cheapest telescopes.
Right. Like, say, this $5,150 baby:http://www.buytelescopes.com/takahashi-fsq-106ed-new-q-refractor
Do you own a telescope, a good one? I do. And I can tell you what you own: an armchair and a computer, just enough to post nonsense... And other armchair experts flock here to "like" your post.
I have an armchair and a computer, but I prefer vadims post...
Confirms my concern with this lens: Petzval lenses actually get good sharpness in the center viewing large-format plates/film/contacts 1:1. Basically, the "Petzval look" of sharp centers doesn't really scale to smaller formats.
Can't help thinking that a lensbaby could get the same effect.
I bought a Lensbaby Double glass optic, for my Canon 5D.
The Lensbaby pushes the edge blur into extremes, though. And this handles aperture shapes better than the Lensbaby "in front of the lens" approach since it has some glass between the aperture "disc" and the rear.
You can simulate some of the bokeh effect with homemade front-of-lens filters. I described one such in my "bad bokeh filter" post months back.
It's a beautiful lens. Shame they don't make one with a native M43 mount. I ended up buying the parts and built my own which cost me about $150 and a few days of time. Mine is not as pretty, nor does it have aperture control but the bokeh rocks like nothing else.
Sounds like a fun DIY project! Would you care to post it in our new DIY forum, perhaps? We're actively trying to find and showcase interesting reader projects.
Do share you project G Sciorio! In regards to a M43 version: search ebay for "25mm f1.4 m43" and treat yourself to a $20 wonder with field curvature gone wild, non-round diaphragm opening and some vignetting. I use it wide open for video indoors. Tons of fun without the price tag of the above.
No, you don't want a native mount - you want a nice cherrywood-and-brass cabinet-sized housing for the MFT that has a Canon or Nikon mount up front. With a dark cloth, of course so you can see the LCD "ground glass", and matching sticks. And to really do it up right, you'll need to have your subjects hold very still for a second or twelve after the exposure is complete. The film holder would just be a frame holding a dark slide, but if you're going to do it, might as well go whole hog, right?
This lens was ahead of it's time in 1840.
It was good for about 60 years until the Tessar was introduced. That was >100 years ago.
N.B. I am not against old things per se as I am quite an antique myself, and, last time I used film, it was processed in Rodinal, a developer about as old as the Petzval design. I can't understand how this design was, in any way, "ahead of its time." It seems to have been right on its time.
It was dreamed up, kisckstarted, designed and produced by a company which has described its products as toys.
I would like to play with this lens, but I would not use it regularly for a subject or event that was important to me.
I thought it was ahead of its time due to the relatively fast aperture?
Guys, it was ahead of time then in 1840, because it's still hyped in 2014.))
I can appreciate that everyone has an opinion about everything, but this lens is simply unique to any other, and this is why it has a "Hipster" pricetag attached to it. It might not be your first choice in lenses, but it should not be your last either (if portraits are your thing). A lens modeled after a popular 1840 lens, and successfully kickstartered, so now we get the chance to purchase it. Seriously, be happy that we live in a time where we get to have these options out there. Try not to compare this lens to any other one you have, as it doesn't really apply since they won't even be close in any regard. I for one love what this company put out, and I hope they keep working on unique lenses, as all of us photographers know, there simply is never enough gear to have in your collection.