drh681

drh681

Lives in A small blue and white rock
Works as a Goad.
Joined on Jul 2, 2005
About me:

To develop a profitable trade in companion minerals with a small side trade in high energy particles.

Comments

Total: 77, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: So this is better than a

vintage Minolta f1.4 50mm plus a Lens Mount Adapter

($80 mint condition + $10 (adapter) on online marketplaces)

?

.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: Almost the same price as the lens baby velvet. What one would you pick?

It's not built to the same purpose.

So that is sort of a moot question.

However, did you notice the weight of this lens?

I know which I'd rather tote around all day.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

Ran Plett: I get the same effect shooting with my Canon 50mm 1.4 FD lens that I got for $100.

I shouldn't say I get that, but rather I could get that if I actually wanted it. Which I don't.

At F5.6 my EF 50mm 1.8 is WAY sharper than this at F5.6
Even at F1.8 it is sharper than this one at F5.6

That is by DESIGN.
but if I want a 5 inch focus on the EF 50, I need the extension tube.

The EF 50 mm 1.8 NEVER flares like this at any aperture, that's by DESIGN too.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 08:18 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: Retail price should be $199.95 Max.

I've been plenty helpful in this thread.

But I feel like the some of my school teachers must have felt.

Some of you just cant grasp the concept in this lens design.

It is not designed to be the same as an ordinary 50 mm lens with a big aperture.

If you have been in fact, to the Lensbaby site, you know this lens is perfectly in line with their image making philosophy.

And NOBODY else's.

It is not for the Crisp and Crunchy Crowd of Group F 64 Wannabes.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 08:11 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: First, great work by the photograper! Really enjoyed this gallery. From lens performance perspective, the only images I liked are those that were significantly stepped down. Everything between 1.6 and 2.0 Is just way too soft. I was expecting at least something to remain sharp in those samples but disappointingly that is not the case. Usually images like this are criticized unless they are taken with a cheap plastic lens or with a bottom from a beer bottle or something. Just my personal opinion.

If you want sharp at a large aperture, buy a different lens.
Buy a lens that is DESIGNED to be sharp at larger apertures.

The Design Philosophy of this lens is not the same as an ordinary 50-55 mm large aperture lens.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: Retail price should be $199.95 Max.

Go to the Lensbaby Web site and educate your self.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 04:55 UTC
In reply to:

enenzo: Go get a Minolta MC/MD ROKKOR-X 50mm f1.4. $70 :-)

That and the limited lens elements that were actually designed to flare; rather than the massive elements in multiple groups that are designed specifically to control that tendency to flare at wide apertures.
I can't figure why these guys who say "buy an old fifty" can't wrap their heads around the Idea of a lens designed for the opposite of what their favorite oldie was designed to do.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 04:52 UTC
In reply to:

enenzo: Go get a Minolta MC/MD ROKKOR-X 50mm f1.4. $70 :-)

If yours is flaring like this it's busted
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/50mm%20vs%2058mm.htm

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 08:23 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: Very nicely shot samples,,, but a 40 year old FL 55mm 1.2 will do the same thing better, for a lot less $

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51685914

I'm not the babbling type.

You on the other hand, seem to have lost your ability to read.

Different designs entirely. Different results.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/fl/data/19-85/fl_55_12.html
let's just start with the basics.

The Canon is seven lens elements in five groups; the Lensbaby is four elements in three groups.

The Canon was designed to eliminate as many lens errors as possible for that aperture.

The Lensbaby was designed to accentuate certain "desirable" errors.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 08:07 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: Retail price should be $199.95 Max.

They're not made in China.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

JKP: I never liked the older Lensbaby lenses, they looked cheap and optics were not good. This one seems to be much sharper and has better built quality. Still not going to buy it, but they are definitely going to the right direction. The hazy effect is nice.

The Optics were fine.
They were designed to look different from any other lens out in the market.

Each one had a specific purpose. The single glass optic and plastic optic and the double glass optic were all designed to produce a particular look.

They were never meant to replace any standard lens in your bag.

The are all meant as creative tools for people with the imagination to see a possibility in their effects.

They still are.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

Juck: Very nicely shot samples,,, but a 40 year old FL 55mm 1.2 will do the same thing better, for a lot less $

Not really, this is a different design for a different purpose.

If your old fifty does the same, there is something wrong with the lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 19:35 UTC
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: So this is better than a

vintage Minolta f1.4 50mm plus a Lens Mount Adapter

($80 mint condition + $10 (adapter) on online marketplaces)

?

It's different.
Different design, different purpose.
most certainly a different production run.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 19:31 UTC
In reply to:

enenzo: Go get a Minolta MC/MD ROKKOR-X 50mm f1.4. $70 :-)

That is a better lens than you seem to think.
If you have one that does this kind of image, there is some damage to it. (fungus, or cement aging) Which makes an interesting effect, but not necessarily common to each lens of that line.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

D1N0: The difference between this lens and some older fast primes (50/55mm 1.4 Takumar/tomioka is that it is still soft stopped down to F5.6 or so) giving you more DOF to play with and still have a soft halo over the image.

Yeah, everybody saying "buy an old fifty" has not paid any attention to the design of this lens; nor the venerable design of the common Fifty mm.
Different Ideas at work in each design.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

ryan2007: Neat affect, but why does this thing cost $500. I may have missed it but I assume this is a manual focus lens too and if so (again) thats a lot of money for a MF lens. I'd rather have a real system lens than a toy lens.

It costs five hundred dollars because they don't make them 10,000 a month.
They don't use injection molded plastics for the body and mechanism.
They pay a living wage for Oregon USA.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 20:29 UTC
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

drh681: A lot of cranky old guys weighing in on this.

Two basic, but irrelevant complaints: "It costs too much" and "I don't like the effect."
And the illogical conclusion: "So the lens is duff!"

How many of you want to try the Big Brass Lens from Lomography?($600)
Or the A Zeiss Otus 55 mm? ($4,000)

They don't sound cranky to you?

They sound cranky to me.

And I'm pushing into Old Guy territory my own self.

"It's too expensive"... (maybe but not in context of special lenses for special tasks)
"You can do the thing with..." (which you can't)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 14:10 UTC
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Turlututu: My Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 produces the same kind of uncontrasty and soft images wide open. I like it, but 500$ for it ? no way...

There are plenty of legacy lenses that produces that kind of rendering, and as an experiment/fun lens, I prefer to buy it in a garage sale, that's way more funny !

Because, most 50-55mm "kit lenses" were actually fairly good, sharp, contrasty lenses.
The low-end, uncoated, rough design models have mostly, justly, been disposed of.
And again, the Velevet 56 is a NEW, DIFFERENT design than any of the old lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 16:39 UTC
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: This 'velvet' effect basically comes down to using an 'old fashioned' soft filter. If you are after that effect its cheaper to buy a soft filter for your largest lens and step-up rings so you can use this effect on all of your lenses.

Here is the problem(such as it is) with soft focus filters; You need to focus the lens and put the filter in place.
This was not much an issue before the advent of Automatic focusing.
The early AF systems worked on image contrast, so leaving a SF filter in place was out of the question.
Aside from patent licenses, one reason Lensbaby uses manual focus, is their product does not play well with the AF systems even today.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 16:34 UTC
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

b craw: I agree with many here with a somewhat-less-than favorable regard for this lens, given cost; and, certainly, the marketing here is syrup-thick in its sweetness. That said, I find the degree of cocksure opinion by many about what constitutes quality in a lens a bit obnoxious. Worse yet, the inference that Lensbaby should be lumped into a generalized backlash against Instagram, cheap filter techniques, etc. is wrong. Bare in mind that 'hipster' tends to be used monolithically. My experience teaching has lead to the conclusion that while some categorized in this manner, use stylistic devices (old and new) like a coat, without mindful consideration of context, many more others do not; they are, in fact, a very important group in the wider photographic community, often keenly interested in the potentials of importing and hybridizing historical processes with emerging technologies. And their penchant for historical curiosity has been responsible for renewed interest in Arbus, Woodman, Witkin, etc.

I know that we are speaking specifically about a product, but it is the subtext poking through in some comments that I find a fair bit more distasteful than the product.

We still have that tension between the use of a Photograph as a Record and The Idea of a Photograph as a Picture.
The main difference in the ages is the amount of discussion of that tension. And the instantaneous nature of the discussion.

I just finished a 99 cent e-book, "Artistic Lighting" by James Inglis written in 1900. (fairly short, a collection of his magazine articles)
The advice about lighting schemes is still in use today and was adapted from classical portraiture.
The tools have changed, but the principles still apply.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 04:54 UTC
Total: 77, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »