Lensbaby Announces Velvet 56

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you are attending an exhibition of "contemporary photography" will find many blurry, blurry and dark photos. These pictures are made by "artists" and not by photographers. ??? Artists do not understand S___ about cameras and lenses. :-\

I took a course of ART-TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CREATIVE where I told my teacher that:

Conceptual art is the refuge of the incompetent.

She did not like my opinion but overcome our disagreement.
After several months, came the exhibition day. I took a Canon SLR with color film and lens Sigma 24-70mm F3.5-5.6. The teacher asked my camera to photograph our group. After looking at my camera, she asked me:

Where's the zoom?

I feel confuse, and said, Here, on the lens rubber ring. :-X
A year later, she was arrested for stabbing his sister to death. She sat on the sidewalk and waited for police to arrive to say that would kill all the rest of his family.

:-X :-X :-X I'm just a photographer who prefers cameras and lenses, instead of knives and blood. : Please do not call me an artist.

 

[skoobey]

You could achieve much the same effect by slapping an extension tube on a 50L or 50/1.4, and you'd have autofocus.

The thing I have never understood about LB is that they design optics that are deliberately aberrant yet command a high price, especially considering that there are well-corrected and AUTOFOCUSING designs from a variety of other manufacturers. It smacks of willful exploitation of photographers who rely on gimmicks and special effects (I would have included "cheap tricks" in that list but clearly these tricks are not cheap), rather than strong subject matter, composition, and timing.

And the shamelessly melodramatic "I cried!" and effusive testimonials in their press release just makes me want to retch. It betrays the fact that some photographers are complete hypocrites, on the one hand talking about how "it's not the gear but the photographer," and on the other talking about how "Lens XXX is the most special and uniquely-rendering lens with better microcontrast blah blah blah and if you're not using one your images automatically are not as good as mine."

The thing is, a pro can make these effects using autofocus lenses, there is no real need for lens baby, but an amateur would just be confused by all the options, so lens baby is easier for them.

 

[justawriter]

Well, the overwhelming property of velvet is that it is fuzzy, so these lenses are named perfectly. They may also be going for velvet's traditional role in the art world ...

 

[TeT]

I would like to put my hands on one... I generally cannot tell if lensbaby pics were intentional or missed focus, but they are often interesting. (and not interesting is not the same as good)

 

[TAF]

Their demonstration images look a bit like what I used to get from the c1930's uncoated 3 element lens on an old Kodak folding camera I used to experiment with.

Only less sharp.

$500 is rather too steep for my taste; esp. when I can achieve the same result with an old (100 years old) view camera lens adapted to my EOS-M.

 

[JonAustin]

I never did get the appeal of the Lensbaby line. I find it reassuring that I'm in good company here. And I really don't get what made that one huckster cry. Sheesh.

Still in all, it's a free country, and if Lensbaby wants to manufacture this stuff, and people want to shell out their hard-earned bucks for it, more power to all of them.

Personally, I'd rather save the $500+ and put it towards an EF 50mm f/1.x IS USM ... that is, if Canon ever gets around to producing one!

 

[candc]

the images look like what you get with the 50l if it is front focused.

 

[benperrin]

Yeah, I never understood the lensbaby obsession. But if people want to buy this stuff more power to them.

 

[Solar Eagle]

It appears to me that this is a "girls only" lens. Men don't use this lens, evidenced by the fact ALL their sample images are credited to women......................

 

[JumboShrimp]

From the looks of their samples, I can pretty much get the same thing with my $25 Helios 44M-6 (58mm f/2).

 

[zlatko]

And the shamelessly melodramatic "I cried!" and effusive testimonials in their press release just makes me want to retch. It betrays the fact that some photographers are complete hypocrites, on the one hand talking about how "it's not the gear but the photographer," and on the other talking about how "Lens XXX is the most special and uniquely-rendering lens with better microcontrast blah blah blah and if you're not using one your images automatically are not as good as mine."

And I wonder whether the effusive testimonials are by people who paid for the the lens with their own money, or by people who got it for free, i.e. in exchange for a testimonial. People tend to be *just a little* less enthusiastic when their own money is at stake. It's the same for lenses, software, etc.

 

[captainkanji]

Save some money. Buy a cheap filter for your current lens and just rub petroleum jelly over it.

 

[cayenne]

I think I"ll save my $500 towards the new 50L...and maybe a pair of socks.

;D

 

[GuyF]

By the way, if you were at high school in the 80's then you're now old enough to know better - a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach. Hmmm, maybe no socks on a yacht but it would have to be one with teak decking...hmmm, crap, I'll have to go and make a list now.

Hipsters wear socks now

The no sock thing was 2014.

Good grief, what a fanny. See, this is what happens when you get dressed in the dark or don't own a mirror.

 

[lintoni]

By the way, if you were at high school in the 80's then you're now old enough to know better - a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach. Hmmm, maybe no socks on a yacht but it would have to be one with teak decking...hmmm, crap, I'll have to go and make a list now.

Hipsters wear socks now

The no sock thing was 2014.

Good grief, what a fanny. See, this is what happens when you get dressed in the dark or don't own a mirror.

Aw bless, his mother loves him. Probably...

 

[Kristofgss]

Actually, I quite like their products; When I started out with my first DSLR (350D) and on a very limited budget, the lensbaby system was (and still is) something you could add to your kit for about the price of the nifty fifty and which allows you to experiment with the shape of the background blur and selective focus. I wouldn't say it is a professional tool, but it is a nice add-on when you have to make do with what you can afford and are learning. It was one of those things to which you could treat yourself if you managed to save up a little at the end of the month to extend your kit. (I only had the kit 18-55 and then saved for a speedlite followed by the nifty fity and a second hand 28-135). And when you had saved up a little more you could replace the plastic optic by the double glass and later on with the softfocus optic and just have fun with it. I remember shooting lego figures with it and running around after the kids in the garden and maybe keeping one out of every ten pictures because of what was in them.
I don't think this 500 dollar optic is in that same target audience though. But as a company, their products are a nice, cheap way to have fun with your camera.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

but it is a nice add-on when you have to make do with what you can afford and are learning.

That's a great viewpoint. Thanks for bringing up the practical aspects.

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

My wife is an eye doctor and says you can get a similar affect in your everyday life if you just don't fix your cataracts. The people who enjoy this lens are going to be so happy when they get older and everything can have that "dreamy" look

 

[lintoni]

DPReview has some "real world" samples, if you're interested -

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/lensbaby-velvet-56-samples-gallery