Lensbaby Announces Velvet 56

[mackguyver]

...and people complain about the 50L...

I'm sure there's a market for this, but just like the rest of their gimmicky stuff, I'll pass. Then again, based on what I see that passes for "art" these days, at least in my area, if I started using their stuff, I'd be the toast of the town ;D

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Photo of cat green eye I find interesting, and the bird's feather with water droplets.

On the other hand, the bokeh is very strange and the effect "Dreamer" with no sharp object does not please me. If I liked the dreamy effect, I would use my Canon 50mm F1.4 wide open. : But I just hate it, and today I have Sigma 50mm Art, pleasantly sharp and contrasted in F1.4.

 

[dancook]

Sounds like snake oil to me

 

[grainier]

I"m not quite sure what a "hipster" is....

Here is all you need to know.

 

[9VIII]

Sounds like snake oil to me

The same would also apply to the Nikon 58mm. "It's all about the bokeh", except that costs $1,600.

Sounds like I should just get it over with and buy the Sigma.

 

[GuyF]

What? The Petzvals are no longer de mode?

Good grief, where have you been? Petzvals are so last year.

 

[Famateur]

I'm personally not a fan of the "creative" effects this lens produces. If I ever wanted to produce such effects, it seems like it wouldn't be difficult to do in Photoshop.

As for the sample photos, it was worth looking -- if only to get a good laugh at the one of the kid trying to make the toy Clydesdale mate with the toy longhorn steer.

Crap...now I've really brought them some traffic. Maybe that was their plan all along.

 

[GuyF]

Oh dear, hipsters will leap on this gimmick and add it to their essential kit of beard, pipe and no socks.

I"m not quite sure what a "hipster" is....
But I've been going without socks since my "preppy" days back in High School in the early, early 80's.
Usually with deck shoes....so, while not sure about the beards and pipe thing...going sans socks isn't a new trend.

This explains the whole issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M

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.

 

[Andyx01]

Interesting use of marketing lingo. Someone in the Lensbaby marketing department must have discovered an online thesaurus. Maybe they are paid by the adjective? ;D

Right? Someone from Apple probably wrote the ad for them. They missed the mark not going with Fruit themed lenses though.

 

[Famateur]

Option 1: Spend $500 on a nifty looking lens to get "ethereal" and "dreamy" images.

Option 2: Switch your current lens from AF to MF. Twist the focus ring in either direction until everything looks "ethereal" and "dreamy". Press the shutter release button.

Option 3: Load a properly sharp image into Photoshop. Apply obscene amounts of focus blur until the image looks "ethereal" and "dreamy".

Too bad I can't get $500 revenue for everyone that chooses Options 2 and 3. I could be rich! I could get...like...$500...probably.

 

[Skirball]

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.

 

[chromophore]

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."

 

[distant.star]

.
I'm pretty sure this is considered formal wear in the hipster community.

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.

 

[Etienne]

Oh dear, hipsters will leap on this gimmick and add it to their essential kit of beard, pipe and no socks.

I"m not quite sure what a "hipster" is....
But I've been going without socks since my "preppy" days back in High School in the early, early 80's.
Usually with deck shoes....so, while not sure about the beards and pipe thing...going sans socks isn't a new trend.

This explains the whole issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M

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.

"a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach." ??

I don't know about that but ... a man wears whatever the he!! he wants, when he wants.

 

[Etienne]

Sounds like snake oil to me

true ... but it's velvety snake oil.

 

[ahsanford]

Early review and sample pictures here:
http://www.slrlounge.com/first-look-lensbabys-new-velvet-56/

From what's being described by the reviewer, it looks like it's an old soft-focus lens but there's no soft focus selector -- the dreamy effect is apparently 'on' for larger apertures and 'off' for smaller apertures.

So if you want sharp and wide open at the same time, this would likely not be for you.

- A

 

[Danzq]

You guys just dont get it.

Do you know how many ppl wonder every day how some "dreamy" or nicely blurred/bokeh picture was taken? Do you know how many of em know how to use photoshop and still own a DSLR? Those kind of photographers just point, shoot and post on instagram. They will go mad over this kind of lens. They are the ones mentioned in the quotes "crying how wonderful the pictures came out". A clever salesman will make em test the lens out in a shop and tell them how every professional uses em showing some nice example pictures. "Come buy the lens that will instantly transform you into pro!"

There will be people in love with this lens - none of them will be found here.

 

[grimson]

I cannot remotely understand why people buy these crappy lenses ???

 

[IgotGASbadDude]

There will be people in love with this lens - none of them will be found here.

Oh really? I'm thinking this lens would be the one that finally makes my stupid 1DX take good pictures.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Is this any different from pulling the "clarity" slider in LR over to the left?