Lomo instant wide glass - the Sharpest Instant Camera on Earth

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,571
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
Multi Format

Lomo’Instant Wide Glass

Define your world with the sharpest instant camera on earth, featuring a multi-coated glass lens for unmatched sharpness and unbelievable color on Instax Wide film.
shop.lomography.com

seems not so bad...
 

SMD

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2024
Messages
88
Location
Transsylvania
Format
Large Format
"90 mm multi-coated glass lens for incredible sharpness from just 0.3 m"

That means it is the same as the 3.75 diopter glass in my googles.
 

Dustin McAmera

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2023
Messages
601
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
'sharpest instant camera on earth' is nonsense, just as it was nonsense when they said the Lomo'Instant Automat Glass was 'the world’s first glass lens on an instant camera'. Polaroid Pathfinder cameras had either a Rodenstock Ysarex (a coated Tessar) or a Wollensak Raptar. The SX-70 had a glass lens (of some sort) too.
 

loccdor

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
1,726
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Few companies are known for truth in marketing, but Lomography, least of all. They called their 67 degree angle of view Holga 180 degree. They call their color negative film chrome.
 

JParker

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2022
Messages
243
Location
European in Australia
Format
Multi Format
halfaman said:
I see a problem with the price. Fuji Instax Wide lens is quite sharp for the format when the correct focus setting is used, and it costs less than half of this Lomo.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the current Instax Wide 400 camera?
Do you have that model?
 

choiliefan

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
1,337
Format
Medium Format
Other than the old packfilm Polaroid's, the sharpest instant camera I've had experience with was a Kodak Colorburst long ago.
My stock Mini and Wide Instax's can't compare. Possibly due to the difference in the film technology.
Even Instax loaded into sheetfilm holders and shot with Zeiss glass can't compare.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,966
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
My Instax Wide cameras (I bought a second one at a thrift store) are about as sharp as a donkey's butt....
 

halfaman

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,438
Location
Bilbao
Format
Multi Format
JParker said:
Are you referring to the current Instax Wide 400 camera?
Do you have that model?
Click to expand...

I have the Wide 300, but I think all Wide cameras except the 500AF have the same kind of lens. For me it is sharp enough for the format and film (Instax is a mid-low resolution film). I don't think I will pay more for anything allegedly sharper with a similar aperture (~f/13).
 
Last edited:

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,909
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
It seems like the benefit of the camera may not be with the lens sharpness but the other features where there's a degree of control over exposure and a closer focusing.
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format

Yupp, and there are also many other instant cameras with extremely sharp lenses, like all Mamiyas with the Zinstax / Binstax back, the Nons back for Hasselblad, the Mint InstantKon RF 70 / SF 70, and all LF cameras with the Lomo Graflock back for example.

Lomography is very well known for ignoring facts, truth and photographic history. They don't care for it at all.
They have written so much marketing nonsense over the years, you can write a complete marketing master thesis about it.
 

armadsen

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2022
Messages
314
Location
Salt Lake City
Format
Analog
loccdor said:
Few companies are known for truth in marketing, but Lomography, least of all. They called their 67 degree angle of view Holga 180 degree. They call their color negative film chrome.
Click to expand...

I get that chrome is a colloquialism for reversal film, but it’s not a technical term. It just means color. Heck, Kodak Verichrome Pan was black and white negative film. It’s not false advertising to use it for color negative film.

Not sure what you’re referring to with the Holga thing, but that does sound egregious.
 

brbo

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,189
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format

Well, if you are calling Mamiyas, Hasselblads, LF cameras... instant cameras, your're hardly doing any better than Lomography.

(speaking as someone who has shot instant film with Hasselblad, LF camera and a number of Polaroids and Fuji Instax cameras)
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format

Come on.......that is senseless nitpicking. You know how that was meant.
These cameras with interchangeable backs can be used as instant film cameras. Period.
And they have been used that way for many decades in professional photography with their dedicated backs for peel-apart / pack film as well. Nothing new here.
If you insist on deliberately misunderstanding my post......feel free to do so.
 

brbo

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
2,189
Location
EU
Format
Multi Format
Film-Niko said:
And they have been used that way for many decades in professional photography with their dedicated backs for peel-apart / pack film as well. Nothing new here.
Click to expand...

True, nothing new. In fact, it's so old you can't buy film for those back anymore.

Film-Niko said:
If you insist on deliberately misunderstanding my post......feel free to do so.
Click to expand...

And if you insist on tearing a new one in one of those manufacturers that dare to come out with an effin' new film camera once in a while, please join the Pentax 17 and Rollei 35AF thread, too.

My intention was simply for people to consider whether pissing on new film cameras is worth the (small) gratification you get from that short and weak "release". I guess it is, so I'll just shut up and let you folks carry on... I don't even like Instax film.
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format
brbo said:
And if you insist on tearing a new one in one of those manufacturers that dare to come out with an effin' new film camera once in a while, please join the Pentax 17 and Rollei 35AF thread, too.
Click to expand...

???????????
I've just commented on the fact that there are several alternatives if you are looking for a sharp lens in combination with instax film.

brbo said:
My intention was simply for people to consider whether pissing on new film cameras is worth the (small) gratification you get from that short and weak "release".
Click to expand...

Fact is that I have not "pissed" on that film camera. I've been critical in general of Lomography's marketing and advertizing policy, but not about their camera introduction. That is a huge difference.
And I have not commented on the camera's qualities. Whether it is good or not, and whether the new lens is delivering, independent tests will have to show.
 

SMD

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2024
Messages
88
Location
Transsylvania
Format
Large Format
brbo said:
?
Click to expand...

I was mocking the "90 mm multi-coated glass lens for incredible sharpness". Maybe unrightfully so, but I suspect they use a single element lens. (The two lenses in a google today have multicoating, you can get them in glass and 90 mm is the same as 3.75 dioptries.)
 

Dustin McAmera

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2023
Messages
601
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
SMD said:
90 mm is the same as 3.75 dioptries
Click to expand...

No it isn't: a dioptre is an inverse-metre; that is, the focal length in metres is the reciprocal of the power in D. So 90mm is 11.1 D, isn't it?
 

SMD

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2024
Messages
88
Location
Transsylvania
Format
Large Format
Dustin McAmera said:
No it isn't: a dioptre is an inverse-metre; that is, the focal length in metres is the reciprocal of the power in D. So 90mm is 11.1 D, isn't it?
Click to expand...

You are right. So it is a higher power google lens. I doubt they even used a double element kitted anastigmat. (Or they would not have made it F:13.)
 

SMD

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2024
Messages
88
Location
Transsylvania
Format
Large Format
The optical element in glasses/spectacles/googles. Usually of planconvex or planconcave shape, but in simple photographic lenses, think box cameras, often biconvex. (Btw, you know the joke about the baby born without ears?)
 
Last edited:

Dustin McAmera

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2023
Messages
601
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
FWIW I found a review of the earlier Lomo'Instant Automat Glass (here: https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/lomo_instant_automat_glass_review ) which says that glass lens is six elements in four groups, with just the front one multi-coated.

I like that someone is making cameras, and people are being interested in photography; but I am unlikely ever to buy an instant camera; the idea of only making one copy seems to throw away an essential of photography, to me. Also, because better cameras are available for the same money; better despite being fifty years old, because they're made from metal instead of flimsy moulded plastic; and have actual focus instead of just depth of field; and an iris diaphragm instead of a choice of two stops; and glass in the lens because of course that's what you make lenses out of, and, and. I don't altogether despise what Lomography make, but I do despise the cheerful lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…