Lomo instant wide glass - the Sharpest Instant Camera on Earth

[baachitraka]

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]

"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.

 

[brbo]

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

?

 

[halfaman]

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.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

'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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't know... that's almost 400 Canadian smackers!

 

[loccdor]

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]

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.

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

 

[choiliefan]

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]

My Instax Wide cameras (I bought a second one at a thrift store) are about as sharp as a donkey's butt....

 

[halfaman]

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

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).

 

[perkeleellinen]

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]

'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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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)

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]

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.

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

If you insist on deliberately misunderstanding my post......feel free to do so.

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]

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.

???????????
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.

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".

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]

?

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]

90 mm is the same as 3.75 dioptries

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]

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?

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.)

 

[choiliefan]

What is a google lens?

 

[SMD]

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?)

 

[choiliefan]

Goggles?

 

[Dustin McAmera]

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.