Lomo LC-A 32mm f:2.8 Minitar Art Lens: What a waste of time and money

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Full disclosure. I do shoot digital, but my first love is analog photography. But take a look at this Hipster lens for digital cameras. Now you can shoot from the hip, download your images to your computer and tweak the hell out of them for that perfect spontaneous look. You know that "I accidently took this photo, but I needed to use a lens flare Photoshop filter to make it look authentic" feel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0ubIdwnIs

 

[miha]

Fun lens. What else to say.

 

[removed account4]

lomo is fun !
and the guy in the video is great
i've seen his stuff before

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Am I too harsh? :confused:

 

[frank]

Meh. Live and let live.

 

[skorpiius]

The only comment I'll make about fake film shots on digital: I once saw an album on Facebook where the person had gone on a road trip, and then applied Instagram filters to the pics before upload. I guess they really liked the "half blown out and yellow end of the roll similation" filter because of the 30-40 photos in the album they applied it to every. single. one.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I find it is a lot healthier to just concentrate on what you enjoy and let others enjoy what they like.

 

[baachitraka]

Li-fi is fun. I like my holgas.

Sent from my GT-S6312 using Tapatalk

 

[Vonder]

So stupid. Nobody seems to realize that many pictures from the film era didn't look that way by choice. They were created by accident, or by cheap film and developing, or by cheapo cameras and lenses. Nobody "wanted" a crappy blurry picture of mom and dad in front of their brand new 1969 Chevy Impala.

Like Yogi "said" - Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

 

[AgX]

I find it is a lot healthier to just concentrate on what you enjoy and let others enjoy what they like.

Yes, we do not want to be bothered by digital-photographers, thus we should not bother them or discuss what they are doing.
At least not in the analogue low-fi forum.

But, to keep it general, as Wolfeye hinted at there is a growing trend in faking analogue forms. Often in a complete erroneous way, often in much, much exagerated way.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Never miss a selfie again.

Vanity of vanities all is vanity.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Interesting but this is a video about digital and it should have been posted on DPUG

 

[bvy]

It started showing me an ad, at which point I close the window.

 

[rowghani]

Am I too harsh? :confused:

Not at all dude, I get frustrated by these things as well.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is APUG, I also do take pictures digitally, but why some sloppy review of the new lens which is in use already on film cameras (Leicas) has to be addressed by OP with some Photoshop and computer editing here on the A.P.U.G. To me it is total crap, I'm here for processing in the darkroom. I do have and use film LOMO camera, the real fun of lomography camera.

Also, you could shoot with any wide angle lens from the hip...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thread title updated. The video is about an Lomography lens that comes in Leica M-mount, so it's not entirely outside the realm of analogue photography. Just because Lomography is thinking of digital applications for the lens doesn't mean that we have to talk about them on APUG.

Keep the discussion to potential film uses for this lens, if you're into that sort of thing, and it can stay.

This is a sub-forum for Lo-Fi cameras and imaging. If you're not into that sort of thing, and you think it's a waste of time and money, then there's not much reason to comment about it, is there?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you, David!

I have seen examples of this lens from film Leicas and it doesn't provide results as Lo-Fi lens. Heavy vignetting and soft corners, the same if not better as Perar lenses, which are promoted as something special.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[michr]

Too harsh, not that this isn't too expensive by $300. I find it remarkable that they're marketing is so good that they're able to sell at such a steep markup.

 

[NB23]

I wanted that lens... But I soon realized that life is so short, why take away quality time from my Leica$ to use a 350$ lens that's worth 5$ in reality?

There are complete and Mint Minolta setups (x-9, X-300, X370...) with motor and lens available for 45$ or less. And it completely rivals a 8000$ leica setup. That's if you need to save money.

I am artsy fartsy when I want to be. But as I said, Life is too short to be a Fake artsy fartsy dude because it takes away the time I can allow myself to be a real artsy fartsy Dude.

No half-ass stuff for me.

 

[miha]

But you are biased Minolta fan!

 

[NB23]

But you are biased Minolta fan!

No. I'm a biased and snob Leica die-hard who knows that there's a point where the gear doesn't matter anymore and where talent takes over and who decided that life was too short not to go with the best, despite the fact that the best is limited by the user.

For non die-hards and snobs , Minolta is Hard to beat indeed.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

You're right

I find it is a lot healthier to just concentrate on what you enjoy and let others enjoy what they like.

I like your philosophy better. My wife is training me to do that

 

[Sirius Glass]

No. I'm a biased and snob Leica die-hard who knows that there's a point where the gear doesn't matter anymore and where talent takes over and who decided that life was too short not to go with the best, despite the fact that the best is limited by the user.

For non die-hards and snobs , Minolta is Hard to beat indeed.

I used Minolta for over four decades.