New Lensbaby Velvet 56 soft focus lens for 35mm

[Barry S]

Lensbaby just released a new 56mm f/1.6 soft focus lens in various 35mm mounts. $500-$600 depending on the barrel finish. Looks like it's either a meniscus lens or an achromat, but I didn't see any information about the design.

http://lensbaby.com/usa/velvet56.php

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

sounds like an update of an existing lens they have that took drop-in apertures that were perfectly circular, and had movements of sorts. I have one of the old ones - it works perfectly well, albeit extremely manual. Maybe they got a lot of complaints from people losing the apertures so they added an adjustable diaphragm. But I don't think you can really justify that price tag for a meniscus with a variable aperture.

 

[ciniframe]

FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS! REALLY?
Maybe I'm just an old man and out of touch but that sounds like a hefty chunk of dough. I mounted a series 5, +10 diopter (100mm focal length) in a focusing mount from a t-mount lens. Even left the aperture in the mount sitting right behind the lens. Wide open, very soft, stopped down, progressively sharper. Counting the lens and +10 diopter, less than $20 and will fit any camera you can find a t-mount adapter for.

 

[removed account4]

barry s.

they had something that was an imageon in their line up
maybe this is the re-release of that ?

 

[mdarnton]

Four elements in 3 groups, really nice mount, and results look like a Pertzval. Doesn't look like junk at all. You guys must be looking at some other lens from your descriptuons.

 

[benjiboy]

56mm is too short for a portrait lens on film.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

56mm is too short for a portrait lens on film.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

I'd agree.

 

[mdarnton]

I rarely use anything longer than 50mm equivalent in any format, myself, so I guess they're making this lens for me. According to the old standard formula for portrait lenses of film length plus film width, that's 60mm for 35mm so this lens isn't really that far off, even though 35mm photogs have accustomed themselves to 90 or so.

 

[film_man]

There is a limit to how much you can charge for effectively making something "bad" on purpose and $500 is long way over it as far as I'm concerned. I'm usually up for all that crazy stuff and I think the Petzval does have something going for it even though a bit expensive but $500 for this is just taking the piss.

As for their market speak..."velvety- tones give your digital images a film-like, organic quality"...well...

 

[Barry S]

I didn't notice the 4 elements in 3 groups spec, but that means some real design went into this lens. Whether the design is any good is still open to question, but this is more than throwing a single lens cell in a barrel. It also looks like the fit and finish is very good. The price may seem high, but I don't think it's out of line considering the production costs for a low-volume lens.

 

[benjiboy]

I rarely use anything longer than 50mm equivalent in any format, myself, so I guess they're making this lens for me. According to the old standard formula for portrait lenses of film length plus film width, that's 60mm for 35mm so this lens isn't really that far off, even though 35mm photogs have accustomed themselves to 90 or so.

On second thoughts the focal length is probably only 56mm because the market it's mainly aimed at are owners of crop sensor digital SLR's. because if you multiply 56mm by 1.3 or 1.6 it gives a focal length that is usable for head and shoulders portrait without causing distortion.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

50 is my favorite focal length and I take many people photos with it but more "environmental" portraits than head and shoulders shots. At 50mm head and shoulders shots are a bit too distorted in the face and head for me and I prefer at least 75, if not 90 or 105 for those kind of shots. Much more flattering perspective of the face than 50.

 

[benjiboy]

That's right Richard, for shooting head and shoulders and filling the frame with the sitter with a 50mm or shorter focal length lens tends to distort the spatial relationships between the facial features, my favourite portrait lenses are 85mm, and 100mm for tighter head shots.
I agree that for environmental portraits to show people in their surroundings a 50, 35, or even wider angle lens would be appropriate, but the general understanding of what a portrait lens is around 85-100mm on 35mm.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

That's right Richard, for shooting head and shoulders and filling the frame with the sitter with a 50mm or shorter focal length lens tends to distort the spatial relationships between the facial features, my favourite portrait lenses are 85mm, and 100mm for tighter head shots.
I agree that for environmental portraits to show people in their surroundings a 50, 35, or even wider angle lens would be appropriate, but the general understanding of what a portrait lens is around 85-100mm on 35mm.

Yup. If anyone doubts this sit your wife or girlfriend down and do a few shots of her facing the camera and with head and shoulders filling the frame using your 50. Then do the same with a 90 or similar. Print them out and lay them down and ask which she prefers. Be ready though as she'll likely jump at the ones done with the 50 to shred them up immediately.

 

[benjiboy]

Yup. If anyone doubts this sit your wife or girlfriend down and do a few shots of her facing the camera and with head and shoulders filling the frame using your 50. Then do the same with a 90 or similar. Print them out and lay them down and ask which she prefers. Be ready though as she'll likely jump at the ones done with the 50 to shred them up immediately.

I know it sounds weird but I'm primarily a portrait photographer and it's an interesting experiment Richard I did years ago of printing two left hand side head shots split in the middle together as if it was one full frontal shots, and two right hand ones the same and I was amazed at how different they looked, proving to me that the human features aren't equilateral, and movie actresses and actors who insist on being photographed "on their good side" are right we do have one.