Originally posted by photoptimist What an interesting concept...
The aperture disks could be better-designed. The interior surfaces of those thick plastic disks will creates some strange flare effects (and not nice starbursts). A better design would use a thin blackened metal disk mounted in a ring gear with a small pinion that the user can turn to adjust the orientation of the aperture. But that obviously adds a ton to the costs.
At a recent photography show, I spent quite a bit of time talking to a Lomography "ambassador" - a guy who chooses to shoot creatively with their Art lenses, and has developed a relationship with them as a result. He makes his own aperture disks for his Petzval out of thick matte black card, using a craft knife to cut the holes
Originally posted by rrstuff I could see a point if the fact these three share component would make very good lenses very inexpensive. At $600 there are some good competitors with autofocus, especially on the used market, so I will pass. Then again, I don't think I liked a single product by this company, so I am clearly not a target.
Those who have an interest in these kind of lenses won't care about auto-focus, in my opinion. Putting it another way, I don't think they're aimed at the kind of photography where AF would be a big consideration.
I'm not keen on the Lomography hype, but some of their products are actually pretty interesting and refreshing. They're not for everyone, and there are, technically speaking, much better lenses for the money - but they're all about achieving certain looks that modern, high-performance lenses are designed to avoid
I bought the New Russar+ 20mm f/5.6 (a re-issue for the old Russar MR-2) and it's a well-made, beautifully-finished lens that produces excellent and very artistic results. It's too expensive at full retail price, but show discounts and a bit of haggling got the cost down considerably. For what I paid, I'm delighted with it. I also played with the Petzval for quite a while and thought it was excellent.