[Mistral75]

The Kickstarter campaign has ended.

1,154 backers pledged $445,325 corresponding to 1,201 lenses, of which 33 Lomogon 32mm f/2.5 lenses in Pentax K mount. Since the threshold of 50 K-mount lenses was not crossed, this variant should not be manufactured.

[bobbotron]

It will be interesting to see how these work. I bought a lomo sprocket rocket a year ago. Fun camera but man they are super plastic. I was totally sold on the concept but in practice it's just a touch too cheap for my tastes. It would be nice if they pushed their design one step further, I found it really limiting.

[BigMackCam]

It will be interesting to see how these work. I bought a lomo sprocket rocket a year ago. Fun camera but man they are super plastic. I was totally sold on the concept but in practice it's just a touch too cheap for my tastes. It would be nice if they pushed their design one step further, I found it really limiting.

If the production version is anything like my prototype, there's not a single plastic part in evidence other than the front trim ring (and I'm not entirely certain that's plastic either - it could be engraved metal). The whole lens body is brass, and the rotating aperture wheel is stamped from some kind of metal, though since it's coated, I can't be sure what exactly... Quality-wise, it's beautiful. What might divide folks is the image quality. I think it will be a love / hate thing. Those who are looking for something unusual will probably love it, but it's definitely an "artistic" lens rather than something that's practical for general use...

[photoptimist]

If the production version is anything like my prototype, there's not a single plastic part in evidence other than the front trim ring (and I'm not entirely certain that's plastic either - it could be engraved metal). The whole lens body is brass, and the rotating aperture wheel is stamped from some kind of metal, though since it's coated, I can't be sure what exactly... Quality-wise, it's beautiful. What might divide folks is the image quality. I think it will be a love / hate thing. Those who are looking for something unusual will probably love it, but it's definitely an "artistic" lens rather than something that's practical for general use...

Well, as long as it's capable of the required 320x240 resolution of a Professional DSLR Camera, it should be good!

[IgorZ]

If the production version is anything like my prototype, there's not a single plastic part in evidence other than the front trim ring (and I'm not entirely certain that's plastic either - it could be engraved metal). The whole lens body is brass, and the rotating aperture wheel is stamped from some kind of metal, though since it's coated, I can't be sure what exactly... Quality-wise, it's beautiful. What might divide folks is the image quality. I think it will be a love / hate thing. Those who are looking for something unusual will probably love it, but it's definitely an "artistic" lens rather than something that's practical for general use...

I'd be interested in seeing some real-world photos as opposed to promotional ones they put out for their Kickstarter campaign. Have you posted any on the forums by any chance?

[bobbotron]

If the production version is anything like my prototype, there's not a single plastic part in evidence other than the front trim ring (and I'm not entirely certain that's plastic either - it could be engraved metal). The whole lens body is brass, and the rotating aperture wheel is stamped from some kind of metal, though since it's coated, I can't be sure what exactly... Quality-wise, it's beautiful. What might divide folks is the image quality. I think it will be a love / hate thing. Those who are looking for something unusual will probably love it, but it's definitely an "artistic" lens rather than something that's practical for general use...

Cool! Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of arty lenses. My impression of the sprocket rocket was that it was a little too far down the rabbit hole for my tastes, but of course it's only one offering from the company. I found it frustrating, because if it was just pushed a tiny bit further along the quality/feature scale it would be a much more fun camera.

[BigMackCam]

Cool! Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of arty lenses.

Sure, I didn't take your comments at all negatively - sorry if I gave that impression In any case, Lomography has produced some real howlers... as well as some very decent and creative lenses. So it pays to be a little cautious

My impression of the sprocket rocket was that it was a little too far down the rabbit hole for my tastes, but of course it's only one offering from the company. I found it frustrating, because if it was just pushed a tiny bit further along the quality/feature scale it would be a much more fun camera.

I've only briefly tried some of the other Lomography lenses, and a couple of cameras (such as the Belair, which is rather poor pressed-tin-plate camera with nasty stick-on body covering and plastic lenses...). My view is that this lens (assuming the production version is close to my prototype) has a very high build quality, and is surprisingly "normal" optically when stopped down to f/8 and smaller, so it's not just for whacky images. Wide open, out of focus highlights and bokeh are very distinctive (you might find them too distinctive, but that would be a personal taste thing). That reduces through f/4 and f/5.6, but we're definitely talking about an artsy lens, not one that performs particularly well or is at all corrected...

I think those that buy it will have some idea of what to expect, and will be very pleased with it, but it's definitely not a lens for every-day use...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-10-2019 at 01:18 PM.

[Heebie]

I already had a Lomography Dagerreotype Achromat (64mm f2.9) which is a pretty cool and well-built lens.

So, I was a bit dismayed when I received my Lomogon 32mm F2.5 today.
I put it on my camera, and it flops around on the camera quite badly. The mounting mechanism on it is definitely not right.. not remotely right.


I'm quite disappointed indeed. If you can't depend on the focal plane to be in the right place because the lens mount has WAYYYYY too much play in it, you're not likely to get any consistent results from it.

I'm going to have to get in touch with them and complain. I do wonder if anyone else who got theirs thus far has had problems with it.
Mine is the black brass w/PK mount. (I'm also curious if the other builds, brass, and black aluminum are different. I'd expect them all to be made to the same physical specifications.)

If anyone has any suggestions on how I can tighten up how it mounts on the camera, it might come in useful if I don't get cooperation from the folks at Lomography.

[BigMackCam]

I already had a Lomography Dagerreotype Achromat (64mm f2.9) which is a pretty cool and well-built lens.

So, I was a bit dismayed when I received my Lomogon 32mm F2.5 today.
I put it on my camera, and it flops around on the camera quite badly. The mounting mechanism on it is definitely not right.. not remotely right.


I'm quite disappointed indeed. If you can't depend on the focal plane to be in the right place because the lens mount has WAYYYYY too much play in it, you're not likely to get any consistent results from it.

I'm going to have to get in touch with them and complain. I do wonder if anyone else who got theirs thus far has had problems with it.
Mine is the black brass w/PK mount. (I'm also curious if the other builds, brass, and black aluminum are different. I'd expect them all to be made to the same physical specifications.)

If anyone has any suggestions on how I can tighten up how it mounts on the camera, it might come in useful if I don't get cooperation from the folks at Lomography.

Some time back, I bought the Russar+ 5.6/20 lens from Lomography at a show here in the UK. When I got it home and tried it, the focus ring kept fouling the body with a nasty scraping sound and feeling. I had to send it back to Germany (I think) for them to inspect, but I quickly received a brand new lens from them - along with a small but welcome free gift by way of apology. They seem like a pretty decent bunch.

FWIW, my prototype F-mount Lomogon has no play in the mount at all. I suspect you've just got a poorly machined or assembled copy. You should definitely seek replacement for yours...

[Heebie]

FWIW, my prototype F-mount Lomogon has no play in the mount at all. I suspect you've just got a poorly machined or assembled copy. You should definitely seek replacement for yours...

Thanks for that, and the example of their customer service. This makes me hopeful that they'll remedy the situation.

[jose_in_hcmc]

I already had a Lomography Dagerreotype Achromat (64mm f2.9) which is a pretty cool and well-built lens.

So, I was a bit dismayed when I received my Lomogon 32mm F2.5 today.
I put it on my camera, and it flops around on the camera quite badly. The mounting mechanism on it is definitely not right.. not remotely right.


I'm quite disappointed indeed. If you can't depend on the focal plane to be in the right place because the lens mount has WAYYYYY too much play in it, you're not likely to get any consistent results from it.

I'm going to have to get in touch with them and complain. I do wonder if anyone else who got theirs thus far has had problems with it.
Mine is the black brass w/PK mount. (I'm also curious if the other builds, brass, and black aluminum are different. I'd expect them all to be made to the same physical specifications.)

If anyone has any suggestions on how I can tighten up how it mounts on the camera, it might come in useful if I don't get cooperation from the folks at Lomography.

Good morning from Hong Kong! I’ve just received my copy, and I needed to press the lens release button to turn the lens fully into place. Then it’ll fit nice and snug.

I’m still figuring it out. It’s too easy to accidentally turn the aperture plate out of its rightful position. But there have been a few interesting renderings of a quiet Hong Kong hazy morning!

[Heebie]

OK folks... I must post this, and I hope anyone who's read my most recent post in this thread also reads this.

I figured out what is wrong with the lens mount. There is a teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy, notch around the ring. In a PK mount, there is a latch... a small protrusion that locks the lens into place. The protrusion was catching in the teeny tiny notch, so the lens wasn't fully rotating into position in the mount.
If I hold down the release, twist the lens fully into position, then release the release (that sounds silly!) the protrusion ends up in the locking hole correctly, and the lens is fine.
I'm glad I did some experimentation, and I think it important that I mention it here... as I'd probably made Lomography look like their design was wrong or their quality control poor... when there's just a tiny notch that's getting caught wrong.
I'm surprised it's there... but it's not nearly as bad as my previous post implied, I'm happy to say!

[mlt]

Good catch (couldn’t resist) . Now for some pictures, please.

[TwoUptons]

So now in addition to warnings about the ‘Ricoh pin’ we’ll have warnings about the ‘Lomography catch’

-Eric

[reh321]

So now in addition to warnings about the ‘Ricoh pin’ we’ll have warnings about the ‘Lomography catch’

There are two differences:
1. “Ricoh pin” prevents unlatching
2. “Lomography catch” should not exist