[rendition]

Im not seeing anything convincing that suggests this lens is useless for portraits.


If you want a razor sharp portrait lens with shallow depth of field that's up to you. Personally I think a razor sharp portrait is no portrait at all.


Ill say it again lets see what the lens produces before dismissing it.


I said this:-


Holga were made for experimental art pictures so the images will be soft and smeary.

You ask if it might be cheap and nasty and that question speaks volumes, I hope to give you something to think about before rejecting this lens.

This lens could be described as cheap and nasty or bad, but that would be a mistake. It is designed to mimic some of the old fashioned lenses of over a hundred years ago.

Images taken with these old lenses are respected and are seen as attractive, having a timeless charm. The problem is if you try it on all subjects you get a disaster, an architectural image is all wrong with this lens. Sport and action is all wrong, wildlife and landscape is all wrong.

But if you concentrate on people shots portraits and images that can evoke emotions then your in the ballpark of where this lens lives.


Many lenses over 100 years ago were very soft and smeary particularly single meniscus box brownie camera lenses. Soft images have a character all their own. And whats wrong with a plastic lens anyway.


Have you guys looked at pinhole cameras, no lens at all soft and smeary and with a character all their own.


Im not saying a Holga makes fabulous images, im saying it will be soft and smeary, are you saying that's wrong? they could be good for portraits given half a chance.


Rendition you were quick at first to dismiss this lens saying its useless without giving it a chance, then you suggest its better for architecture than portrait, then you say your all for experimentation.


Get off your high horse and let the images speak.


Anyone can say any old rubbish they want its the image that matters. I for one want to see what you get.


Stop the bickering and lets see the results.

There is no bickering. Let me re-emphasize: I just want to see you, ImageMan, shoot the Holga 10mm on pentax Q as a portrait len on people. Stop detracting with long sentences. I'm also not high-horse, but it seemed dubious that someone of your 50 years + caliber of shooting photography suggesting that Holga 10mm is generally good for portrait. Also, you seemed to misunderstand what I wrote, so let me state again in regarding to the Holga 10mm on Q: Experimentation portrait: yes, practical portrait: no.

And let's not get into comparing meniscus lens because it's orange and apple: it was designed to use on film, not digital. Pentax Q has among the worst sensors lpm of 300+ (and now you know why the Q-S1 is still at 12.4mp), and there is currently no known modern still/cine lens aside from that Otus Distagon that have the resolving power that surpass 300lpm. Plastic lens are FUN to use on Q, but are falling short of achieving good result due to Q's sensor.

Also, the reason why I suggested it is for landscape is because of the Holga's 10mm's Field-of-View of f/45 At fiew of view of/45, it will be SHARP center, not soft for portrait; and when you zoom in to do pixel-peeping, it will be blurry because of the len's limited resolving power.

Go on, take a portrait picture on Q, imageman, with that Holga 10mm. It will be sharp center and you will see everything in the background, unless it is intentionally motion-induced, out-of-focus, or blurred after post-processing.

---

Last edited by rendition; 08-11-2014 at 06:42 PM.

[Imageman]

This is not a battle between us this is all about the OP having bought a lens.


Stop trying to win points. let the OP use his equipment. This is not about you, and its not about me.

So end this ridiculous debate.


Enough already.

[rendition]

OP does not even buy it yet. I suggest OP save that £10 and either having a good breakfast or give it to charity; it's be better off that way. For reasons, please refer to my previous posts. You will probably get bored with one-trick pony Holga 10mm eventually and it will be gathering dusts and termites and the likes.


Rendition.

[Imageman]

Rendition


You have a strange view of photography a very narrow view and anything that doesnt fit your narrow view is all wrong to you and must be stamped out.
You change your position at whim like you change a shirt. you first said this lens was worthless, then you said it would be good for landscapes and architectural but not portraits. you then said what you really meant was some portraits not others, now you say its worth nothing and dont spend the money buy a breakfast instead or give the money away.


Instead of paying £300 or £1000 for a pentax lens this Holga lens is just £10 and if it produces even average looking images then its worth it.
I have looked at the 60mm holga images linked to by Na Horuk in an earlier post, these images arent average theyr excellent. These are in my opinion wonderful images and they include a portrait that I would be proud of.


They are as I earlier suggested full of character and I would love to try out this lens or a similar lens on my camera.


The only question is does this 10mm lens produce images this engaging on Q, the 10mm on Q should be 55mm so its maybe not so different.


So far the only good sense you have spoken is to explain that the Q sensor is 300lpmm I dont know if that is correct but thats a reason as you state to doubt this lens will perform well on Q. However you say that this lens will be sharp in the centre. No absolutely not, the 300lpmm coupled with this lens means it will be soft in the centre due to resolution issues on that sensor being so mismatched to the lens.

But who knows what the images will look like if the OP gets this lens, personally I cant wait to see them.


As long as your rants declaring this lens to be worthless havent put him off.

[rendition]

Rendition


You have a strange view of photography a very narrow view and anything that doesnt fit your narrow view is all wrong to you and must be stamped out.
You change your position at whim like you change a shirt. you first said this lens was worthless, then you said it would be good for landscapes and architectural but not portraits. you then said what you really meant was some portraits not others, now you say its worth nothing and dont spend the money buy a breakfast instead or give the money away.


Instead of paying £300 or £1000 for a pentax lens this Holga lens is just £10 and if it produces even average looking images then its worth it.
I have looked at the 60mm holga images linked to by Na Horuk in an earlier post, these images arent average theyr excellent. These are in my opinion wonderful images and they include a portrait that I would be proud of.


They are as I earlier suggested full of character and I would love to try out this lens or a similar lens on my camera.


The only question is does this 10mm lens produce images this engaging on Q, the 10mm on Q should be 55mm so its maybe not so different.


So far the only good sense you have spoken is to explain that the Q sensor is 300lpmm I dont know if that is correct but thats a reason as you state to doubt this lens will perform well on Q. However you say that this lens will be sharp in the centre. No absolutely not, the 300lpmm coupled with this lens means it will be soft in the centre due to resolution issues on that sensor being so mismatched to the lens.

But who knows what the images will look like if the OP gets this lens, personally I cant wait to see them.


As long as your rants declaring this lens to be worthless havent put him off.

I did not have any more discussion with you Imageman, and yet you are still pulling me in? I was being nice, and now I'm just going to be honest and say that you are either an idiot or just a myopic moron, or a combination of both. I'm quoting the previous post #17

Stop trying to win points. let the OP use his equipment. This is not about you, and its not about me.

So end this ridiculous debate.

And no, I did not read your continuing rambling on post #19, and blatantly disregarded of what you proposed in post #17 , hence I am not going waste any more brain cell on this.

My previous post was for OP. Please stop referring to me. Just. Stop. It.

For OP, it is up to you but I think Holga 10mm len is pointless on Q unless you enjoy low-fi landscape.

/abandon thread

[Imageman]

Well this myopic moron says if you find an interesting lens like this Holga at low price its worth a punt and some experimentation.


Lets push boundaries and try to make some interesting and worthwhile images.


I for one will be looking for a Holga to fit my gear.


If only I was a better photographer lol

[GUB]

Anyone had a play with one of these? I've spotted it on eBay for less than £10. It looks cheap and nasty, but I'd be interested to hear your comments if you've tried one.

Have fun with that Holga , 35millimeter, and don't forget to post an image on the adapted lens on Q thread. Celebrate its qualities (or lack of them!!)

[barondla]

Have fun with that Holga , 35millimeter, and don't forget to post an image on the adapted lens on Q thread. Celebrate its qualities (or lack of them!!)

Now I am interested. May pick one up. If it isn't my fave, could modify it to do somehing else. The Q always leads to fun.thanks
barondla

[boriscleto]

I just bought one. It's more than a sandwich but less than a deluxe pizza...but also a fraction of the price of the Pentax toy lenses.

Next up, a D-mount adapter to try out some 8mm movie lenses.

[35millimeter]

Wow, well that all escalated quickly! I think I can see both sides of the (somewhat heated!) argument here. The images that Na Horuk linked to (Rense Havemans collection on FLICKR) are very impressive, but of course they were taken with the 60mm lens on a DSLR which presumably gives a shallower depth of field than the 10mm lens will give on the Q. I've found that 60mm lens on eBay (where else!) so I suppose I should now decide whether to go for that one to use with my K-500, or the 10mm for the Q, or both!

Then again, last night I bought a Pentax 110 outfit on eBay. I bought it mostly for the 18mm, 24mm and 50mm lenses, with the added bonus of a rather interesting little SLR to add to my growing list of cameras! I also bought an adapter to use the lenses on the Q (also on eBay) so I shall content myself to playing with those when they turn up while I figure out if I want to try the Holga lenses.

One last question for now - does anyone have any pictures taken with the 10mm Holga on a Q that they could share?

[boriscleto]

I've found that 60mm lens on eBay (where else!) so I suppose I should now decide whether to go for that one to use with my K-500, or the 10mm for the Q, or both!

Obviously both...

These things cost about as much as a dinner entree at a chain restaurant. If you can have some fun with them it's a no brainer.

[barondla]

Have fun with the 110, 35millimeter. After a few years of drought you can now buy new, fresh 110 film. Thank you Lomo for that. Already have three rolls in the fridge. Life is good. Never thought that would happen.
The 110 50mm lens is a honey stupped down to 5.6 on the Q.
thanks
barondla

[35millimeter]

Obviously both...

These things cost about as much as a dinner entree at a chain restaurant. If you can have some fun with them it's a no brainer.

You can't argue with logic like that, so I've just bought both

[Imageman]

I wasn't heated lol, im glad to see your up for some fun imagemaking still

[ritualnet]

Is there any difference between the one in the original post, or one for a different camera mount, used with an adapter?

I have an EM5, and was tempted to pick one up for that, if I can slap it on the Pentax Q too, that would be a nice two-for-one purchase.