[ZombieArmy]

One of the things I dislike the most about using lensbaby lenses is the inevitable comment from someone somewhere arguing that the same effect can be done for cheaper or in post production. I don't wholly disagree, a few google searches will show some photoshop tutorials on how to fake a lensbaby affect. Maybe vaseline on a filter does work quite well... but always the flow goes like this;

1) I upload a lensbaby shot
2) I get a comment from someone stating it can be done for cheaper or in PP
3) I agree or disagree (depending on the effect)
4) I point out that some may lack the PP skills to make the effect plausible and authentic in PP, and that perhaps trying to mimic the effect out in the field with vaseline or something else is just annoying and in practice no one really actually can be bothered to do it.
5) They never show their results of an image taken with a normal lens and PP manipulated or some lens hack to illustrate their point. (which I would love to see, as I love hacks and ingenuity, and would also be interesting to compare the effects etc, is it close or far from the same quality etc).
6) I continue to shoot with lensbaby glass (and the cycle repeats).

So in short, if you have the glass in the cabinet, you are simply more likely to take it out and use it, the rest is irrelevant really.

Glad you liked the shots.

FWIW also, the lensbaby is ridiculously sharp, around f5.6-8 it is possibly my sharpest lens in the cabinet!

Some of their prices are pretty insane especially considering they don't have any aperture connections at all. You can get some nice used Zeiss glass for the price of some of them...

I'm completely content with using legacy glass for my fun.

Honestly though I don't care what people do with their money.

[BruceBanner]

Some of their prices are pretty insane especially considering they don't have any aperture connections at all. You can get some nice used Zeiss glass for the price of some of them...

I'm completely content with using legacy glass for my fun.

Honestly though I don't care what people do with their money.

Maybe there is some confusion over the lenses and how they work in practice, they differ a lot with my other 'non A settings' Pentax glass. For example, all the lensbaby lenses support Av mode. You're not stuck at the widest aperture regardless of the setting on the ring (like how I am with my K200 and Tak 135). In Av mode when you shift the aperture on the lens it is reflected in the OVF and recorded for the shot. This does away with any need for optical or digital preview. The only downside is the ovf can get darker too (like try being at f8 on any lens and then initiate the optical preview, things get darker). However, its nice that you immediately get the DoF preview all the time for the shot to help you work out quickly what aperture might work best for the shot.

Lensbaby lenses I would place in a completely separate box from your typical lenses. Lensbaby glass is what I would call as being 'artistic' glass, it's doing something fairly radically different to standard lenses. I mean it's true that the FA Ltds have a lovely quality to their bokeh (pixie dust etc), and how that even possible flaws of that glass work more with it than against (you see this more when you try the lens profile correction for the glass in Lightroom and how much of that special quality is lost when toggling that on).
Tilt shift, select focus, velvet effects, petzval twirls are just some of the strong features these lenses offer. They're not the sort of glass to be used all the time (I mean imagine shooting an entire wedding with a petzval effect piece of glass ), but for the odd shot here and there I think they can be great, and because of this selective use that will always mean the price will be higher, they are simply niche lenses.

I did a lot of research before buying my first lensbaby (velvet 56), every second hand used soft focus lens that I saw I was unimpressed with the results. They are not doing the same thing at all. Maybe they are expensive but you're also able to buy a new one with a warranty whereas most other legacy glass that might have a neat trick up it's sleeve comes at the price no warranty and hoping the optics is in good condition. Helios lenses that supposedly do a petzval effect can be cheap, but then always second hand and driving that effect is not always possible (it becomes a bit of a hit or miss scenario if you manage it), whereas the Twist 60 for example does it on demand every time.

I'm just not sure how the Zeiss comment you make accurately compares. I bought a brand new K Mount Burnside 35 new (with warranty) for the same price my friend bought a second hand Zeiss 35/2. Apart from focal length similarities that is all they have in common. They are both excellent lenses but hardly comparable imo, you use one lens for one thing and another lens for another. I doubt I'd take my Burnside 35 to Europe for a holiday where every shot has a petval swirl, the 35/2 would be much better for that scenario. But then when I do want a petzval swirl with a model on a photoshoot... I'd use the Burnside.

I think the price puts a lot of people off, but then they do actually seem to be of a high image quality, they're not simply 'arty' lenses, they actually do have some high optic qualities inside, sharpness they are certainly not lacking.

This is a shot I took on the weekend with the Twist 60, this was literally a 60 second edit. No additional sharpness or clarity boosting at all, I'm not only impressed with the petzval effect but how where the focus is placed seems to really boost clarity and punch out the object from the scene. This is practically a SOOC;



One of my favourite shots with the velvet 56, this one taken at f8, shows a wonderful degree of sharpness but then beautiful transition to smooth bokeh throughout. Some people forget this is a macro lens as well as portrait;



Speaking of portraits;






I guess perhaps where you and I differ is I don't see these lenses as gimmicky or 'fun'. They're serious tools in a photographers hand. They do take time to learn and are not always easy to tame, but price wise I really have no complaints. The Velvet 56 cost me $400AUD new with 2yr warranty. That's way cheaper than a FA43, cheaper than the HD DA 35 Macro that I owned (and also rated highly yet still sold on...).
Not trying to convince you, simply explaining my own relationship with these lenses.

[ZombieArmy]

Maybe there is some confusion over the lenses and how they work in practice, they differ a lot with my other 'non A settings' Pentax glass. For example, all the lensbaby lenses support Av mode. You're not stuck at the widest aperture regardless of the setting on the ring (like how I am with my K200 and Tak 135). In Av mode when you shift the aperture on the lens it is reflected in the OVF and recorded for the shot. This does away with any need for optical or digital preview. The only downside is the ovf can get darker too (like try being at f8 on any lens and then initiate the optical preview, things get darker). However, its nice that you immediately get the DoF preview all the time for the shot to help you work out quickly what aperture might work best for the shot.

Yah I'm aware they function like Taks. Not necessarily an advantage to me because I focus wide open then I'd need to stop down myself. The only time this has worked for me is with my preset lenses.

Lensbaby lenses I would place in a completely separate box from your typical lenses. Lensbaby glass is what I would call as being 'artistic' glass, it's doing something fairly radically different to standard lenses. I mean it's true that the FA Ltds have a lovely quality to their bokeh (pixie dust etc), and how that even possible flaws of that glass work more with it than against (you see this more when you try the lens profile correction for the glass in Lightroom and how much of that special quality is lost when toggling that on).
Tilt shift, select focus, velvet effects, petzval twirls are just some of the strong features these lenses offer. They're not the sort of glass to be used all the time (I mean imagine shooting an entire wedding with a petzval effect piece of glass ), but for the odd shot here and there I think they can be great, and because of this selective use that will always mean the price will be higher, they are simply niche lenses.

My main argument is really that with decades of lenses at our disposal there are options that are far cheaper that can even offer more at times. The F 85mm soft is a lens that can be had for under 200 dollars with good build quality, auto focus and full aperture control with the A setting (forgot this wasn't true, interestingly it's more of a hybrid...) just as one example.

I'm not suggesting that no one should buy these. But for someone like me who isn't a working professional who can allot that much budget into a very niche lens, I can't say it appeals to me. But then again people drop 4 thousand dollars on a f1.2 lens that isn't even better than a k 1.2 so honestly lensbaby stuff looks like a bargain in comparison to what other people dump money into.

I will say though your work with this particular lens has made me want to purchase the 85mm soft at some point

[BruceBanner]

Yah I'm aware they function like Taks. Not necessarily an advantage to me because I focus wide open then I'd need to stop down myself. The only time this has worked for me is with my preset lenses.


My main argument is really that with decades of lenses at our disposal there are options that are far cheaper that can even offer more at times. The F 85mm soft is a lens that can be had for under 200 dollars with good build quality, auto focus and full aperture control with the A setting (forgot this wasn't true, interestingly it's more of a hybrid...) just as one example.

I'm not suggesting that no one should buy these. But for someone like me who isn't a working professional who can allot that much budget into a very niche lens, I can't say it appeals to me. But then again people drop 4 thousand dollars on a f1.2 lens that isn't even better than a k 1.2 so honestly lensbaby stuff looks like a bargain in comparison to what other people dump money into.

I will say though your work with this particular lens has made me want to purchase the 85mm soft at some point

They don't work like my Tak :S

With my Takumar 135, if I am in Av mode, even if I have the f number at f4 or f8 on the lens it will still take the shot at f2.5. That is not how the lensbaby lenses work at all. In Av mode if you change the lens to f4 the shot will be f4, not 1.6 or whatever the widest aperture of the lens can be is. So although they don't have the A setting, in reality you're only crippled by having to use the lens aperture ring to change aperture rather than a dial on the camera, but for all intensive purposes they function a lot more like normal lenses than some of the older glass I have. I think if they performed like how you might imagine (or like how my K200 or Tak 135 behaves, which means to use any aperture more stopped down than the widest aperture it offers means Manual mode only) then I too would be put off quite a bit.

No one is on more of a budget than I When I purchase a lens it often means one leaves the house Unfortunately I have seen the results of the 85 soft and I just do not think for one minute it is even in the same ballpark as the Velvet 56 or 85. Sometimes you get what you pay for...

I am always open to have my mind changed. It could be (and I hope some people do not take this the wrong way) but that a lot of Pentaxians fall under the amateur category rather than professional. I rarely meet a professional Pentaxian (someone whom does paid with with Pentax cameras). As someone who started off as an amateur Pentaxian and worked to a professional level I saw a higher degree of quality work from other groups that were not brand specific. Joining for example Godox groups where people submit their off camera flash work and you see high level of work from Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony etc makes you start to think that the Pentax market is aimed towards the enthusiast and not professional. This might explain that when someone like me researches lenses like this it's hard to see the potential because the shots themselves are taken by amateur Pentaxians. Joining for example Lensbaby specific groups where you can see a wide variety of people of different levels of ability using different systems really shows the overall potential of the glass vs seeing some Soft FA85 shots from a hobbyist.

Don't get me wrong, I follow a great deal of professional pentaxians whose work I admire and look up to, I'm simply saying the volume of quality of research work can be difficult at times due to the nature of the market that Pentax appeals to. So it could be that the FA85 Soft can be used to fantastic potential, it's just my research and from what I have seen of late just leaves a little to be desired. I worry for example that someone like yourself is not appreciating the quality of the optics from lensbaby itself and thinks the same could be had for cheaper (and with extra bells and whistles). This would then put you off this creative pursuit which I would think is the greatest harm of all.

Honestly I am just a bit over the 'you can do that effect in PP!' or 'just use vaseline! It's the same!" but it's not, not even remotely, and no one ever does the effect in PP to demonstrate. All talk... no walk. <sigh>.

Kinda ridiculous when you think about it, no other lenses seem to cop the same flack as lensbaby. I think the FA43 and FA77 are great pieces of glass, but we could take several lenses out and shoot them all and blind test people into thinking they can tell which lens is which... believe me you can't... many have tried and failed. Only in certain situations can you perhaps tell what optic trait which lens has, the vast majority of shots and its guessing time. Yet you know... we don't overly shout out that the FA77 is overpriced vs teh DA70! Pentax gets a free pass... lensbaby not so much...

[ZombieArmy]

They don't work like my Tak :S

You have the Tak bayonet 135 (I know cause I've seen your review). That's a budget version of the Pentax-A 135 f2.5. I'm talking about the original m42 Takumars which require adaption to a pentax k mount camera.

Yet you know... we don't overly shout out that the FA77 is overpriced vs teh DA70! Pentax gets a free pass... lensbaby not so much...

I have made a few (unpopular) posts stating how I like the look of the DA70 more than the FA77 in pictures I've seen and that I think the FA77 is a bit over rated

[BruceBanner]

You have the Tak bayonet 135 (I know cause I've seen your review). That's a budget version of the Pentax-A 135 f2.5. I'm talking about the original m42 Takumars which require adaption to a pentax k mount camera.

Gotcha.

Yeh I find these non A setting lenses a tad annoying (lensbaby are the exception). I doubt I'll add another one to my collection. I have my green button set to Tv shift as well (so upon pressing the green button in Manual mode it will toggle the shutter speed for me for the correct exposure based on the aperture and ISO settings I am using (and ev comp), but still in practice it's just a bit annoying. I actually have no issue adjusting the aperture on the lens (the lensbaby range have trained me well in this regard), I can feel for the click or simply see the DoF change (and get optical preview feedback etc) and the camera still completely properly operable in Av mode, I'm just a little unclear at this point when researching lenses why some are ok in this mode and some like the K 200 and Tak 135 are essentially purely only Manual mode lenses (I mean you can use them Av but its wide open only). What is the difference in contacts between the lensbaby range and K200/Tak 135, what makes the lensbaby ones work properly in Av mode and the others not etc.

I have made a few (unpopular) posts stating how I like the look of the DA70 more than the FA77 in pictures I've seen and that I think the FA77 is a bit over rated

Good for you, and so you should. I bet there are a gazillion different photo shots could be had where telling the difference between the two is nigh impossible. Of course there will be the odd shot here or there where the 70 might struggle. Not quite the same but comparing the FA43 with perhaps DA 50 and FA50 (and even DA55 etc);




The shot is sharp on her eye, but that's not the real magic here, it's the way the bokeh is resolving here at wide open. The wine glasses, chairs and transitions to the back are really gorgeous. I can't speak for the 70 but the DA50, FA50 that I owned could not give this much texture in the bokeh, it was just a little more flat and lifeless. But we're talking twice the price for the FA43 here over some of those other choices...

Once you start stopping lenses down they do meet on a more even playing field.

But even then I like to use this example to illustrate how an FA Ltd can hold a little more 'dream' onto the bokeh than some comparable lenses;



Both shots with the KP. On the left is the HD DA 20-40, F4 at 40mm. On the right the FA43 at f4. Both are sharp but the bokeh on the right is a little more pronounced and I think better.

But I have played those games where someone takes 5 lenses out and shoots a similar thing (even wide open) and we all have to guess which lens was used for which shot, we all failed lol. So it's something that in real life practice I don't think is massively that important. Placebo will likely play a larger part, I know that when I leave the house with a 77 or 43 I feel like I am using the best small compact beautiful bokeh rendering lenses possible for Pentax, and in that regard I kinda have put that search to sleep. If I owned a DA70 I think I would have that itch that needs scratched, but really... it doesn't, not for 95% of the shots taken.

[ZombieArmy]

Gotcha.

Yeh I find these non A setting lenses a tad annoying (lensbaby are the exception). I doubt I'll add another one to my collection. I have my green button set to Tv shift as well (so upon pressing the green button in Manual mode it will toggle the shutter speed for me for the correct exposure based on the aperture and ISO settings I am using (and ev comp), but still in practice it's just a bit annoying. I actually have no issue adjusting the aperture on the lens (the lensbaby range have trained me well in this regard), I can feel for the click or simply see the DoF change (and get optical preview feedback etc) and the camera still completely properly operable in Av mode, I'm just a little unclear at this point when researching lenses why some are ok in this mode and some like the K 200 and Tak 135 are essentially purely only Manual mode lenses (I mean you can use them Av but its wide open only). What is the difference in contacts between the lensbaby range and K200/Tak 135, what makes the lensbaby ones work properly in Av mode and the others not etc.

You see the modern K mount is crippled. If you've ever noticed on Pentax film cameras that the camera can meter with a mere half press of the shutter? This is because these cameras had a stop-down coupler that allowed them to meter on the fly. Originally a cost cutting measure back in the 90s, the idea of a crippled mount has persisted into the digital age. Clearly there is some ability now for the cameras to stopdown meter with the green button, but Pentax for some reason refuses to fully decripple the mount.

Here is a k mount compatibility list:

The Pentax Camera Lens Compatibility Chart

And some more info on the crippled mount:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170726015721/http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technolog...ippled_AF.html

Also I believe if you want you can have normal m/k lenses without the A setting work like a tak if you stop the lens from shorting the contacts.

---

Last edited by ZombieArmy; 09-02-2019 at 02:41 PM.

[johnha]

Also I believe if you want you can have normal m/k lenses without the A setting work like a tak if you stop the lens from shorting the contacts.

No this won't work, the camera aperture lever mechanically holds the lens aperture open until the exposure. You can unmount the lens slightly (rotate anti-clockwise) to separate the levers, but the lens is then unlocked and likely to fall off the camera.

[ZombieArmy]

No this won't work, the camera aperture lever mechanically holds the lens aperture open until the exposure. You can unmount the lens slightly (rotate anti-clockwise) to separate the levers, but the lens is then unlocked and likely to fall off the camera.

Unfortunate. I know there was some experimentation to short the correct pins to attempt to make an M lens a sort of A lens.

[gatorguy]

I have both the Lensbaby Velvet 56 and SMC Pentax 85mm F2.2 Soft. The Pentax doesn't have macro capability and the out of focus blur on the Velvet 56 is much smoother.

Just today I committed to the same thing, both the Velvet 56 (B&H) and Pentax FA85 Soft on a slow boat from Japan. Your comment kinda supports my expectations and why I spent a bit more on the 56 rather than another Pentax Soft lens. I 'm very much looking forward to a couple of shoots where I've plans for these.

[thibs]

Maybe I should try, never flelt any interest for those lensbaby lenses.