New Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f1.6 in PK mount

kentishrev · 04-19-2015, 01:17 PM

To try and get back to the starting point of this thread........it just seems a VERY expensive approach if you are looking to produce that kind of effect. The 07 Mount Shield Lens for the Q does a very similar job for a lot less. The suggestion around a smeared UV filter sounds worth a try too. And I question that the effort involved in doing this in Photoshop is really that hard. How tricky would it be to produce a Mount Shield Lens for a K Mount?

redrockcoulee · 04-19-2015, 08:14 PM

A zone plate on your camera is also an less expensive method of creating a pictorial is to image. Art is in the eyes of its creator, no one has to agree with the artist but to state that it is not art just because you do not like or appreciate it is not correct. No more than me saying that turnips are not food.

I do not agree with the concept that a reproduction of an oil painting is just as good as the real thing or that copying an original work of art is a worthy endeavor unless you are learning how the masters made their work. Artists work is of value and is not out their for your free use. Just my private rant.

Nicolas06 · 04-19-2015, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by redrockcoulee

A zone plate on your camera is also an less expensive method of creating a pictorial is to image. Art is in the eyes of its creator, no one has to agree with the artist but to state that it is not art just because you do not like or appreciate it is not correct. No more than me saying that turnips are not food.

I do not agree with the concept that a reproduction of an oil painting is just as good as the real thing or that copying an original work of art is a worthy endeavor unless you are learning how the masters made their work. Artists work is of value and is not out their for your free use. Just my private rant.

- If you do your own Pollack, you'll copy the technique, not the actual painting. So there no copyright issue. There should not be holdup of ideas. In particular because one just think of pourring painting on a canevas in a given way should not mean he is the only one on earth that can do that and all others should give him money if they do the same. Imagine if we had to be retricted to 1 Artist for each Art style (for example 1 artist for impressionism), this would have denied humanity lot of fine piece of Art.
- A copy can be under licence and be legitimate. Many artist sell copies of their art to increase revenue. It is also a comon exercie in fact in Art school to learn from the masters and actually a copy made by a more talented artist can be better than the original. There lot of value in the exercise.
- There no issue with copying and old piece of Art. In France it stop 70years after the death of the Artist. It already let lot of time for the Artists and it's familly to make money. There no need to make it last forever.
- Finally if you appreciate a particular work aquiring a good copy of it can be much more affordable than trying to get the orginal. Just imagine if you want a Van Gogh in your living room... Being fetishist and accepting only the original will just mean you'll not get it at all and you'll have to live near the museum that has it if you want to see it on a regular basis. This is not practical.

thibs · 04-20-2015, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

- If you do your own Pollack, you'll copy the technique, not the actual painting. So there no copyright issue. There should not be holdup of ideas. In particular because one just think of pourring painting on a canevas in a given way should not mean he is the only one on earth that can do that and all others should give him money if they do the same. Imagine if we had to be retricted to 1 Artist for each Art style (for example 1 artist for impressionism), this would have denied humanity lot of fine piece of Art.
- A copy can be under licence and be legitimate. Many artist sell copies of their art to increase revenue. It is also a comon exercie in fact in Art school to learn from the masters and actually a copy made by a more talented artist can be better than the original. There lot of value in the exercise.
- There no issue with copying and old piece of Art. In France it stop 70years after the death of the Artist. It already let lot of time for the Artists and it's familly to make money. There no need to make it last forever.
- Finally if you appreciate a particular work aquiring a good copy of it can be much more affordable than trying to get the orginal. Just imagine if you want a Van Gogh in your living room... Being fetishist and accepting only the original will just mean you'll not get it at all and you'll have to live near the museum that has it if you want to see it on a regular basis. This is not practical.

So?
In which is that any contradication to redrockcoulee's post ? Or mine btw ?

Nicolas06 · 04-20-2015, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by thibs

So?
In which is that any contradication to redrockcoulee's post ? Or mine btw ?

Well for me I said one could be as fine doing his own Pollack if he like the style. It might be more fun (and far less expensive too). For sure it would not be the same painting, more the style. It might end up better, at least for the one making it.

I thought but maybe wrong that the reply of redrockcoulee on copying. There many legitimate use of copying and there also inspiration. For me the paying for the original is just an (old) way to recognise the author, but like stocks it is worth only when you pay the author directly. If you buy from another buyer, you are not actually helping one bit.

Na Horuk · 04-20-2015, 01:40 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by kentishrev

And I question that the effort involved in doing this in Photoshop is really that hard. How tricky would it be to produce a Mount Shield Lens for a K Mount?

There are already some lomo lenses for Kmount. Holga makes two, I think. And then there are some pinhole "lenses" as well. These are available for under $50 each, I think. Not to mention older lenses. There are plenty of m42 lenses that will produce a soft, velvety, low contrast type photo.

Its much easier to buy imperfection, than to buy a lens that perfectly imitates an imperfection..

brelip · 05-02-2015, 09:04 AM - **1 Like**

I bought this lens, and returned it...

Two reasons -
The lens has a serious design flaw IMO. I use an adapter to use on full frame Sony A7. The entire lens barrel is essentially a focus ring. It's easy to focus but impossible to mount/unmount from the adapter - no where to grip. If you leave the adapter on the entire time that's fine, but I only have one adapter for multiple lenses.
The bokeh is nice most of the time, but sometimes it produces a weird white dot in the center of the out of focus highlight area. Very unusual. Usually the outer ring glows but this is the opposite.

By the way, this lens seems to be designed to be shot around f4-f8. Even at f5.6, the out of focus area is very dreamy (on Full Frame). Unlike other soft focus lens i've used.

Na Horuk · 05-02-2015, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by brelip

I bought this lens, and returned it...

Can you maybe post some photos that you took with it?

brelip · 05-02-2015, 08:56 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Can you maybe post some photos that you took with it?

here's a cropped (about 1:3) image showing the weird bokeh. I think this was about f2. Focus is on the light switch.

shiner · 05-07-2015, 06:23 AM

Wow, I was all hot to order one of these, but you guys have convinced me that it is a steamy POS.

I'll get that navigation chip for my car, instead.

**BruceBanner** · 08-27-2018, 08:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by brelip

I bought this lens, and returned it...

Two reasons -
The lens has a serious design flaw IMO. I use an adapter to use on full frame Sony A7. The entire lens barrel is essentially a focus ring. It's easy to focus but impossible to mount/unmount from the adapter - no where to grip. If you leave the adapter on the entire time that's fine, but I only have one adapter for multiple lenses.
The bokeh is nice most of the time, but sometimes it produces a weird white dot in the center of the out of focus highlight area. Very unusual. Usually the outer ring glows but this is the opposite.

By the way, this lens seems to be designed to be shot around f4-f8. Even at f5.6, the out of focus area is very dreamy (on Full Frame). Unlike other soft focus lens i've used.

Yep, that's what I've seen as well.

I pulled the trigger on this lens yesterday, personally (in the right hands) I am gob-smacked by what this lens is capable of, what I am most curious about is how it performs on a K-1.
I think there are too many misconceptions about the lens, too many shots taken fully wide open when really the good stuff comes far more down the stop.

I realise this thread is old, but I think there are some nice submissions here, possibly much better examples now of what exists than when this thread was made;

Lensbaby Velvet 56 | Flickr

**travelswsage** · 08-28-2018, 06:21 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BruceBanner

I pulled the trigger on this lens yesterday, personally (in the right hands) I am gob-smacked by what this lens is capable of, what I am most curious about is how it performs on a K-1.

I picked one up also and am enjoying shooting with it -- I think you'll enjoy it. It is wonderful for still lifes and for flower photography as the images at your link point out. For more examples of this and the other lensbabies on flowers check out Kathleen Clemons galleries -- home

troenaas · 08-28-2018, 06:50 AM - **1 Like**

This is one of my favorite flowerphotography lenses on K1. The following was shot @ f2.

https://500px.com/photo/269759285/clematis-jackmanii-by-torstein-roenaas

northcoastgreg · 08-28-2018, 07:29 AM - **1 Like**

I agree with those posters who recognize that you can get very interesting results from this lens --- although it can be tricky. My only caveat is that I don't really see much difference between what you can get from this "velvet" lens and what you can extract from some of the older Pentax soft focus lenses, such as the F/FA 85/2.8 . And since you can usually find the Pentax lenses at lower price points, they might be the better option. Plus, with the F/FA versions, you get autofocus with the K-1.

troenaas · 08-28-2018, 10:59 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

I agree with those posters who recognize that you can get very interesting results from this lens --- although it can be tricky. My only caveat is that I don't really see much difference between what you can get from this "velvet" lens and what you can extract from some of the older Pentax soft focus lenses, such as the F/FA 85/2.8 . And since you can usually find the Pentax lenses at lower price points, they might be the better option. Plus, with the F/FA versions, you get autofocus with the K-1.

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.

04-19-2015, 11:47 PM	#48
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by redrockcoulee A zone plate on your camera is also an less expensive method of creating a pictorial is to image. Art is in the eyes of its creator, no one has to agree with the artist but to state that it is not art just because you do not like or appreciate it is not correct. No more than me saying that turnips are not food. I do not agree with the concept that a reproduction of an oil painting is just as good as the real thing or that copying an original work of art is a worthy endeavor unless you are learning how the masters made their work. Artists work is of value and is not out their for your free use. Just my private rant. - If you do your own Pollack, you'll copy the technique, not the actual painting. So there no copyright issue. There should not be holdup of ideas. In particular because one just think of pourring painting on a canevas in a given way should not mean he is the only one on earth that can do that and all others should give him money if they do the same. Imagine if we had to be retricted to 1 Artist for each Art style (for example 1 artist for impressionism), this would have denied humanity lot of fine piece of Art. - A copy can be under licence and be legitimate. Many artist sell copies of their art to increase revenue. It is also a comon exercie in fact in Art school to learn from the masters and actually a copy made by a more talented artist can be better than the original. There lot of value in the exercise. - There no issue with copying and old piece of Art. In France it stop 70years after the death of the Artist. It already let lot of time for the Artists and it's familly to make money. There no need to make it last forever. - Finally if you appreciate a particular work aquiring a good copy of it can be much more affordable than trying to get the orginal. Just imagine if you want a Van Gogh in your living room... Being fetishist and accepting only the original will just mean you'll not get it at all and you'll have to live near the museum that has it if you want to see it on a regular basis. This is not practical. Last edited by Nicolas06; 04-19-2015 at 11:53 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Fuji XF 56mm f1.2 R Lens - Like New	Qwntm	Sold Items	0	09-27-2014 05:27 PM
Nature Morning Buck in Velvet	45 Mike	Post Your Photos!	2	07-20-2014 02:37 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax mount. Like new in original package. $315	grahame	Sold Items	8	11-20-2013 09:18 AM
Sears 80-200mm PK-mount lens doesn't mount on K1000	kylemsguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	09-19-2013 11:44 AM
New 500 f5.6 in Pentax mount	WPRESTO	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	10-04-2011 03:13 AM

04-19-2015, 01:17 PM	#46
kentishrev Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 180	To try and get back to the starting point of this thread........it just seems a VERY expensive approach if you are looking to produce that kind of effect. The 07 Mount Shield Lens for the Q does a very similar job for a lot less. The suggestion around a smeared UV filter sounds worth a try too. And I question that the effort involved in doing this in Photoshop is really that hard. How tricky would it be to produce a Mount Shield Lens for a K Mount?

04-19-2015, 08:14 PM	#47
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	A zone plate on your camera is also an less expensive method of creating a pictorial is to image. Art is in the eyes of its creator, no one has to agree with the artist but to state that it is not art just because you do not like or appreciate it is not correct. No more than me saying that turnips are not food. I do not agree with the concept that a reproduction of an oil painting is just as good as the real thing or that copying an original work of art is a worthy endeavor unless you are learning how the masters made their work. Artists work is of value and is not out their for your free use. Just my private rant.

04-20-2015, 12:24 AM	#49
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Nicolas06 - If you do your own Pollack, you'll copy the technique, not the actual painting. So there no copyright issue. There should not be holdup of ideas. In particular because one just think of pourring painting on a canevas in a given way should not mean he is the only one on earth that can do that and all others should give him money if they do the same. Imagine if we had to be retricted to 1 Artist for each Art style (for example 1 artist for impressionism), this would have denied humanity lot of fine piece of Art. - A copy can be under licence and be legitimate. Many artist sell copies of their art to increase revenue. It is also a comon exercie in fact in Art school to learn from the masters and actually a copy made by a more talented artist can be better than the original. There lot of value in the exercise. - There no issue with copying and old piece of Art. In France it stop 70years after the death of the Artist. It already let lot of time for the Artists and it's familly to make money. There no need to make it last forever. - Finally if you appreciate a particular work aquiring a good copy of it can be much more affordable than trying to get the orginal. Just imagine if you want a Van Gogh in your living room... Being fetishist and accepting only the original will just mean you'll not get it at all and you'll have to live near the museum that has it if you want to see it on a regular basis. This is not practical. So? In which is that any contradication to redrockcoulee's post ? Or mine btw ?

04-20-2015, 01:00 AM	#50
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by thibs So? In which is that any contradication to redrockcoulee's post ? Or mine btw ? Well for me I said one could be as fine doing his own Pollack if he like the style. It might be more fun (and far less expensive too). For sure it would not be the same painting, more the style. It might end up better, at least for the one making it. I thought but maybe wrong that the reply of redrockcoulee on copying. There many legitimate use of copying and there also inspiration. For me the paying for the original is just an (old) way to recognise the author, but like stocks it is worth only when you pay the author directly. If you buy from another buyer, you are not actually helping one bit.

04-20-2015, 01:40 AM - 1 Like	#51
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by kentishrev And I question that the effort involved in doing this in Photoshop is really that hard. How tricky would it be to produce a Mount Shield Lens for a K Mount? There are already some lomo lenses for Kmount. Holga makes two, I think. And then there are some pinhole "lenses" as well. These are available for under $50 each, I think. Not to mention older lenses. There are plenty of m42 lenses that will produce a soft, velvety, low contrast type photo. Its much easier to buy imperfection, than to buy a lens that perfectly imitates an imperfection..

05-02-2015, 09:04 AM - 1 Like	#52
brelip Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Albums Posts: 71	I bought this lens, and returned it... Two reasons - The lens has a serious design flaw IMO. I use an adapter to use on full frame Sony A7. The entire lens barrel is essentially a focus ring. It's easy to focus but impossible to mount/unmount from the adapter - no where to grip. If you leave the adapter on the entire time that's fine, but I only have one adapter for multiple lenses. The bokeh is nice most of the time, but sometimes it produces a weird white dot in the center of the out of focus highlight area. Very unusual. Usually the outer ring glows but this is the opposite. By the way, this lens seems to be designed to be shot around f4-f8. Even at f5.6, the out of focus area is very dreamy (on Full Frame). Unlike other soft focus lens i've used.

05-02-2015, 09:10 AM	#53
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by brelip I bought this lens, and returned it... Can you maybe post some photos that you took with it?

05-02-2015, 08:56 PM - 1 Like	#54
brelip Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Albums Posts: 71	Originally posted by Na Horuk Can you maybe post some photos that you took with it? here's a cropped (about 1:3) image showing the weird bokeh. I think this was about f2. Focus is on the light switch.

05-07-2015, 06:23 AM	#55
shiner Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N GA USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,127	Wow, I was all hot to order one of these, but you guys have convinced me that it is a steamy POS. I'll get that navigation chip for my car, instead.

08-27-2018, 08:48 PM - 1 Like	#56
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,404	Originally posted by brelip I bought this lens, and returned it... Two reasons - The lens has a serious design flaw IMO. I use an adapter to use on full frame Sony A7. The entire lens barrel is essentially a focus ring. It's easy to focus but impossible to mount/unmount from the adapter - no where to grip. If you leave the adapter on the entire time that's fine, but I only have one adapter for multiple lenses. The bokeh is nice most of the time, but sometimes it produces a weird white dot in the center of the out of focus highlight area. Very unusual. Usually the outer ring glows but this is the opposite. By the way, this lens seems to be designed to be shot around f4-f8. Even at f5.6, the out of focus area is very dreamy (on Full Frame). Unlike other soft focus lens i've used. Yep, that's what I've seen as well. I pulled the trigger on this lens yesterday, personally (in the right hands) I am gob-smacked by what this lens is capable of, what I am most curious about is how it performs on a K-1. I think there are too many misconceptions about the lens, too many shots taken fully wide open when really the good stuff comes far more down the stop. I realise this thread is old, but I think there are some nice submissions here, possibly much better examples now of what exists than when this thread was made; Lensbaby Velvet 56 \| Flickr

08-28-2018, 06:21 AM - 1 Like	#57
travelswsage Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2016 Posts: 385	Originally posted by BruceBanner I pulled the trigger on this lens yesterday, personally (in the right hands) I am gob-smacked by what this lens is capable of, what I am most curious about is how it performs on a K-1. I picked one up also and am enjoying shooting with it -- I think you'll enjoy it. It is wonderful for still lifes and for flower photography as the images at your link point out. For more examples of this and the other lensbabies on flowers check out Kathleen Clemons galleries -- home

08-28-2018, 06:50 AM - 1 Like	#58
troenaas Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 668	This is one of my favorite flowerphotography lenses on K1. The following was shot @ f2. https://500px.com/photo/269759285/clematis-jackmanii-by-torstein-roenaas

08-28-2018, 07:29 AM - 1 Like	#59
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	I agree with those posters who recognize that you can get very interesting results from this lens --- although it can be tricky. My only caveat is that I don't really see much difference between what you can get from this "velvet" lens and what you can extract from some of the older Pentax soft focus lenses, such as the F/FA 85/2.8 . And since you can usually find the Pentax lenses at lower price points, they might be the better option. Plus, with the F/FA versions, you get autofocus with the K-1.

08-28-2018, 10:59 AM - 2 Likes	#60
troenaas Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 668	Originally posted by northcoastgreg I agree with those posters who recognize that you can get very interesting results from this lens --- although it can be tricky. My only caveat is that I don't really see much difference between what you can get from this "velvet" lens and what you can extract from some of the older Pentax soft focus lenses, such as the F/FA 85/2.8 . And since you can usually find the Pentax lenses at lower price points, they might be the better option. Plus, with the F/FA versions, you get autofocus with the K-1. 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.