[troenaas]

When you shoot professionally and factor in your editing time as actual cost of job, the $199 Sol 45 becomes an absolute bargain for what it can do... it SAVES money in the long run because it saves time and does what the photographer wants at the time of shot. You might as well say using gels on flashes is pointless too, but then many see the investment in gels vs PP time as more than enough reason to use them. CPL is not an easy effect to fake too, should we not use them either? Or ND filters? Lenses are just tools, period. You might not like them and prefer non 'weird' lenses but photography is actually not always about what you like, sometimes it's about pleasing someone else. One bride in particular enjoyed these recent shots taken with the Velvet 56;

I agree. I don't shoot professionally, but I'm a big fan of Lensbaby and have most of their lenses. The Velvet 56 is probably my favourite lensbaby.

If you spend hours in PP, you might be able to replicate the effect. But when you are out shooting, you can see what you get on the LCD and adjust immediately if needed. Can't do that in PP.

[troenaas]

discontinue supporting Pentax mount (but have said if you reach out to them personally they should be able to make a lens in K mount at no additional cost)

Thanks for sharing that info. That is very good to know.

[lotech]

Lenses, cameras, filters and software are all tools. Having the right tool for the job is never a bad thing. Having to work around NOT having a tool is not ideal because it wastes time. Do I like the Velvet's effect? Eh, not really so often. Is it good that people who like it have it available? Yes.

Your clients and yourself are the only people you should be concerned about, Eddy. (And this one is gorgeous, no matter the lens that took it )

Right, regarding the Lensbaby effect simply by looking at the photo I doubt anyone can tell it is original or a piece of software work, workaround may not be a bad thing as long as you get the effect you wanted. And I don't know why many people like the cine effect on non cine camera, it was the design and limitation of the camera and lens to produce that light flare, and PS even has that effect built in, of course there are more than that in shooting cine. Although I am in the IT field I am against using too much of s/w in photography, but the fact is s/w can save the day in many cases.

[troenaas]

fact is s/w can save the day in many cases.

I disagree. PP can save the day in very few cases, but not in many cases. If you haven't gotten it right in camera, there isn't much you can do in PP.

[lotech]

Well if I can't take a reasonably sharp and properly exposed shot I will try harder, and then I can apply s/w filter and post if needed. I did apply USM and enhance contrast in my shots due to bad weather and less than ideal lens in use, other than that I rarely use s/w tricks. Let's think back in the 'film era' we put Vaseline over the lens or even blow our breath to it to mimic the soften effect of an expensive soft portrait lens, and put a cardboard with a round hole over the lens to create near perfect bokeh (Hoya actually produced such filter), not the real thing but close enough, I even know a small studio owner use this tricks and satisfied his clients, so workaround already a common practice not a new thing. When we became wealthy we have access to specific tools for the task, but I don't think too much time will be wasted in producing the s/w effect, and many pro use s/w tricks that's why PS is a must have to them !

[xandos]

No offense, there are some lenses produced for specific purposes and became hot items sought after, but in the digital age s/w can almost do magic can turn a perfect shot into any art form you want, so that I will make my best effort to take the best shot and would not invest on those things.

Lets take that ad absurdum. Why make photographs at all? Using photoshop, and perhaps some other software such as blender, and infinite skill and time, one can produce any picture at all without having to use a camera. Why waste money on camera and lenses? Just make it from scratch.

(In case it was unclear, I agree the lensbaby's have a place, and disagree with the people that disregard it because hypothetically it can be done in post. That said, I dont have a lensbaby yet. The Sol looks like a more convenient version of my DIY tiltshift though, so I might consider it)

[BruceBanner]

Very nice pics thanks, btw CPL (if you mean filter) and gels over flash are different can not be faked, and I doubt digital ND can do any good... since you are a working pro you need to have all kinds of tools available to satisfy different clients, and able to instant preview of the effect is a definitely plus, but for an average hobbyist shooter like myself I don't see why I need such a lens, and there are Youtube videos explaining how the Lensbaby effect can be achieved by other means. Hobbyist and enthusiast shooter like to experiment with different things to produce different effect, like how to create the cine lens effect with an ordinary lens is a hot topic, also due to lack of funding hobbyist shooter can't always get what they want in the market. Regarding Pentax lacking 3rd party support indeed a bad thing, but I don't think it will die down any time soon at least a new camera is in the making, no matter how painfully slow Pentax produces it still ticking, and the active discussion in the forum will surely cheer them up ha !

Thank you.

CPL in terms of reflection, no, not possible in PP, but boosting saturation, warmth and contrast, yeah possible. ND filter, or use the built in camera multi exposure mode to fake slo mo water, one might take longer to achieve, the other cost you $50 and you're away with the shots in a quicker time frame (and arguably better).
I'm not suggesting you need lensbaby lenses in your life, I just feel slightly defensive how a company that makes what I would call 'artistic lenses' is on the receiving ends of constant attacks from people who claim the same can be done in PP or whatever (yet actually fail to ever EVER produce an example, least of all their own). Claiming it can be done in s/w and actually having the know how are two entirely different things, and what if someone doesn't own the s/w or want to learn how to do it? Perhaps spending $199 on a Sol45 is actually cheaper than owning software, time invested in learning how to do it well vs just buying the damn lens and being happy. More time shooting and less time editing is a better thing imo. And the smearing of vaseline is a joke, its not the same, and even if it were at a wedding event you do not want to be messing around with anything greasy on the day... period. These are just silly arguments, so what if a company makes a bunch of lenses that render differently, big deal. Like it or don't like, move on is what I say and just let people shoot what they want to shoot.

Lenses, cameras, filters and software are all tools. Having the right tool for the job is never a bad thing. Having to work around NOT having a tool is not ideal because it wastes time. Do I like the Velvet's effect? Eh, not really so often. Is it good that people who like it have it available? Yes.

Your clients and yourself are the only people you should be concerned about, Eddy. (And this one is gorgeous, no matter the lens that took it )

Agreed, and thanks.

I agree. I don't shoot professionally, but I'm a big fan of Lensbaby and have most of their lenses. The Velvet 56 is probably my favourite lensbaby.

If you spend hours in PP, you might be able to replicate the effect. But when you are out shooting, you can see what you get on the LCD and adjust immediately if needed. Can't do that in PP.

True, and I am actually still to see a good PP lensbaby shot in PS vs a native one of the same scene to actually accurately compare.

Photoshop is incredibly indepth, and people claiming that the effect can be done in PP is a bit like a plumber saying he can build a house. No he can't. He can work on certain aspects of a house but he is not a roofer, electrician, architect, engineer etc etc. PS is a large program and to get good at it can be a very specialised subject, to the point that professional retouchers are not even photographers. I'm not saying it can't be done in PP/PS, I'm saying I can't do it and I know my way around the program pretty well, better than most. I could have a try but it would prolly be pretty bad, and I've seen the tutorials on youtube also, but watching youtube tutorials doesn't translate to being able to do it, and again on repeat attempts. I have to bookmark a many technique or tactic to solve a particular issue in PS, so even if you can do it once, try again 3 months later.... it can be like having to relearn it all over again.

Thanks for sharing that info. That is very good to know.

Right, regarding the Lensbaby effect simply by looking at the photo I doubt anyone can tell it is original or a piece of software work, workaround may not be a bad thing as long as you get the effect you wanted. And I don't know why many people like the cine effect on non cine camera, it was the design and limitation of the camera and lens to produce that light flare, and PS even has that effect built in, of course there are more than that in shooting cine. Although I am in the IT field I am against using too much of s/w in photography, but the fact is s/w can save the day in many cases.

I disagree. PP can save the day in very few cases, but not in many cases. If you haven't gotten it right in camera, there isn't much you can do in PP.

I sit somewhere between those two points. Get as much right in camera as possible, try and let PP amplify your image's message/intent in a tasteful manner. If I screw up a shot I try not to salvage anything these days and just cull it, although I would be lying if I said I hadn't actually attempted something that could resemble a salvage job for a client (typically I make sure my client understands the shot is a salvage and should not be viewed/printed larger than x or otherwise flaws will start to become quite apparent).

Really tho, the bottom line is time is money (and even if you're a hobbyist the same is true in terms of not $ but your own PERSONAL time and how it is actually limited to each and everyone of us on this planet).

If you charge $100/hr and it takes you 1hr to mimic the affect of one of the lensbaby lenses in PP, then after 5 images you have spent the same as just buying the lens. Multiply that by the amount of times you do a shoot etc etc. Same goes for a hobbyist. Always I hear the argument that they could do the effect in PP, but they never ever do, meanwhile I will take hundreds of lensbaby shots and the person whom in theory could mimic the effect in PP actually never does. It's an empty argument. Find me one person who does the lensbaby effects in PP without owning lensbaby lenses, and does it often and has hundreds of images to prove it... but I have never found such an individual, and even if such a person existed they would be the exception to the rule and the point still stands.

Ultimately this all comes back to Pentax. Losing any third party support is not good and that really is the message at heart. If Sigma and Lensbaby sales in K Mount were good they would not abandon the mount. Why are they not good? Does this lack of support translate to lack of Pentax lenses also being purchased... see my point?

---

Last edited by BruceBanner; 12-11-2019 at 04:22 AM.

[troenaas]

Ultimately this all comes back to Pentax. Losing any third party support is not good and that really is the message at heart. If Sigma and Lensbaby sales in K Mount were good they would not abandon the mount. Why are they not good? Does this lack of support translate to lack of Pentax lenses also being purchased... see my point?

I agree. Sigma and Lensbaby ended up sitting on inventory that didn't move fast enough. I work for a company that sells supply chain software to production companies, wholesalers and retailers. They all have one thing in common - they want to keep the inventory as low as possible.

[zapp]

Come on, does Pentax have a problem here or Lensbaby.

[troenaas]

Come on, does Pentax have a problem here or Lensbaby.

Well, if you have fever options from 3rd party lens manufacturers (Sigma and Lensbaby) it is not good.

[BruceBanner]

Come on, does Pentax have a problem here or Lensbaby.

The answer is easy, both. Both companies have a vested interest. Lensbaby WANTS to sell lenses, on any mount, as long as it sells. Pentax wants to be seen as being an attractive platform to buy into with plenty of third party support.

[Frater]

Pentax wants to be seen as being an attractive platform to buy into with plenty of third party support.

Yes. Because being seen as an unattractive platform with no third party support is a real problem. It becomes a vicious circle. Lens makers perceive Pentax as an unattractive platform and turn away. Because of this, the market perceives Pentax as an unattractive platform, stays away, which makes its market share shrink even further. This in turn makes lens makers perceive Pentax as even more unattractive than ever - the vicious circle is closed, with no escape route.

The problem of no 3rd party support seems to strike elsewhere, as well? I get the impression that Nikon has difficulties to make their Z a real success in the market. I'm sure this is due to Z being a lonesome-island system with no 3rd party support, and an uncertain future regarding any 3rd party support to be expectable ever.

Also, the L mount alliance doesn't take off in the market. This is probably because its contributors are a closed club of three, which offer only highly-priced / overpriced stuff, and keep attractive 3rd party competition out. With no outlook of this ever changing. This renders the L mount alliance unattractive in the market as well, at this moment.

[disconnekt]

Yes. Because being seen as an unattractive platform with no third party support is a real problem. It becomes a vicious circle. Lens makers perceive Pentax as an unattractive platform and turn away. Because of this, the market perceives Pentax as an unattractive platform, stays away, which makes its market share shrink even further. This in turn makes lens makers perceive Pentax as even more unattractive than ever - the vicious circle is closed, with no escape route.

The problem of no 3rd party support seems to strike elsewhere, as well? I get the impression that Nikon has difficulties to make their Z a real success in the market. I'm sure this is due to Z being a lonesome-island system with no 3rd party support, and an uncertain future regarding any 3rd party support to be expectable ever.

Also, the L mount alliance doesn't take off in the market. This is probably because its contributors are a closed club of three, which offer only highly-priced / overpriced stuff, and keep attractive 3rd party competition out. With no outlook of this ever changing. This renders the L mount alliance unattractive in the market as well, at this moment.

Dont forget when more & more users say "why upgrade/buy a new af lens when the one I have thats 10+ years old is "good enough"?"

[Fenwoodian]

.
This lack of third party lens support is really starting to bug me.

Sigma recently came out with a new lens called the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DG DN Art lens. A fellow bokeh photographer who I consider to be the best reviewer when it comes to bokeh lenses calls it his favorite wide bokeh lens. I'd love to buy it, but of course it's not available in K mount.

Sigma has come out with some of their best lenses ever since dropping the K mount.

The new Voitlander lenses are also wonderful, and they stopped offering lenses in K mount a long time ago (same with Zeiss).

So, I guess that I'll just have to continue to settle for adapting old lenses to K mount....

[Mistral75]

(...)

Sigma recently came out with a new lens called the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DG DN Art lens. A fellow bokeh photographer who I consider to be the best reviewer when it comes to bokeh lenses calls it his favorite wide bokeh lens. I'd love to buy it, but of course it's not available in K mount.

(...)

The new Voitlander lenses are also wonderful (...)

The Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DG DN | Art isn't available in Canon EF or Nikon F mount either: it's a lens designed for short-flanged (mirrorless) mounts.

Same with the recent Voigtländer lenses.