Thanks for that long and informative reply, Moose.
I had noticed that it was fairly large, but it weighs about the same as the
Fuji 56/1.2, but is a little longer (or wider, I can’t make out which).
I notice that the only real shortcoming is the inability to control the DoF
independently of the artistic effect.; however the necessity to place the point
of sharp focus in the centre is also a bit of a drawback.
Chris
> On 21 Jun 2017, at 10:20, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6/20/2017 10:19 PM, ChrisB wrote:
>> Chaps
>>
>> I’m considering buying a Lensbaby, the Velvet 56/1.6 that is now available
>> for X Mount cameras. I plan to use it as a portrait lens as well as macro
>> and for its slight distortions.
>>
>> Has anyone on the list tried it?
>
> Oh yes, quite a lot. I'll see if I can gather my senses and point you to a
> few examples. Some thoughts:
>
> It's a large, all metal lens, and thus relatively heavy for 56 mm. Much
> larger and heavier, for example than an OM 50/1.4. Doesn't affect use, but
> may be a surprise.
>
> It does indeed focus close, which is rather nice. I've never noticed any
> distortion. Just not noticeable with most of my subjects, and rather minimal
> anyway.
>
> It's really a variable softness lens, very dreamy @ f1.6, moving to rather
> normal, decent conventional IQ by about f8, even a bit more @ f11. I have
> other lenses that do much the same thing, not by intent, but as fast, pre
> computer aided lens designs. So I have 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 135/2.8 and 200/3.5.
> None are quite as dreamy as the Velvet @ f1.6, but a couple surprisingly
> close. I also have an old 85/2.8 Minolta Varisoft, where there is a ring that
> adjusts softness. "Sink strainer" apertures also have sometimes terrible
> bokeh consequences, as I confirmed the hard way with the three such
> waterhouse apertures of the LensBaby Soft Focus Optic.
>
> One problem you may not have anticipated in using it/them is the linking of
> softness with aperture. Soft in bright light requires very high shutter
> speeds. Conversely, in between softness in the dim forces higher shutter
> speeds and/or ISOs than would otherwise be required.
>
> Another problem/limitation is that it's impossible in one shot to combine
> good DoF and softness. You get either soft and shallow or deeper DoF, but
> reduced/no softness. You may recall where I mixed three different apertures
> of soft focus using masks, to get the combination I wanted. I found this
> particularly annoying.
>
> Exactly for these reason, I went on to experiment with soft focus filters.
> Vaseline on a skylight filter, sheer stocking over the lens, etc. can get
> quite artistic, but don't meet my needs. Most commercial soft focus filters
> have negative bokeh consequences, esp. at the very smaller apertures I want
> to be able to make soft.
>
> Nikon tackled these problems back in the late 60s, creating rather exotic
> soft filters and trying their hand at designing a soft focus lens. It's all
> explained rather well here. <http://archive.fo/ICZOA
> <http://archive.fo/ICZOA>>
>
> Fortunately, the original Soft filters are rather easily available used
> (generally mint) and the replacement line is available new.
>
> If I'm not specifically carrying my Alt kit, I have one or two of the Nikkor
> Soft filters in my kit. I think being able to both control DoF with aperture
> and get a lovely soft effect, without carrying a special lens, is an
> excellent thing.
>
> I'm happy to have the Velvet 56, and have a couple of prints of images from
> it that I really like. Just thought I might save you some learning curve time
> and/or disappointments. Oh, yes, I use it with a FF camera, so the effects
> you see across the whole frame will be different than what I get, as you will
> be throwing away some of the image circle.
>
> Fuzzy Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|