Image courtesy: Carline Jensen (please do not use them without the authors permission)
Sony Artisan Caroline Jensen posted a nice set of images shot with the brand new Velvet 56mm f/1.6 A-mount lens on the Sony A7s. See them all at carolinejensen website (Click here). She writes:
The Velvet 56 has a dreamy book too, and a killer build (very similar to all metal vintage lenses) with dreamy halation properties (the velvet look) from f1.6 to about f4. When you stop down the halation diminishes and it becomes a standard lens that is razor sharp. The only way I can describe it is that it has an “old Hollywood” feel.
The lens can be bought at Lensbaby’s website (Click here).
Image courtesy: Carline Jensen (please do not use them without the authors permission)
20 Responses
good lens for shoot b&w
Images look delicous!!!! Wow.
I suspect that the images are more down to the photographer than the lens!
Certainly, I could be wrong, but I doubt this lens would be a worthwhile investment for 99.999% of photographers.
As many as that! WOW!
Personally, if I want an old fashioned look to the photo, I’ll use an old fashioned method like a nylon stocking or some such material. Heck of a lot cheaper and, in many cases, just as effective.
Nice pics but at this price, there are much better and smaller options out there.
‘velvet looks’ stands for sh#t optics in PR language. Another company looking to milk brainless photographers.
Not bad, but I’ll stay with my Minolta MC Rokkor 1.7/55, 1.4/58 and 1.4/50. I paid less than 80€ for them, altogether…
I still struggle to see the point of these low quality “special effect” glass. The images are good,
but that has nothing to do with the optical aberrations of the lens. These effects can be added in post with ease. I mean, I understand if someone has fun experimenting with cheap old glass. It doesn’t cost much and you can remember the old days. But new lenses with strong optical flaws for good money????
The original Leica Summilux 35mm/1.4 from the 1960’s still sells for around 1500 USD/EUR used for it’s so called “character”. By todays standards it’s just a bad optic. Any cheap contemporary lens with the same specs is better.
“…old Hollywood feel..” Maybe I just have to accept the fact that humans sometimes behave strangely for sentimental reasons.
Sorry, I try hard, but I don’t get it.
The nuanced nature of those who uses these lenses would NOT agree with you in one bit. The old glass characteristics has something you can’t create synthetically by and large. Namely the Lomo Kickster Petzval – http://microsites.lomography.com/petzval-lens/. AMAZINGLY successful, tighter built quality, and the bokeh is about as close as you can get for a 130+ year old design. The separation of old v. new is one thing – age. My Canon 55mm f/1.2 FD coatings are what make it special. Bokeh is super subjective – and it comes in many flavors and forms and shapes and colors. I own a Leica M8 + Elmar 5cm f/2.8. It’s hazy, but the glow is awesome with the sharpness of the M8 lack of AA filter. Either way, my point is you either get a “suitable” copy of some old lens through a number of copies or research on your own time, or you get a newer copy with a higher degree of synthetic process of modern technologies. My case for “newer” higher build/quality things like Lensbaby and this lens (it WILL be that good, I know – they are successful because they always up each quality build to newer tolerances) and the Lomo offering is simply quality of engineering and modern technologies of process. Everything else in this “class” is subjective by a LARGE degree .. but at least we have this option.
Agreed on the PETZVAL designs, unique and hard to replicate in post, but I also agree with condor on this Lensbaby design.
Hello folks, nice pictures. But we have a very nice company specialized in such specialty lens : Cosina Voigtlander !!!
You can find such behaviour in the classic lenses :
Nokton Classic 1.4 35mm (In MC or SC coatings)
Nokton Classic 1.4 40mm
Heliar Classic 1.8 75mm
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/733-heliar75f18
Have a look in Flickr (you may even find some of my images)
They have quite soft rendering full open and then sharpen critically at f4 and over !!!
Also they have a very compact form factor and the Leica M mount is quite universal and very versatile, especially fitted with a close up adapter.
Best regards from France, Thomas
“dreamy halation properties” = it is unsharp as a butter knife
I’m all for being unique in your photography but I can’t help but think that anyone who pays over £400 for a lens to deliberately shoot results like these is either way too rich or just taken along with the marketing from lensbaby..
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Lensbaby-Velvet-56mm-f1.6-lens-sample-photo-9.jpg
http://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/Velvet-56mm-f16-12-Macro-5757/highres/Lensbaby56mm_117879_1428135928.jpg
http://lensbaby.com/images/ProductSlideshows/Velvet56-3.jpg
To get results like these I’d rather spend £30 on a CCTV lens and actually get some sharpness in the shot as well as ‘dreamy’ bokeh. Well done to Lensbaby for getting people to part with their cash for these lenses though.
That swirling bokeh in the first photo is making my head spin.
not good photos.
velvet looks? maybe from now on, every lens that performs bad wide open should be called a ”velvet” lens instead of making a negative point…
Blurry, low contrast lenses are plentiful, just search EBAY for the term “vintage lens”. Prices start at $5.
I can’t tell… is it out of focus… did the lens have grease on it…. did the photographer set the wrong shutter speed… I’m just baffled at what people consider a good photo, this one remind me of something I might have gotten when I was kid using a toy camera with a plastic lens.
My God! My A-Mount converted Rokkor 58/1.4 has better results wide open, and I consider it utter junk. These people must have Apple’s marketing team working for them, if they are actually selling this crap.
Don’t forget that at times better results too 😉