Lomo Lenses [for Nikon digital cameras], one trick ponies or good for anything else?

<p>I'm specifically talking about the Petzval and Daguerreotype lenses, they look VERY interesting, but I honestly don't know how much use I would get out of one.<br />In particular, the Petzval looks like it needs to subject to be smack in the center, and it seems pretty evident they both were meant to be portrait lenses; the question is, are they good for anything else?<br />Does anyone have experience with this they wouldn't mind sharing, and how much use they actually get [whether in the studio or the field]?</p>

<p>I don't have the Lomo lenses, but on a whim once bought the simplest model Lensbaby (the Spark). Its effects are more outspoken probably than the Lomo lenses, and certainly not everybody's cup of tea. So, it won't answer your exact question, but the experience is probably very similar.<br /> Is it a one-trick pony? Well, yes and "yes, but".... It does one thing very well, and all the rest... it doesn't do that, because the effect, its party piece, is not going to go away. So, you use it because of what it is, but hardly ever despite of what it is. It remains the one trick pony, in that sense.<br /> At the same time, I do find something of a challenge in this limited use - make it work for you, also in situations where you feel it probably wouldn't/shouldn't make sense. The whole point about lenses as these is that they're different, and do things different. Shoehorning them into a normal job is not very useful, but seeking how to make proper use of their uniqueness in unexpected situations can be good fun, and creatively quite rewarding.</p>

<p>I don`t have F mount Petzvals, but some original ones made for vintage cameras.<br /> IMO these new lenses are funny and fancy, but usually very expensive for what they really are. At the end, these are cheap chunks of glass in barrel, even without a blade diaphragm; marketing do the rest. Like any lens, you can use it for whatever you like, there are not written rules that force you to use them only for portraiture. <br /> Some people hate the swirling bokeh (e.g. Summitars) and the odd effects of portrait soft focus specialists, others love them. Actually, I `d say the percentage of images on the web is not so big, so I assume the majority of people don`t like them at all.<br /> In my experience, I rarely use my Petzvals although I like them so much. Anyway, I find them way more appealing when used on LF film. But that`s what I have on my head now, I`m currently into another look. <br /> As used to be said here, if you don`t know if you want it, you don`t need it. Save your money, or better use it in digital post-processing stuff&skills.</p>

<p>I've literally just bought a 58mm Petzval bokeh control. I was always vaguely interested, but the £550 list price didn't tempt me. One happened to show up used at a more reasonable price for a novelty lens (although I'm still unsure I should have spent yet more money I don't have) and I realised there aren't many importers in the UK, so I had a weak moment and figured I should get the bargain while I could. It's respectably sharp in the centre, at least, though it does seem to confuse the matrix meter a bit - which is about all I can say from my attempts to try it. It didn't come with the novelty apertures, only rounded ones.<br />

<br />

I've not done enough with it to comment much further (dpreview did a recent gallery, but I guess that may be why you're asking). I'm expecting to have to crop to move the subject off-centre, but I don't really like focal lengths around 58mm anyway, so this isn't critical for me. The swirl and the field curvature ought to be artistically interesting, though I've not had much chance to play with the flare yet. I'm not sure I'd be so tempted by the cheaper, longer version without the controllable astigmatism. It's chunky and the autofocus is likely to be even more painful than most lenses (it's a vertical knob under the lens - the thing that looks like a focus ring is for swirl control), so I don't think it'll be more than a novelty, but that's not stopped me from being glad to have a fish-eye, for example.<br />

<br />

As to the original question, I'll probably take a stab at it for macro shots (in my case, I'm thinking tiddlywinks, which is a little esoteric for most people). Close focus is 60cm, which isn't all that close, but isn't terrible. I'm not expecting spectacular sharpness from that, but the swirly framing might work out for some subjects. It might be interesting for some architecture, as well - the field curvature ought to let you isolate some features that would be part of many in a conventional lens - though whether this actually looked any better than a photoshop blur is another matter. Optical weirdness aside, it's never going to have a permanent home in my lens bag just because of inconvenience and bulk, but I'm not averse to trotting out something weird for novelty. Apart from anything else, I have thousands of photos of people playing tiddlywinks, and I need to do something to differentiate them...</p>

<p>I've just ordered a Holga lens (in blue!) for my d800E, along with a Helios 50mm f2 (Russian lens). I like playing with these things--they can be very creative. I'm also taking the meniscus lens out of one of my 1932 Kodak Brownies and mounting it to my Nikon using a toilet paper tube. And of course I have a pinhole cap.</p>

<p>I also own four 19th century lenses put into Nikon mount by SK Grimes. They are: 1895 ~50mm Darlot achromatic doublet (with rotary stop,) 1880s ~90mm rapid rectilinear with Waterhouse stops, 1870s Darlot 75mm Petzval with slot for Waterhouse stops, and an 1851 CC Harrison 120mm Petzval (predates apertures although I could make washer stops for it.) These are fun and I do use them for paid portrait work, although mostly I shoot lenses from this era using either 4x5 or 5x7 view camera. The oldest style lens is the achromatic doublet, which Neipce and Daguerre used on their early sliding box cameras (the lens is basically the Wollaston eyepiece from early telescopes.) This style lens was common from 1840 clear up into the 1960s on cheap cameras. It was the common "kit" lens on amateur view cameras ~1880s--1900s. In the early to mid 1800s it was known as the landscape lens since it was typically f22 and could be stopped down even more (I have a 400mm Edward Woods lens from 1854 that uses washer stops) The achromatic doublet is also the lens used in the famous Rodenstock Imagon series (I have a 250mm for 4x5.) The lens is typically semi-sharp in the center and rapidly becomes soft towards the edge. Lomo has just come out with their version of it scaled for Nikon F. I do like the results it gives, but at $600 I'd rather be shooting an antique lens.</p>

<p>The Petzval was designed by Josef Petzval in 1840 (FASCINATING story!!!) and was the most commonly used lens for portraits clear up into the 1920s. The Lomo version is coated glass, which I don't like nearly as well. You must center your subject in the middle of the composition. Petzvals were the first lenses to use adjustable stops (first washer stops in 1850s by Derogy, then Waterhouse stops around 1860.) I really like their effect, but a wide open Tessar can give a similar soft focus effect, as can the achromatic doublet mentioned above. I keep the small 75mm Darlot Petzval in my camera bag and use it for portraits as well as some landscapes (with an f11 stop.) Originally most of the "swirly bokeh" stuff was cropped away and only the clearer part of the image was framed.</p>

<p>The third major 19th century lens was the rectilinear. Like the Petzval, it contains 4 elements (achromatic double has only 2.) The lens was also invented by Josef Petzval, and again this lens was stolen by Voigtlander around 1866 (and by Darlot who called it the "Hemispherique".) I'm not aware of any in current manufacture. They were the premium "general purpose" lens starting in the late 1860s until the anastigmats appeared in the 1890s. After that they were used as the cheap "kit" lens on lower priced camera outfits (such as those from Seneca.)</p>

<p>In addition to Petzvals, achromatic doublets, you might consider getting one of the newer (designed 1910) anastigmats for portraits. My favorite is the Heliar and it is available in Nikon mount, 75mm. Very nice lens! You could also have one of the Wollensak Velostigmat lenses (a Tessar design) put into a focusable Nikon mount by SK Grimes. Wide open these are very nice. I shoot a 150mm Heliar (1922) on 4x5 for paid group portraits, and a 240mm (1928) Heliar on 4x5 for individual portraits on 4x5 and 5x7 group portraits. Best portrait lens ever made in my opinion. </p>

<p>Have not used a modern Lomo Petzval--for me the connection to photographers of the past and my love of uncoated lenses has me sticking with the 19th century ones. (I own six pre-Civil War Petzvals and two pre-Civil War achromactic doublets.) The Lomo should be fine if you are looking for something unique for portraits. The work flow will be a bit slow of course, but I think I do a better job with portraits when I don't rush things. A Petzval is NOT a general purpose lens. </p>

<p>Links:<br>

https://shop.lomography.com/en/lenses/daguerreotype-achromat-art-lens/daguerreotype-achromat-artlens-nikon<br>

(Achromat lenses were used for Daguerreotype, but landscapes only. They were much too slow for portraits. For that EVERYONE used a Petzval.)</p>

<p>https://shop.lomography.com/en/lenses/daguerreotype-achromat-art-lens/daguerreotype-achromat-artlens-nikon<br>

(The original from Lomo. About the same money as I paid for historical lenses.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>If you are just looking for a soft focus lens to play with, or want some fun, I'll toss something else out for you. Most every lens you are probably familiar with has one central aperture in it. Just one. Are there any lenses with MORE than one hole for the light to go through? Yes. Rodenstock used to make an achromatic doublet (soft focus lens) to which they had discs that had MANY holes for the light. There was one big central opening surround by many (8-12?) smaller holes. This lens was invented around 1938 (I think) and sold until the 1990s. (Fuji stole the idea and made a copy.) The lens is both very soft and very sharp at the same time. Hard to describe! These were mostly used on large format (I have a 250mm for 4x5.)<br /> A video by my buddy Eddie Gunks explaining Imagon:<br />

Imagon:<br>

http://www.tapestry.org.uk/html/imagon.html</p>

<p>However, there is a German company called "Skink" that makes a version of this for their pinhole. I haven't tried one yet but it does look interesting! Cheaper than a Lomo.<br /> Scroll down to "Zone Sieve and Zone Plate:"<br /> http://lensgarden.com/light/skink-is-a-cool-way-to-pinhole/<br /> Scroll down to "zonenplatte fur Nikon"<br /> http://skinkpinhole.com/wp/webshop/shop/dslr-slr/fuer-nikon/</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>I looked long and hard at these but settled for the Lensbaby alternatives when Kent or was it Andrew suggested their 50mm single optic pretty much does the same thing, I've added the 80mm Edge lens to my kit. Of course with Lensbaby you also get the tilt function as well.</p>

<p>I do quite a lot of website work for a wine maker with cellar door sales and a restaurant and have been surprised at how often my Lensbaby stuff has saved the day by turning very ordinary looking scenes into something pretty exciting. Though there is always the danger with these lenses to over do it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Though there is always the danger with these lenses to over do it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the greatest danger, but moderation in everything works best usually.<br /> Although adapting old lenses to Nikons is not always easy, there are a lot of "auxiliary" lenses and T-mount lenses that will do things as well or better than the "lomo™"-type stuff.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To a small child with a hammer, the entire world is a nail.<br>

attributed to many</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The original Lensbaby is basically an achromatic doublet mounted to a flexible tube.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Bought the Lomography Petzval 85mm lens several years ago, not at the introduction, but somewhat later. Came beautifully packaged, with much love for detail, and great finish.</p>

<p>My observations:</p>

<p>- contrary to most pictures on the internet, it's more then capable of producing sharp pictures. Maybe not on the Nano coated G lens level, but IMO quite similar to the older Tamron, Sigma and other third party lenses from the film shooting days. It e.g. is sharper then my Russian 2.8/300mm Tpir (manual focus) lens, but still about as sharp as my 4.5/80-200 Ai Nikkor zoom wide open.<br /> IMO, to get a sharp picture, the right focusing technique is essential. Biggest mistake made is to using together with the camera hand held with one (due to the design right) hand, while adjusting focus with the other. The gear rack focusing system is really awkward to handle which when used with the camera hand held will not help to keep it stable, and the focusing area in the same spot. Which in my my experience won't be much of a help to get a sharp picture.<br /> When I use it, I have the camera mounted on a monopod (made a DIY L bracket to allow using it in portrait mode), which gives a stable platform and helps making focusing much easier, while still allowing ample freedom to easily sway it around while pointing it (for the kind of little corrections you make when aiming at a subject that is not completely still and frozen) .</p>

<p>- Yes, the sharpness really is limited to a specific area in the center of the image. If you shoot with the camera in a horizontal position that means always having to keep your subject in the middle of the image, with a lot of space on he left and right. And if you shoot vertically/in portrait mode, you still have to do that, which effectively means he top half of the image is out of focus.<br /> Not a problem if that's hair or a hat, but it eg limits the options to take a close up frame filling portrait, and makes it a 135mm like lens when shooting a subject from further away (and you won't be able to use the 'top half' of the image for your subject).</p>

<p>- It's best used wide/nearly wide open to get the full effect of the 'swirly' background and amazing bokeh (and limited Dof) that comes with using it wide open.</p>

<p>- The swirly background is an acquired taste, can be useful/add something extra to a picture in certain situations, but be quite distracting/ a pain in other. A similar effect can be had eg with Helios lenses, which also have a more modern focusing system, but that IMO is a matter or personal preference.</p>

<p>In short, indeed it's a lens with a IMO limited number of user options (probably best for portraits), which risks making it an expensive one trick pony. But under the right conditions and with the right subject it will allow to make quite amazing pictures.</p>

<p>More examples (also at larger sizes) at<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20140614_fantasyval<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20140614_fantasyval<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20140920_elfia</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>The gear rack focusing system is really awkward to handle which when used with the camera hand held will not help to keep it stable, and the focusing area in the same spot.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The original Petzvals are designed so you can unscrew the focus knob/shaft and flip it around so the knob is on the other side of the barrel. Don't know if that's possible with the Lomo. Looking at the photos on the website, it looks like it's different from the originals, but was designed so you can remove the shaft and flip it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Re: one trick ponies or good for anything else?</p>

<p>Aren't all primes one trick ponies very good at doing one thing well, or even very well?</p>

<p><em>The original Petzvals are designed so you can unscrew the focus knob/shaft and flip it around so the knob is on the other side of the barrel. Don't know if that's possible with the Lomo. Looking at the photos on the website, it looks like it's different from the originals, but was designed so you can remove the shaft and flip it</em></p>

<p>Nice in theory, but obviously not a real life option for shooting this particular Petzval lens <strong>hand held</strong>, as it's specifically designed to be used with a (D)SLR (as it's only available with a Canon or Nikon lens mount)</p>

<p><br /> And since those (D)Slr's all have their release button on the right side of the camera, flipping the knob to the right side as well means having to hold the camera with your left hand (something most modern camera's are not really designed for, as they basically always have the grip part of the body on the right hand side), not really the best way to hold a (D)SLR especially considering the added weight of the lens.<br /> You would then have to turn the knob/shaft with your right hand to get the picture in focus, reposition your hand to be able to push the release button, while during all that time your left hand would have to keep the camera still enough to keep the focus on the spot where you aimed it at while focusing</p>

<p>Sure, if you have the camera on a tripod, and have a subject that isn't moving, having the know/shaft as well as the release button/grip on the right side would not be a problem.<br /> You would not have to hold the camera stable with your left hand, and not risk shifting the camera while moving your right hand from the focusing know to the release button<br /> But obviously we're no longer talking about shooting hand held anymore then.</p>

<p>And from a practical point of view, since your left hand would no longer be needed to hold the camera, why not just leave the focusing know on the left side?<br /> You can then focus with your left hand, and push the release button with your right when the image is in focus.<br /> Especially when shooting a subject that is not completely still all of the time (even when shooting a close up portrait, the subject will be moving, even ever so slightly, all of the time) , being able to take the shot as soon as the subject is in focus.</p>

<p>That's the way I use mine<br /> I have the camera and lens on a monopod (stable but with enough freedom of movement to point it up and down, move it from left to right) and focus with the focusing knob<br /> I use the green focus confirmation dot (I usually use this lens on a Nikon DF) and as soon as I get the confirmation symbol (I admittedly for non static subjects rely more on that rather then trying to get the picture in focus in the viewing screen) I immediately take the picture (I've developed a pretty good eye/hand reflex after many years of shooting moving subjects, e.g. dance and catwalk, with manual focus lenses)</p>

<p>Sure, you could close down the aperture opening by changing the Waterhouse aperture plate<br /> But that would also influence (in particular) the background rendering of the lens.<br /> And since that swirly bokeh and characteristic shallow DoF when using this lens (nearly) wide open usually is the reason for buying it, phasing that out by closing the aperture might not result in the kind of image you're after.</p>

<p>Enclosed picture in large format http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156857551/original</p><div></div>

<blockquote>The original Petzvals are designed so you can unscrew the focus knob/shaft and flip it around so the knob is on the other side of the barrel. Don't know if that's possible with the Lomo. Looking at the photos on the website, it looks like it's different from the originals, but was designed so you can remove the shaft and flip it.</blockquote>

 

<p>I had a quick look at mine - I think it should still be possible to switch sides, but I didn't dismantle anything to prove it. In my brief attempt, I didn't have too much trouble with the handling - it's not as nice as being able to support the lens and rotate the focus ring with thumb and index finger as with a conventional lens, but with mild hand contortions you can still get your palm under the camera, thumb and index finger on the focus knob, and have a ring finger supporting the front of the lens (it helps if you've trained your fingers into weird shapes on the F5's knob interlocks). It's by no means huge, but it's a bit front-heavy on a D810 if you don't support the lens at all. I do think the 58mm's ability to adjust the astigmatism and therefore control the amount of "swirl" is a useful thing. I'm not anticipating doing a lot of stopping down (partly given the faff of putting the mechanical stops in to do it); I may have been slightly more inclined if I had the novel aperture shapes, but they seem to be an extra. Now, if they did a blended aperture like the STF lenses I'd be keener.<br />

<br />

I agree it's an expensive toy (and given my finances this month I may yet regret it). Nice though the brass manufacture is, I'd have been perfectly happy with a plastic one at half price - the only reason I got this was that it was heavily discounted having been "pre-loved".</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses all, since I mostly shoot static objects/portraits anyhow, it seems like it might be a good choice to get the daguerreotype used- my birthday's coming up so I can 'gift' myself one ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You would then have to turn the knob/shaft with your right hand to get the picture in focus, reposition your hand to be able to push the release button, while during all that time your left hand would have to keep the camera still enough to keep the focus on the spot where you aimed it at while focusing</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have any of these problems with my CC Harrison lens. Instead of the more common rack & pinion drive, it has a radial drive. Below is a photo of mine attached to a Nikon F3T. I elected to have the focus knob on the left. It works well for me. The big heavy ones (over three pounds!) I only use on 4x5 or 5x7, and of course those cameras are on a tripod. </p>

<p>A very good link on the history of early lenses, especially Petzvals and achromatic doublets. (Both of these were used on Daguerrotype cameras.) The Petzval was used for portraits because of its f3.5 speed, the achromatic doublet was used for landscapes because of its f22 or greater DoF.<br>

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/10/from-petzvals-sum-to-abbes-number/</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p><em>Below is a photo of mine attached to a Nikon F3T. I elected to have the focus knob on the left. It works well for me.</em></p>

<p>It's the same 'focusing knob on the left side' set up as on the straight out of factory Lomo Petzval lenses.</p>

<p>The tripod mounted set up as well as confirmation that it works well that way illustrates the correctness of my previous remark on why a possible change of the focusing knob to the right side of the lens/camera, i.e. the side where on a (D)SLR as a rule the grip and release button are, may/is not the best choice (and I'm not even talking about shooting hand held).</p>

<p><em>The original Petzvals are designed so you can unscrew the focus knob/shaft and flip it around so the knob is on the other side of the barrel. Don't know if that's possible with the Lomo. Looking at the photos on the website, it looks like it's different from the originals, but was designed so you can remove the shaft and flip it</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

And of course make me kind of wonder why, apart from the anecdotal value, what the added value of that 'recommendation' (?) was ......</p>

<p> </p>