I love these lenses. So happy Lomography came out with these despite those photography snobs calling them for "hipsters". I have both the Petzval and the Daguerreotype Achromat 2.9/64. My dad used to collect antique cameras so I grew up admiring these lenses and wishing I could shoot with them. Now I finally can! I found that the Petzval's sweet spot is at f2.8 and getting your subject in focus at 2 meters. You get just enough swirly bokeh and it's sharp enough. At f2 it's a little too soft and anything past f4 is just a waste since you lose a lot of the character.
Love these lenses and will have to take a look at them! When I switched to the Fuji X-T3 all of a sudden I discovered the magic of older "vintage" lenses. Not only are they less expensive, when I shoot the same image with "same" focal length on both a modern and a vintage lens I tend to prefer the image made with the vintage lens. This whole thing led me back to film - first in 35mm then medium format, and now I have begun large format 4x5 and I am looking for a decent, not too expensive, Petzval for that :-)
Perfect timing. I'm just starting to build an 8x10 Wetplate camera and was actually looking at original Petzel lenses last night. Many, many thanks for explaining characteristics of 'portrait' lenses.
or any biotar for that matter. Early Helioses are really close biotar copies, late ones are much sharper(44M7 and so on), but still keep the characterstic.
I have both Petzval and Helios 44-2, Petzval really have the greatest colors of all my lenses and has very high contrast and center sharpness. Helios has very low contrast, worse center sharpness and weird colors (or just not natural or saturated)
I have a lens with very similar weird field curvature, it's the Fujian 35mm f1.7. It's a c-mount CCTV lens, that also have a swirly bokeh, but not as intense as the Petzval and with some chaotic highlights. It's more like a toy lens, and can be a good entrance for someone that wants to experiment with some weirdness. It's comicaly tiny, and I paid only $25 on e-bay with free international shipping. I use it on an aps-c body with very noticeable vignette, won't cover full frame.
I got that same lens dirt cheap. Actually two lenses attached to two Zenit cameras at a yardsale for $4.00. Very impressive how sharp they are, especially close up.
If you shoot on a mirrorless m43 or APSC camera and want to try a similar petzval look on a budget check out the fujian 35mm f1.7 I got mine years ago for $25 bucks new. It's a CCTV lens which comes with an adapter to your mount. Heavy vignetting, Not very sharp, the petzval swirly bokeh is strong and it has no lens coatings so it gives off a vintage look as well as very very flare prone in a fun way. It's a very fun playful/artsy lens at an artists budget. I definitely recommend playing around with one. Plus they are super small so its easy to include in your kit for those occasions that want to try something different. cheers!
I own the first version of the Petzval lens, I really enjoyed shooting with it. The lens is very heavy. Love the swirly bokeh created by the lens. I used the lens for a book cover shoot.
I have a Daguerreotype Achromat f/2.9 64mm by Lomography and I love it! It comes with two sets of Waterhouse aperture plates; a standard set and a 'fun' set. There is one problem though, you lose one, that's it its gone. Lomography do not sell replacements. Thankfully I did manage to make one from plasticard :). Why did I buy it in the first place? Because to me story is more important than sharpness.
Hey Ted, I could really feel your fascination and excitement for such lenses, well done. Quite a contrast to conventional modern digital fotography, yes, creativity does not necessarily require perfection.
I love how vingetting and distortion is so frowned apon to the point where lens companies feel the need to make them tack sharp from corner to corner, when in all reality that completely takes any character out of the lens and leaves you with a boring photo that you now feel like you need to over edit to compensate for how perfect the photo is. I love vintage lenses, and even abit of dust or discolouration adds so much to an otherwise boring photo.
Great topic, Ted! I love the Lomography lenses. Out of my price range, though. I do have a couple vintage Helios and Pentax lenses that give me great bokeh results. I even modified the lens on one of the Helios (flipped it) to give me even more artsy bokeh, just for fun. I have a vintage set of Sears lenses (yes, Sears), that my father-in-law gave to me. I adapted them to my Sony A6400 and they really do some beautiful work. Vintage inspired. For current new lenses, I enjoy some of the Lensbaby lenses. They are doing some fun things over there. I'm particularly fond of the Twist60. There's definitely something to be said about manual controls, and character over pristine sharpness. But, of course, there's room for it all. Would love to hear more on this topic. :)
That looks great. I bet it feels nice just handling that brass instrument, let alone shooting with it. Ive got an old 58mm 1.2 Minolta lens modded to fit my canon. It has a look to it like none of my 'normal' lenses. So soft and dreamy down at 1.2
I have a set of three Helios 55mm f2 lenses set up for different cameras that have that incredible Biotar bokeh which when handled properly has real character. Well made and cheap. Also have a collection of old Nikon glass that is tack sharp. Modern lenses are very good but not that interesting to work with.
You can get similar results with those CCTV 25mm f1.4 c-mount lenses (Fujian is one manufacturer that comes to mind) on a MFT camera. What is interesting is that with a certain ammount of macgyvering you CAN mount them on a DSLR AND get full frame coverage! (image is inverted though...) It is not easy to use by any stretch of the imagination, but it does produce these results.
I’ve seen these lenses and often wondered about trying them. I saw them quite a few years ago in the Photographers Gallery shop in London. Great video Ted.
I’m obsessed… and now that DJI has that new lidar auto focus I may need to pull the trigger on this even though I have a Helios 44-2. This is insanely beautiful and can see myself shooting a lot of things with it
I've been interested in these for a while! Thanks for giving me a closer look. This was fun to watch! Also a bit of a throwback to your history lessons in the early days of AoP!
Very interesting and thanks for posting thee lenses on here. I have heard about these type of lenses but not seen them. Now you got me wanting one, maybe! I cn see having a lot of fun with one. Thanks
I found a genuine Petzval projector lens and I put it in an old case of another lens. I keep the aperture rings from the other lens and I get the amazing unique lens
I love the idea of the Lomography Petzval lenses, but they are a bit pricey compared to buying an old lens or an old film camera with a fixed lens with similar, though less pronounced imperfections. I for my sake get more millage out of my Helios 58mm f2, than I would get out of a Petzval. Because while specialized lenses for special projects are great to have, for me, they are not "need to have" lenses. That being said. Compared to modern high end lenses, the Petzval lenses are a real bargain.
u know.. it's ironic, I spent time and money trying to get to a point where my gear + lenses allow me to have pin sharp images with the fast AF, and part of my heart just wants to go back to this sort of shooting experience and slow down..life's just going to fast man.
@@SpaklesDr oh yeah, it's a very different shooting process that won't suit every situation or photographer. If you don't enjoy that slow process or you simply can't slow down in the kind of photography you're doing then you're going to hate manual lenses! If you can get into it though, there's nothing quite like it!
@@yetanotherbassdude Yup, I adapted onto my DSLR, and I took one of my most memorable images with it. Helios 44-2. I still have the lens, but don't have an adapter to my current system. Working on getting one atm. The balance is having equipment for production work and then having enough budget for fun things. I chose to build equipment for working.
The lens that the Emperor of Japan insisted on for his portraits was the 5 element Heliar lens. It came standard on the Voigtlander Bergheils in the 105mm, 135mm and 150mm size mounted in Compur shutters. I have several and they are great for portraits and landscapes.
Always been interested so thanks for the operations instruction, Back in the film days for effects there were prism filters I used on my Canon Ftb FD lenses and today with an adapter use on my A7 cameras. The fact that these effects are done while taking an image not some digital effect from a program is nice. Also turning off the LCD people think you have a film camera using a film lens, so small BUT faster, great for city lights at night!
Quite frankly, the only thing I dislike is the drop in aperture thingies. I really dislike anything that adds entry points for dust. The optical quality of the lens is really good though!
Thank you for posting. I have been experimenting with Lensbaby and soviet era Helios lenses. I think I'll get the daguerreotype Achromat 2.9/64 first. I think if someone jumps for the Limo Petzal the Bokeh Control is the one to get for all the options for a bit more than the standard version. I have heard the optics are better on the Mark II versions over the 1st. I'm also thinking of moving up from my recently acquired used Nikon D300s with my manual lenses with the focus assist (green down/box viewfinder method works pretty darn well)... but wanting to jump into mirrorless and full frame with a Nikon preferably.. (Z9 out of my range for hobby for a while..) so maybe a Z6II unless a Z6III comes out.. also running with Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K with cheap 0.71x focal reducer (Viltrox.. not bad but everyone says the Metabones is better) and will likely get the Metabones 0.64x focal reducer for the BMPCC4K.. would get me closer to a full field view... I'll check out your other videos and see if you have pics/footage of some of camera/lens combinations. Do you recomend the Z6II for stills/video? Z9 obviously but pricy.. or wait 6-12 months for a Z8 or Z6III. (might be longer) though getting a Z6II and use for a year and upgrade.. but yes.. I just a D300s... so I'm always waiting a long while. but looking forward to a mirrorless camera with vintage or vintage recreation lenses for stills and video.
I purchased the ‘Bokeh Control’ version of the Petzval 80.5 Mark II and love using it on my purely creative days. I expected to enjoy the experience much like shooting with my Helios, but the versatility and superior manual focus ring along with the aperture blades has put the Helios back on shelf. Doubt I will keep the Helios for much longer. I urge anyone considering the Petzval 80.5 Mark II to avoid the basic version and go for the bokeh control. You won’t regret it : )
Very nice video, with nice lenses. I like the picture of the church, and the one right after it. // Yes creativity comes in many different forms, it turns out.
personally i love shooting portraits with my domiplan 50mm 2.8 on the fuji system; it's probably the cheapest Cooke's triplet that is readily available.
About a decade ago I wanted to mimic the the Petzval I have for my wet plate camera on digital. So I contacted Lensbaby and asked if they'd ever consider making a Petzval design. They said no way, there wasn't a market for it. Then Lomo came out with one and Lensbaby, caught off guard, rushed to make the Twist 60 lens. Now it seems I have an embarrassment of riches to choose from.
I have just about every lens made by Lensbaby, and their Petzval-inspired Burnside is by far my favorite. But they discontinued the model, and aside from a recent refurb sale, it looks like it won't ever be coming back. I really like being able to control the two separate apertures, and I don't know why the lens was available for such a short window of time, but I guess there isn't really much of a market for it.
Very interesting review, thank you Ted! It would be cool to see some portraits though, preferably in black & white, like the original usage. That said, I find your video very inspiring.
The results look very “vintage” I’ve seen similar results using mid 20th C film bodies with mediocre lenses. The difference here is a level of control not found in the genuine 70+ year old lenses. That makes for interesting possibilities.
Interesting technique that I think you have used in the examples (bookcase, cat, the last image) but not mentioned in words- to match the diagonal of the in-focus distances with the subject that is placed/posed along that diagonal,... Would love to get this lens exactly to experiment with that aspect, more unusual thn swirling bokeh...
Hello, I have a question on the Z Mount version. Does the lens fit as if it were manufactured by Nikon or does it bind or fit loosely? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick
The bokeh control ring reminds me of Zeiss' FLE ring on their Hasselblad wide angle lenses (CF 40mm & CF 50mm). I wonder how the correction for this Petzval affect image quality at close focus...
Hey Ted, interesting video today. I've been a photographer for many years but don't know much about lens construction. Maybe a topic for another video?
Reminds me of Nikon's 105 and 135 DC (Defocus Control), lenses that were "optimised" for portraits, as opposed to how modern ones are optimised to be razor sharp, something that's not flattering to almost anyone. Oh well...
I took mine on a street photography photowalk, and the brass lens was like a rock star. Everyone wanted their picture taken and to take a picture of it.
Constantly tell people trying to get a film look with their digital project. The things you like about the film look is the sum of all the flaws of film, the camera with a pin system that permitted the stock to move all over the gate, the problems with lenses of the era, and the inconsistency of projection. Somehow the combined results is charming in spite of its flaws. Go figure.
True, and I was definitely seeing a lot of the character I get from my Helios 44-2 in these lenses. That said, the Nikon F mount is pretty vintage so you could get one and run it on a Nikon F?
@@yetanotherbassdude true enough, some of the older lenses in the same vein by lomography are in the Pentax K mount which I've got two cameras I could use those on
I got this lens because I shoot music videos and I wanted to have some sweet swirly bokeh in my videos. I didn’t know the history of this lens until I saw this video.
I converted a 90mm chinese Chang-Cheng (Great Wall) medium format lens to Nikon. You would think that a medium lens on a full frame or crop sensor should be sharp, but not this lens. Only sharp in the middle. But nice if you want that feeling for old style bw portraits.
Basicly just used a camera body cap. Drilled holes in it and cut out the center. Then used two old minolta extension rings (no. 1 and no. 2 - you must take off the mount) to get the lens in the right posision from the sensor. And a plastic cutout to hold the lens inside the extension rings. I had the tings I needed, so it just took 1/2 hour to make it work. The focusing on the lens works fine.
Too much "character" for my liking. But good to have these alternatives around, it might be the right way to go for some photographers. Would've been interesting to see portraits done with them (what they were meant for originally).
After seeing the swirly borehole, Anybody else immediately think they could jus buy that cheap soviet lens for 1/10th the price, whats it called again? The Helios something...? But that brass finish on this lense sure is purrty.
I have difficulty understanding how the Lomography lenses are related to the design by Joseph Petzval. 1. the original desing was f/3.6. The modern lenses are much faster, more like the 1923 modified Petzval design by Frederick & Altman. 2. I have looked for a cut-away of the modern designs to see how many elements/groups are in them and I find nothing. That basic information is lacking on their web pages. Without disaasmbling a lens, how can we know its the same (or similar) design? 3. The original lenses are extremely sharp in the center of the field. Show me a fuzzy daguerrian portrait or one with "swirlies" please. 4. Kingslake's definitive " Lenses in Photography" notes "the field could be flattened sufficiently for portraits" over 24 degrees. Thanks.
1. The original lenses were designed for plate view cameras. These are designed for mirrorless and SLR digital cameras. f/3.6 is a large aperture for plates these are designed for a far smaller image area. 2. They are "based" on the Petzval design. Lomography have never claimed them to be exact copies. 3. These are also sharp in the center. Go look at Charles Nègre's images. They look swirly to me. He used Petzval but also other lenses so I can't tell you what is what. 4. Does Kingslake expand on that at all?
@@theartofphotography thanks for the quick reply. 1.Given lens designs tend to be the same aperture over a large range of focal lengths and, therefore, image coverage. yet they are usually the same apertures. Rapid Rectilinears are a good example. I don't buy the aperture difference for various negative sizes. 2. Well, Lomography call them "Petzvals," to me, that implies that they are a Petzval design. Ad copy says "The new Petzval 58 Bokeh Control since 1840" sure implies its a Petzval? 3. The Museum of Modern Art has a nice collection of Negre plates. His 1854 "Place du Châtelet" is an architectural view, with a lens stopped way down, sharp and flat to the edges. "The Chimeny Sweeps" looks to have been shot wide open judging by the bokeh and DOF yet is sharp almost to the edges, no swirl whatsoever. His 1851 "Little Ragpicker" also appears to have been shot wide open - no swirls or vignetting. Check them out. The work of Southworth & Hawes (George Eastman House and MoMa) is almost certain to use a Petzval. Check out their daguerreotypes of Mount Auburn Cemetery. 4. He does not, I presume because he didn't feel the need. Other books on basic optics relate identical information. I'm not sure these day, but optics students used to begin with Petzval designs and work out all the variables for them and study the aberrations in great detail. I shoot a Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC lens which allows the photographer to control either forground or background bokeh. They're available on the auction site for about the same price as the LOMO. They're incredible quality, versatile lenses, sharp, superb color, large aperture range, etc. Different strokes for different folks. I have a few 19th century lenses I shoot on 4x5 and 5x7. The only way I've gotten a period Petzval to 'swirl" is to shoot it on a far larger format than its design specs state. Under those conditions, I can make 1960s lens perform weird tricks, too. cheers.
Very informative video. I was wondering if would do a video on, how the market is for photographers selling fineart photography. I've been doing photography for sometime, and it seems there is less opportunities to make a living these days. I was hoping you would have more insight on this. Thanks!
Get an old Helios lens, the 44-2 is dirt cheap. If you want to go higher, the 40-2 is a killer with great quality and reasonable price. Lumography are over-pricing an old design. btw, helios lenes are still manufactured today. I have an old 44 and a new 40
Most likely in the same factory as the Lomography lenses ;-) and I don't think Lomography lenses are that overpriced. 400 € for a 80.5 mm full frame all metall lens does not seem a lot especially as it is not really a mass market product.
You can also spend 1k Euro and buy a Meyer Optik Gorlitz 58mm /f1.9 Primoplan and get similar results. I know because I did. Not all that happy either. Oh well...
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
I love these lenses. So happy Lomography came out with these despite those photography snobs calling them for "hipsters". I have both the Petzval and the Daguerreotype Achromat 2.9/64. My dad used to collect antique cameras so I grew up admiring these lenses and wishing I could shoot with them. Now I finally can!
I found that the Petzval's sweet spot is at f2.8 and getting your subject in focus at 2 meters. You get just enough swirly bokeh and it's sharp enough. At f2 it's a little too soft and anything past f4 is just a waste since you lose a lot of the character.
If you had to choose to buy only one lens, which one would you get: Petzval or Daguerrotype Acromat?
Thank you! :)
Love these lenses and will have to take a look at them! When I switched to the Fuji X-T3 all of a sudden I discovered the magic of older "vintage" lenses. Not only are they less expensive, when I shoot the same image with "same" focal length on both a modern and a vintage lens I tend to prefer the image made with the vintage lens. This whole thing led me back to film - first in 35mm then medium format, and now I have begun large format 4x5 and I am looking for a decent, not too expensive, Petzval for that :-)
Same here! I have become somewhat of a nerd when it comes to vintage lenses 😂
Perfect timing. I'm just starting to build an 8x10 Wetplate camera and was actually looking at original Petzel lenses last night. Many, many thanks for explaining characteristics of 'portrait' lenses.
Anyone who likes this look should check out the Helios 44-2. Good middle ground between modern and old lenses. Super cheap!!
or any biotar for that matter. Early Helioses are really close biotar copies, late ones are much sharper(44M7 and so on), but still keep the characterstic.
I have both Petzval and Helios 44-2, Petzval really have the greatest colors of all my lenses and has very high contrast and center sharpness. Helios has very low contrast, worse center sharpness and weird colors (or just not natural or saturated)
I have a lens with very similar weird field curvature, it's the Fujian 35mm f1.7. It's a c-mount CCTV lens, that also have a swirly bokeh, but not as intense as the Petzval and with some chaotic highlights. It's more like a toy lens, and can be a good entrance for someone that wants to experiment with some weirdness. It's comicaly tiny, and I paid only $25 on e-bay with free international shipping. I use it on an aps-c body with very noticeable vignette, won't cover full frame.
I get the same swirly bokeh and that "natural" sharppness from my Helios 44-2, and it's way more affordable. Thumbs up for vintage glass!!! 😉
I got that same lens dirt cheap. Actually two lenses attached to two Zenit cameras at a yardsale for $4.00. Very impressive how sharp they are, especially close up.
@@tracylynnw next goal is to find a decent Olympus OM mc 200mm f4! Sweet vintage gear!
But the Helios 44-2 is sharp across the frame. Do you really want that? 😉
That's at f/8, and not the entire frame. From f/2 to f/4 it's only sharp in the midl, and those are the appertures for great bokeh.
If you shoot on a mirrorless m43 or APSC camera and want to try a similar petzval look on a budget check out the fujian 35mm f1.7 I got mine years ago for $25 bucks new. It's a CCTV lens which comes with an adapter to your mount. Heavy vignetting, Not very sharp, the petzval swirly bokeh is strong and it has no lens coatings so it gives off a vintage look as well as very very flare prone in a fun way. It's a very fun playful/artsy lens at an artists budget. I definitely recommend playing around with one. Plus they are super small so its easy to include in your kit for those occasions that want to try something different. cheers!
Hah, I also made a comment about these lenses! Wasn't sure if I was imagining the similarity but now I have confirmation!
I own the first version of the Petzval lens, I really enjoyed shooting with it. The lens is very heavy. Love the swirly bokeh created by the lens. I used the lens for a book cover shoot.
I have a Daguerreotype Achromat f/2.9 64mm by Lomography and I love it! It comes with two sets of Waterhouse aperture plates; a standard set and a 'fun' set. There is one problem though, you lose one, that's it its gone. Lomography do not sell replacements. Thankfully I did manage to make one from plasticard :). Why did I buy it in the first place? Because to me story is more important than sharpness.
Hey Ted, I could really feel your fascination and excitement for such lenses, well done. Quite a contrast to conventional modern digital fotography, yes, creativity does not necessarily require perfection.
I'm back to photography after a hiatus, and your videos are still the best.
I love that this company is doing this!
I love how vingetting and distortion is so frowned apon to the point where lens companies feel the need to make them tack sharp from corner to corner, when in all reality that completely takes any character out of the lens and leaves you with a boring photo that you now feel like you need to over edit to compensate for how perfect the photo is. I love vintage lenses, and even abit of dust or discolouration adds so much to an otherwise boring photo.
I like these photography history videos. These topics attracted me to this channel years ago.
Great topic, Ted! I love the Lomography lenses. Out of my price range, though. I do have a couple vintage Helios and Pentax lenses that give me great bokeh results. I even modified the lens on one of the Helios (flipped it) to give me even more artsy bokeh, just for fun. I have a vintage set of Sears lenses (yes, Sears), that my father-in-law gave to me. I adapted them to my Sony A6400 and they really do some beautiful work. Vintage inspired. For current new lenses, I enjoy some of the Lensbaby lenses. They are doing some fun things over there. I'm particularly fond of the Twist60. There's definitely something to be said about manual controls, and character over pristine sharpness. But, of course, there's room for it all. Would love to hear more on this topic. :)
That looks great. I bet it feels nice just handling that brass instrument, let alone shooting with it. Ive got an old 58mm 1.2 Minolta lens modded to fit my canon.
It has a look to it like none of my 'normal' lenses. So soft and dreamy down at 1.2
John how did you mod the lens? I'd love to see the results!
I have a set of three Helios 55mm f2 lenses set up for different cameras that have that incredible Biotar bokeh which when handled properly has real character. Well made and cheap. Also have a collection of old Nikon glass that is tack sharp. Modern lenses are very good but not that interesting to work with.
You can get similar results with those CCTV 25mm f1.4 c-mount lenses (Fujian is one manufacturer that comes to mind) on a MFT camera.
What is interesting is that with a certain ammount of macgyvering you CAN mount them on a DSLR AND get full frame coverage! (image is inverted though...) It is not easy to use by any stretch of the imagination, but it does produce these results.
Beautiful lenses. I think they would be a lot of fun to use.
I’ve seen these lenses and often wondered about trying them. I saw them quite a few years ago in the Photographers Gallery shop in London. Great video Ted.
Thanks so much for testing them out Ted! Such a great and thorough review!
That lens so steampunk-ish.. I like it
I’m obsessed… and now that DJI has that new lidar auto focus I may need to pull the trigger on this even though I have a Helios 44-2. This is insanely beautiful and can see myself shooting a lot of things with it
I've been interested in these for a while! Thanks for giving me a closer look. This was fun to watch! Also a bit of a throwback to your history lessons in the early days of AoP!
This would be absolutely perfect for filming dreamy/drug trippy sequences in films!
Interesting! Personally, I do not care for the modern, tack sharp lenses.
haha I went and impulse bought the 58mm for rf mount. I LOVE that look
Very interesting and thanks for posting thee lenses on here. I have heard about these type of lenses but not seen them. Now you got me wanting one, maybe! I cn see having a lot of fun with one. Thanks
Extremely interesting - thanks for sharing this!
I found a genuine Petzval projector lens and I put it in an old case of another lens. I keep the aperture rings from the other lens and I get the amazing unique lens
I love the idea of the Lomography Petzval lenses, but they are a bit pricey compared to buying an old lens or an old film camera with a fixed lens with similar, though less pronounced imperfections.
I for my sake get more millage out of my Helios 58mm f2, than I would get out of a Petzval. Because while specialized lenses for special projects are great to have, for me, they are not "need to have" lenses.
That being said. Compared to modern high end lenses, the Petzval lenses are a real bargain.
Well, compare the price to an original Petzval if you can find one. These are definitely a bargain ;-)
u know.. it's ironic, I spent time and money trying to get to a point where my gear + lenses allow me to have pin sharp images with the fast AF, and part of my heart just wants to go back to this sort of shooting experience and slow down..life's just going to fast man.
Have you tried shooting vintage glass adapted to a modern digital setup?
Agreed. It is nice to have the modern lenses and sensors...but you gotta slow down and enjoy the process as well.
@@SpaklesDr oh yeah, it's a very different shooting process that won't suit every situation or photographer. If you don't enjoy that slow process or you simply can't slow down in the kind of photography you're doing then you're going to hate manual lenses! If you can get into it though, there's nothing quite like it!
@@yetanotherbassdude Yup, I adapted onto my DSLR, and I took one of my most memorable images with it. Helios 44-2. I still have the lens, but don't have an adapter to my current system. Working on getting one atm. The balance is having equipment for production work and then having enough budget for fun things. I chose to build equipment for working.
The lens that the Emperor of Japan insisted on for his portraits was the 5 element Heliar lens. It came standard on the Voigtlander Bergheils in the 105mm, 135mm and 150mm size mounted in Compur shutters. I have several and they are great for portraits and landscapes.
Love that classic photo style
I have the 55mm petzval. With the right subject, it’s a stunning portrait lens. It also makes stunning still life images.
Really love your sponsor!. Been looking for a project management solution outside of google or microsoft.
I have both of these lenses. The serial number on my 55mm is 110, just 4 away from yours. They're great for shaking things up every now and then.
Love vintage lens!!
Always been interested so thanks for the operations instruction, Back in the film days for effects there were prism filters I used on my Canon Ftb FD lenses and today with an adapter use on my A7 cameras. The fact that these effects are done while taking an image not some digital effect from a program is nice. Also turning off the LCD people think you have a film camera using a film lens, so small BUT faster, great for city lights at night!
Love mine …..allows for a different type of creative photos and opens up my creativity.
Quite frankly, the only thing I dislike is the drop in aperture thingies. I really dislike anything that adds entry points for dust. The optical quality of the lens is really good though!
The new Petzval has a wide aperture you drop and it closes that tiny gap. I never take it out as I always prefer using the built in aperture ring.
Thank you for posting. I have been experimenting with Lensbaby and soviet era Helios lenses. I think I'll get the daguerreotype Achromat 2.9/64 first. I think if someone jumps for the Limo Petzal the Bokeh Control is the one to get for all the options for a bit more than the standard version. I have heard the optics are better on the Mark II versions over the 1st. I'm also thinking of moving up from my recently acquired used Nikon D300s with my manual lenses with the focus assist (green down/box viewfinder method works pretty darn well)... but wanting to jump into mirrorless and full frame with a Nikon preferably.. (Z9 out of my range for hobby for a while..) so maybe a Z6II unless a Z6III comes out.. also running with Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K with cheap 0.71x focal reducer (Viltrox.. not bad but everyone says the Metabones is better) and will likely get the Metabones 0.64x focal reducer for the BMPCC4K.. would get me closer to a full field view... I'll check out your other videos and see if you have pics/footage of some of camera/lens combinations. Do you recomend the Z6II for stills/video? Z9 obviously but pricy.. or wait 6-12 months for a Z8 or Z6III. (might be longer) though getting a Z6II and use for a year and upgrade.. but yes.. I just a D300s... so I'm always waiting a long while. but looking forward to a mirrorless camera with vintage or vintage recreation lenses for stills and video.
Not only is the extreme bokeh fad bad enough, now swirly bokeh!
I must say the lenses do look cool.
I purchased the ‘Bokeh Control’ version of the Petzval 80.5 Mark II and love using it on my purely creative days. I expected to enjoy the experience much like shooting with my Helios, but the versatility and superior manual focus ring along with the aperture blades has put the Helios back on shelf. Doubt I will keep the Helios for much longer. I urge anyone considering the Petzval 80.5 Mark II to avoid the basic version and go for the bokeh control. You won’t regret it : )
Very nice video, with nice lenses. I like the picture of the church, and the one right after it. // Yes creativity comes in many different forms, it turns out.
personally i love shooting portraits with my domiplan 50mm 2.8 on the fuji system; it's probably the cheapest Cooke's triplet that is readily available.
About a decade ago I wanted to mimic the the Petzval I have for my wet plate camera on digital. So I contacted Lensbaby and asked if they'd ever consider making a Petzval design. They said no way, there wasn't a market for it. Then Lomo came out with one and Lensbaby, caught off guard, rushed to make the Twist 60 lens. Now it seems I have an embarrassment of riches to choose from.
I have just about every lens made by Lensbaby, and their Petzval-inspired Burnside is by far my favorite. But they discontinued the model, and aside from a recent refurb sale, it looks like it won't ever be coming back. I really like being able to control the two separate apertures, and I don't know why the lens was available for such a short window of time, but I guess there isn't really much of a market for it.
Those flower photos were beautiful.
god damn it Ted, just when I think I won't buy any more lenses and then this video comes up!
Oooh vignetting. The feared enemy of geek photographers...
Very interesting review, thank you Ted! It would be cool to see some portraits though, preferably in black & white, like the original usage. That said, I find your video very inspiring.
I still think that an Aero Ektar 178 on a 4x5" camera is THE BEST portrait setup ever.
The results look very “vintage” I’ve seen similar results using mid 20th C film bodies with mediocre lenses. The difference here is a level of control not found in the genuine 70+ year old lenses. That makes for interesting possibilities.
This is maybe the coolest thing ever. They are priced really well. Might have to save up for one
I'm a bit late to the party, but apparently the Lensbaby Swirl 60 is based on the Petzval design as well. No idea if it's any good though!
Interesting technique that I think you have used in the examples (bookcase, cat, the last image) but not mentioned in words- to match the diagonal of the in-focus distances with the subject that is placed/posed along that diagonal,... Would love to get this lens exactly to experiment with that aspect, more unusual thn swirling bokeh...
Hello, I have a question on the Z Mount version. Does the lens fit as if it were manufactured by Nikon or does it bind or fit loosely? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick
The bokeh control ring reminds me of Zeiss' FLE ring on their Hasselblad wide angle lenses (CF 40mm & CF 50mm). I wonder how the correction for this Petzval affect image quality at close focus...
I loved my old Meyer Optik lenses, sold them in favor of modern copies.
One or two seconds ?
A great review, interesting products !
Hey Ted, interesting video today. I've been a photographer for many years but don't know much about lens construction. Maybe a topic for another video?
Reminds me of Nikon's 105 and 135 DC (Defocus Control), lenses that were "optimised" for portraits, as opposed to how modern ones are optimised to be razor sharp, something that's not flattering to almost anyone. Oh well...
Nice!
And I want the one made of brass.
I took mine on a street photography photowalk, and the brass lens was like a rock star. Everyone wanted their picture taken and to take a picture of it.
It's kind of like having a high end gamer PC and playing StarCraft on it.
Thanks for sharing this. I have used some older lenses on LF but nothing like these.
Ted! Take a video while adjusting the front element so we can see what it does 👁
Can you do a b&w image comparison between M10 and M10 monochrome? That would really show why monochrome is worth the money!
Because the images from the Petzval and the Daguerreotype are so distinctive, I treat them like fisheye lenses, and use in
Constantly tell people trying to get a film look with their digital project. The things you like about the film look is the sum of all the flaws of film, the camera with a pin system that permitted the stock to move all over the gate, the problems with lenses of the era, and the inconsistency of projection. Somehow the combined results is charming in spite of its flaws. Go figure.
The blur in the image reminded me of that one Mr krabs meme
Can we compare it with Nikon 1.8 d
Wish they made these in more historical lens mounts, M42 lens when? (granted M42 glass is fantastic anyway)
Agree on that!
True, and I was definitely seeing a lot of the character I get from my Helios 44-2 in these lenses. That said, the Nikon F mount is pretty vintage so you could get one and run it on a Nikon F?
@@yetanotherbassdude true enough, some of the older lenses in the same vein by lomography are in the Pentax K mount which I've got two cameras I could use those on
How can these be used with a RB67 Pro SD or a Sigma SA Mount camera ?
I got this lens because I shoot music videos and I wanted to have some sweet swirly bokeh in my videos. I didn’t know the history of this lens until I saw this video.
Interesting - did not know such lenses exists.
love your videos
Hello! Do you produce large frame lenses for sale?
Love this.
Nice video but I'm a bit disappointed you are talking about a portrait lens without showing any portraits made with it.
the shots reminds me of my 35mm CCTV lens
CCTV lenses could be an option if you don't a budget.
Ghetto budget.
I would get the dslr version and get a tilt adapter, then you can get sharpness where you want in the frame not only in the centre.
..i work with a petzval lens since many years...
I converted a 90mm chinese Chang-Cheng (Great Wall) medium format lens to Nikon. You would think that a medium lens on a full frame or crop sensor should be sharp, but not this lens. Only sharp in the middle. But nice if you want that feeling for old style bw portraits.
Love it. How did you convert it? Been thinking about that one myself. Long throw for an adapter.
Basicly just used a camera body cap. Drilled holes in it and cut out the center. Then used two old minolta extension rings (no. 1 and no. 2 - you must take off the mount) to get the lens in the right posision from the sensor. And a plastic cutout to hold the lens inside the extension rings. I had the tings I needed, so it just took 1/2 hour to make it work. The focusing on the lens works fine.
I want it!! 😱
I wish I had the money to try a Cooke PS945.
Too much "character" for my liking. But good to have these alternatives around, it might be the right way to go for some photographers. Would've been interesting to see portraits done with them (what they were meant for originally).
Superb 💠
No M lens? It would be great to try before you buy.
weird. I do collodion and get 2 second exposures (natural light) with f4.5...
I'd like a comparison with the Leica 44-2 lens.
After seeing the swirly borehole, Anybody else immediately think they could jus buy that cheap soviet lens for 1/10th the price, whats it called again? The Helios something...? But that brass finish on this lense sure is purrty.
very cool
I have difficulty understanding how the Lomography lenses are related to the design by Joseph Petzval.
1. the original desing was f/3.6. The modern lenses are much faster, more like the 1923 modified Petzval design by Frederick & Altman.
2. I have looked for a cut-away of the modern designs to see how many elements/groups are in them and I find nothing. That basic information is lacking on their web pages. Without disaasmbling a lens, how can we know its the same (or similar) design?
3. The original lenses are extremely sharp in the center of the field. Show me a fuzzy daguerrian portrait or one with "swirlies" please.
4. Kingslake's definitive " Lenses in Photography" notes "the field could be flattened sufficiently for portraits" over 24 degrees.
Thanks.
1. The original lenses were designed for plate view cameras. These are designed for mirrorless and SLR digital cameras. f/3.6 is a large aperture for plates these are designed for a far smaller image area.
2. They are "based" on the Petzval design. Lomography have never claimed them to be exact copies.
3. These are also sharp in the center. Go look at Charles Nègre's images. They look swirly to me. He used Petzval but also other lenses so I can't tell you what is what.
4. Does Kingslake expand on that at all?
@@theartofphotography thanks for the quick reply.
1.Given lens designs tend to be the same aperture over a large range of focal lengths and, therefore, image coverage. yet they are usually the same apertures. Rapid Rectilinears are a good example. I don't buy the aperture difference for various negative sizes.
2. Well, Lomography call them "Petzvals," to me, that implies that they are a Petzval design. Ad copy says "The new Petzval 58 Bokeh Control since 1840" sure implies its a Petzval?
3. The Museum of Modern Art has a nice collection of Negre plates. His 1854 "Place du Châtelet" is an architectural view, with a lens stopped way down, sharp and flat to the edges. "The Chimeny Sweeps" looks to have been shot wide open judging by the bokeh and DOF yet is sharp almost to the edges, no swirl whatsoever. His 1851 "Little Ragpicker" also appears to have been shot wide open - no swirls or vignetting. Check them out.
The work of Southworth & Hawes (George Eastman House and MoMa) is almost certain to use a Petzval. Check out their daguerreotypes of Mount Auburn Cemetery.
4. He does not, I presume because he didn't feel the need. Other books on basic optics relate identical information. I'm not sure these day, but optics students used to begin with Petzval designs and work out all the variables for them and study the aberrations in great detail.
I shoot a Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC lens which allows the photographer to control either forground or background bokeh. They're available on the auction site for about the same price as the LOMO. They're incredible quality, versatile lenses, sharp, superb color, large aperture range, etc. Different strokes for different folks.
I have a few 19th century lenses I shoot on 4x5 and 5x7. The only way I've gotten a period Petzval to 'swirl" is to shoot it on a far larger format than its design specs state. Under those conditions, I can make 1960s lens perform weird tricks, too.
cheers.
Very informative video. I was wondering if would do a video on, how the market is for photographers selling fineart photography. I've been doing photography for sometime, and it seems there is less opportunities to make a living these days. I was hoping you would have more insight on this. Thanks!
They look like the deakinizer from Jesse James
Nah, not for me. My Helios is crazy enough and it can also make great sharp images when stopped down.
$449? Take my money.
"Optical character". Euphemism for lens defects. 😂
Get an old Helios lens, the 44-2 is dirt cheap. If you want to go higher, the 40-2 is a killer with great quality and reasonable price. Lumography are over-pricing an old design. btw, helios lenes are still manufactured today. I have an old 44 and a new 40
Most likely in the same factory as the Lomography lenses ;-) and I don't think Lomography lenses are that overpriced. 400 € for a 80.5 mm full frame all metall lens does not seem a lot especially as it is not really a mass market product.
You can also spend 1k Euro and buy a Meyer Optik Gorlitz 58mm /f1.9 Primoplan and get similar results. I know because I did. Not all that happy either. Oh well...