[Alt-photo] Re: Lomography Resurrects the 19th Century Petzval Lens for Canon and Nikon SLRs
gemeentehuis at gmail.com
Tue Dec 17 16:53:41 UTC 2013
I also think the Lomo lens isn't a real Petzval. That's why I didn't order
Here are some comments I read about the Lomo lens on the forum that made me
wonder about the Lomo design:
*"Given that this is made by Zenit / KMZ, this looks an awful lot like the
Helios 85mm. The swirly bokeh esp, as well as the size and other. Looks
like they're chanigng the coating (maybe just not painting the brass?), and
removing the aperture in favour of these weird insets."*
*"I have seen this opinion in a numerous discussions. And it makes sense,
considering the fact, that Zenit resumed production of the Helios 40-2 85mm
f/1.8** lens this summer and it is available now at 500$ with Nikon and
Canon mount, as well as original M42 thread. That explains a fairly wide
for Petzval design aperture of 2.2 and all other details. Helios is a great
lens, derived from Zeiss Biotar , but it is way better corrected than
Petzval, and, in fact, is a double-gauss scheme ( Zeiss Planar etc.). If
you really want a Lomo lens, I would rather suggest buying a Helios. But,
35 mm is not the right format for Petzval anyway."*
But this new project (not Lomo) for a real Petzval type of lens does look
good to me:
I'm considering it since it is a real Petzval design and it will fit a
medium format camera. It doesn't look like an old brass lens, but I don't
mind that. It will look good on a MF camera anyway. I Might even get me a
Hasselblad or Kiev body for it (I have a Bronica SQ-B now) and make some
nice analogue negatives for alt-processes, maybe even in the Pictorialism
I would like to hear what you folks think about this lens.
Bert from Holland
2013/12/17 Christina Anderson <christinazanderson at gmail.com>
> Eric (and John)
> Thanks for the link! I thought, when I first read the description and it
> said "$300 will buy you a bit of history" I thought, what a great idea,
> I'll sport for that. Then when you click on further, it says $499. Then
> further the lens is now $599! So that is a bit steep for trying something
> out unless it is really good. So, John, I'm glad you say this, that it
> isn't really a Petzval. Makes the 100% increase seem not worth it. But if
> anyone buys it will you let us know if it is worth it?
> Also, I noticed they got $1,000,000 already and production date for
> pre-orders is pushed to May or later. By my calculations, at even the $600
> price that is making 1666 lenses. Can you IMAGINE??? No wonder production
> is pushed back.
> Lenses are such a big deal. I have one lens that has its shortcomings but
> is really a gorgeous lens--the Nikkor AF micro 60/2.8. It makes such a
> difference when I use that lens. So I am a sucker for the allure of glass.
> But still, Petzval...how intriguing an idea....I say as I dug out my Holga
> lens for my D800 to go out for a shoot...
> WOOHOO for Christmas break.
> Christina Z. Anderson
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 4:20 AM, John Brewer wrote:
> > Hi Eric
> > Lots of people, mostly us wetplate guys, have issues with this. It isn't
> a Petzval lens, that is it doesn't have two air spaced elements at the back
> and two cemented elements at the front. Additionally Lomo used Kickstarter
> to raise money, which while it conforms to Kickstarters rules it's a bit
> immoral for a company of that size the raise money that way.
> > The Lomo lens is faster than a lot of Petzval from the 19th century but
> you can take out baffles of the older lenses.
> > A much better option IMHO is
> > Just my tuppence worth.
> > Best wishes
> > John
> >> On 16 Dec 2013, at 07:40 am, eric nelson <emanphoto at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Kinda cool.
> >> or *http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn <http://tinyurl.com/m76r4rn>*
> >> --
> >> *Eric Nelson Photography*
> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list