Lensbaby

Hi folks.

I'm hoping to get a few comments on the original lensbaby (which I own)
compared to the 2.0 version.

Is there much practical difference? Easier to get a sharp area. More precise?
About the same?

I hope to get comments from those of you who have used both. thanks much for any advice. ( I am hoping to improve getting an area of sharpness in my pics).

Ol' Don

Life is expensive, but includes a free trip
around the sun!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2008 02:36AM by Ol' Don.

With the same aperture ring, I wouldn't say one is easier to get a sharp area than the other as both use the same tubing, but personally I'd say the sharpness in 2.0 is sharper than the Original. The original is softer even when sharp. Same goes with the blur area. LB2.0 could give a lot fiercer blur than the Original.


Err...am I right folks?

Better check with craig to confirm if they are same optic. I'm a owner of LB2 and LB3G, happy with both, and shoot with f4 disc at most time as i can get focus easier than f2. I'll only use f2 when i'm in a dark location and extra blurry effect.

If you've got extra money, why not try LB3G? I read the comparison of LB2 & LB3G in this forum last year before i decided to go for LB3G and they are using the same optic. For me, there's no different of the sharpness in those lenses.

chichichar

" fake it till you make it "

Thanks for the reply chichichar, but I'm really trying to figure out if the 2.0 is sharper than the original.

Sounds like it might be but don't really know yet.

Ol' Don

Life is expensive, but includes a free trip
around the sun!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2008 07:26AM by Ol' Don.

Have you contact Craig yet? On top of this forum, there's "message list - new topic - ... - Private Message". You can easily send private message to anyone incl. Craig (the father of lensbabies). I believe he can answer your question :) Please share the knowledge here after you receive the reply from him :)

chichichar

" fake it till you make it "

I have both the Original and the 3G.

The 3G and 2.0 both have a coated doublet lense--hence sharper sweet-spot and less chromatic aberation compared to a "regular" lens (as I understand it).

The Original has a single uncoated piece of glass--hence a softer, more difused look even with the smaller apertures--as well as strange chromatic effects/aberations, lense-flare and all kinds of optical fun features.

Hope this helps--

Johnny Crabcakes

"Failure is the key to success;
Each mistake teaches us something."
--Morihei Ueshiba

Thanks guys.

I guess I don't really know who Craig is! (I'm kinda new here)

Sounds though that I might like the 2.0 better for some subjects. I like to have
"something" in the picture sharp. Been struggling a little with that.

Ol' Don

Life is expensive, but includes a free trip
around the sun!

crabby: Thanks for sharing your experiece :) I'm a gadget guy, after owning both LB" and LB3G, I didn't think i would like to touch LBO, BUT your post changed my thought completely!!! I'd like to see wht effect it would give between different lens :)

chichichar

" fake it till you make it "

I do not think either the original or #2 version is easier or better than the other, with regard to focus and sharpest possible sweet spot. What if it is not the lens but some other factor? When you hold the focus, and press the shutter, is that done without affecting the hold on the focus? Does pressing the shutter button cause a tiny bit of movement? Is the shutter speed sufficient given breezes and such? What causes lack of sharpness? It depends. I usually take several attempts at each "shot" as the first may not be what I wanted. The spider submitted this evening is one from ten shots. One or two of ten is for me very good.

True the lenses are different and #2 has better glass by traditional standards, but nothing else is traditional about Lensbaby with that curved zone of focus. The original has better blur according to many folks.

I find the 3G my favorite "serious" lens, as when I have problems I can lock and fine tune tilt and focus, then press the button without twitched the focus out of place. Macro and other adapter lenses have advantages to being locked. I think the angle finder becomes more useful for low shooting with a lockable lens as bent coordination fails me. It's the only one where the self-timer can be used to allow you into the picture.

My favorite warm-up and play lens is the original, but then I don't have a RanHolga...

What's best for you? It depends...

Dick

Thanks Dick. I appreciate your comments.

I've been shooting traditional macros for years. I like a soft focus look, but usually like a point of sharpness for reference!

I appreciate you sharing your " one out of ten" success average. I don't feel so bad now. That's about what I get!

What a nice, refreshing forum this is. Everybody talking about images and photo techniques. Sharing beautiful shots..... amazing.

Thanks to everybody for your helpful comments.

Ol' Don

Life is expensive, but includes a free trip
around the sun!

Hi Don,

I'm getting in on this conversation a bit late but can answer your question regarding sharpness.

Yes, the 2.0 (and 3G which uses the same optics) is sharper (when in focus) than the Original is capable of being.

As for easier to focus I would say that my percentage went from 1 in 10 keepers (focus and moment happening at the same time) to 1 in 6 or 7 when I transitioned from the Original to the 2.0.

For portraits and more static subjects where I can lock down my tilt and use the fine-tune focus mechanism on the 3G I'd say that my percentages are in the 90% or more keepers. I have one client who I have photographed 270 of their staff members with a Lensbaby. The job dates back to pre-2.0 days. I went from needing to weed out, due to inaccurate focus and/or sweet spot placement, 60% of the images with the Original to 40% with the 2.0 to maybe 10%, at worst, with the 3G.

Here is an example of one of those images (this one taken with the 3G) [realtytrust.com]

Hope this helps.

-Craig

P.S. If the 3G has any merit for your style of shooting but you are drawn to the more spontaneous style of the Original and 2.0, remember that you can shoot the 3G in the same way as the Original and 2.0 by never locking it into position. I tend to shoot my 3G in the unlocked mode 85% of the time or more.

You could not step twice into the same rivers; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.
Heraclitus of Ephesus

Thanks for your comments Craig.

Very nice portrait I must say. That's really what I'm looking for I think.
Nice sharpness where I want it and soft where I don't.

Of course, randomness can be fun! Indeed, I also like the occasional corn dog.

Ol' Don

Life is expensive, but includes a free trip
around the sun!