Petzval on its way

At long last, my Petzval lens is finally on its way here!

http://shop.lomography.com/se/lenses/brass-petzval-nikon-mount

I'm pretty excited about this, even if I don't think it will create
anything out of the ordinary in the studio, but outside or anywhere where
there is a good separation between the subject and the background.

Obviously, test shots will come up here when it arrives.

 

: At long last, my Petzval lens is finally on its way here!
:
: http://shop.lomography.com/se/lenses/brass-petzval-nikon-mount
:
: I'm pretty excited about this, even if I don't think it will
: create anything out of the ordinary in the studio, but outside
: or anywhere where there is a good separation between the subject
: and the background.
:
: Obviously, test shots will come up here when it arrives.

Sorry, Jonas, I can't resist: "A fool and his money are soon parted."

(You could say the same thing about me if I were to order, say, a digital back
for my Argus C-3.) ;^)

Bob

 

Sounds like it should be very enjoyable. I'd let the aesthetics of the lens be an inspiration.

 

I get a kick out of specialized lenses, and this is no exception. I have a
ton of Lensbaby lenses as well.

The fun thing about these types of lenses are that most of their effect
really can't be achieved in post. This is especially true of the Petzval.

Same could be said about the Canon 50/1.0 lens, or the Nikon 13/5.6 lens,
two very specialized (and expensive) lenses that can take pictures that are
really unique. But they bring only "specs" to the table, the Petzval brings
lens effects to the table.

Basically, the Petzval adds a "swirly" effect to the bokeh, or unfocused
parts of the image. This effect increases by the distance to the
background, and is really hard to recreate in Photoshop, just like how good
bokeh is hard to recreate since Photoshop works with a flat 2D image where
Petzval is working with light in 3D space.

 

The images on Rockwell's Web site remind me of what I get from the
Tamron 10-24 mm.

 

Well, they're pretty far apart. The Tamron is a DX lens, so won't get the
same coverage. Plus, the 13/5.6 has next to no distortion. Your 10-24 has
pretty serious barrel distortion, which of course can be fixed in post but
you're still fixing something that was out of whack to begin with.

That said, the Nikon 14-24/2.8 lens is probably on par with the 13/5.6, at
least for sharpness but not as much for distortion.

 

The Tamron at 10 mm is very similar to a FF lens at 15 mm, so whilst it
isn't quite as wide, the images are quiet close. Of course, they would
be with any 10 mm lens on DX/APS-C format. This is what DP Review has
to say about the distortion:

"Distortion is kept impressively low throughout the range for such a
wide angle lens; 1.1% barrel distortion at 10mm, increasing to a maximum
of 1.6% at 13mm then decreasing again at longer focal lengths. In
context, this is much lower than that usually seen at the wide end of
typical standard zooms."

I wouldn't have used the phrase "pretty serious".

Anyway, it's a lens you can actually buy, and it doesn't cost
10,000-20,000 US dollars!

 

I suppose "pretty serious" is a bit of an exaggeration. But while
percentages may sound low, this is how those look in reality:

<http://www.lenstip.com/upload2/16930_tam10-24_dys10.jpg>

For a wide angle lens, that's pretty low distortion, granted. But the
13/5.6 has pretty much 0% distortion. I've seen test pics in magazines, but
the only one I can find online is the one on Rockwell's site actually:

<http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/13mm/distortion/D3R_1156-1200.jpg>

As you can see, the difference is enormous.

Haha, indeed! But, I have the stupendous Nikon 14-24/2.8 which is almost as
good as the 13/5.6 and even faster and at least as sharp, and gives a wider
shot than the Tamron 10-24 DX lens (which is equivalent to a 15-36mm lens
on FX).

The 14-24/2.8 has about equivalent distortion as the Tamron at the widest
though, so there the 13mm wins.

 

Yeah, well, you get what you pay for, ey? I mean, the Tamron is a good
lens, and I like Tamron, but there really is no comparison to the Nikon.

Indeed - the Nikon is pretty big and since you can't use filters on it, you
constantly worry about damaging the front element.

Seems most of them are, it has been very positively received. It isn't the
sharpest lens you'll find, but it does gather light in interesting ways