E

[bernhardas]

Edited

[atiratha]

Although I really wished for a Petzval lens... EF mount and F mount just won't cut it for me. What about M42 or Pentax? Also, since they intend the lens for SLRs, why the heck would they use insert-in apertures? I understand, it is better to focus wide open and close the aperture afterwards. This way, the focusing can be eithe imprecise or the viewfinder gets too dark. Made like this, it is going to be way too fiddly.

[luisalegria]

Mostly marketing hype here I think.
The brass finish, rack and pinion focus and Waterhouse stops are deliberately retro features.
I don't mind a distinctive look, being a collector, but this all is just a bit too deliberate.
It should be easy and cheaper to make a 100mm/2.8 Petzval with ordinary focus helical and diaphragm, re-using standard lens components if necessary. Heck, they can even keep the brass finish.

Also the design seems rather flat for a would-be 19th century look. It just isn't as pretty as it could be. It is very simple to put in the more ornate turnings that make the old things so appealing. And that rack&pinion mechanism is just too blocky and modernist.

[Räbenfluch]

I would like one of these, but 1000$ for a 85mm 2.2? is that not kinda expensive?
But that is typical for lomography.....
cheers,
timo

[iangreenhalgh1]

I like Petzvals, I have a few old British projector lenses by Kershaw and Ross that are Petzvals. They cost almost nothing to buy, are a bit tricky to use, but produce great results.

[luisalegria]

Well , part of the issue in this case is that it is an 85mm f/2.2, which as the description says is not usually considered within the boundaries of an old-fashioned Petzval.

For a modern digital SLR lens they need the shorter focal length and larger aperture to approach the extreme effects of the usually much longer FL traditional Petzvals working on much larger formats. A genuine old Petzval camera lens on 35mm would be using just a small part of the center of its coverage. I don't think this sort of thing can just be scaled down.

The projection lenses are a better bet as their FL tends to be much shorter than the old portrait lenses.

I actually have one, an antique French thing made for a magic lantern projector I believe -

http://forum.mflenses.com/antique-french-magic-lantern-projection-lens-t13120,highlight,%2Bantique.html
I've been meaning to try it again sometime. This type of shot really isn't my thing, but what the hey, shouldn't get in a rut.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yes, that one I used was a 5 inch (127mm) I also have 5.5, 6. 7 and 8 inch ones and none of them give the crazy swirly effect of a wide open petzval. This is as Luis says, because of the use of only the central portion of the image circle. I hope to mount one of my projector Petzvals on my 5x7 camera sometime, for portraiture in a 19th century style.

[fermy]

Personally, for me anything related to lomography is a fraud. It's not a fraud in the sense that they will take your money and run, but in the sense of intellectual dishonesty permeating the whole movement. Alfred Klomp already explained all that very well, so I will just link to his article instead of repeating http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/lomography/

I also find it funny that lomography suddenly cares about technical imperfections (they say old Petzval lenses are often in bad condition due to age ) To me this a bad excuse to sell a technically deficient lens for an exhorbitant price. All you are really getting is a bit of brass plumbing coupled with some of the cheapest glass and a century old calculation of an Austrian mathematician. Waterhouse stop is there not because they are deliberately retro, but because proper aperture costs money to manufacture and assemble, while Waterhouse stop costs almost nothing. Aesthetically it is also plane Jane, but it's much cheaper to produce a long tube of constant radius, which is then cut into pieces, than to individually machine barrels of more complex shape.

[LucisPictor]

I am eager to hear about your first-hand-experiences!

Would be way too expensive for my taste, but the guys at Lomography know how to spread the news.
And they do something!

[GeorgeSalt]

[Mos6502]

[anscochrome]

I wish I had a spare $1000.00 around to send to the quickstart campaign-honestly, is this any worse of an idea than remaking the 85mm F 1.5 Helios? Bravo to them-wish I had a good idea or two for a quickstart campaign:)

[fermy]

[anscochrome]

Nonetheless, I wish them the best. Frankly, I become weary of every new idea being poo-pooed on photography forums. Every new camera sucks, every new lens sucks. I want to give it chance-maybe it will surprise some folks.

[fermy]

Poo-pooing new ideas is not exclusive to photography forums. It's more or less how most new ideas are met. Except that this idea is not new. It's more than 150 years old. By the looks of things their project is doing rather well though, so you don't need to worry.

[Lightshow]

Looks ok, too bad it's not polished, the black version could be cool.

[kds315*]

I have a cute f3/135mm Petzval lens here, small and cute - and original and payed much less for it.
These are out there, so why wait for LOMO to make anew one...??

[bernhardas]

Edited

[Mark]

Hmmm, the project has a lot of backers! I think there were only a few yesterday, but all overpriced options were sold out already. It seems that re-inveting old lenses is not a bad business...

Moreover the shots with old Petzvals are better then the shots taken with the prototype lens...

[philslizzy]

[iangreenhalgh1]

That is a bad jacket, canary yellow, makes him look like Elton John sans rug.

[lensfan1]

Any lomo petzval lenses in use already?
Looks like they have started shipping.

Would like to see some examples.

[bernhardas]

Edited

[dan_]

I like Petzvals very much and I can understand and appreciate the revival of the old design for its special image rendering.
But in no way can I understand why the Waterhouse Aperture System is used.
It has nothing to do with the Petzval optical design and it's much harder to use then the iris aperture.
So is the Gear Rack Focusing compared with the helical one.
Probably some consider them "cool"...
Neither can I understand why the price is so high. Petzvals are very simple designs and therefore quite cheap to design and make.
Probably the brass barrel (another "cool" thing...) makes them so expensive.
So many "cool retro" additions make them more of a fashion product then an useful photographic tool. But that's Lomography...
Let's hope that at least optically they are well made.
I'd like to see samples taken by the forum members.

[themoleman342]

Here is another Petzvel lens project on kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1162663202/the-petzvar-f-38-120-mm-medium-format-petzval-port

This is a much more interesting project to me. Good looking lens, proper aperture, medium format. I'm very tempted to invest...