# Lensbaby Announces Velvet 56



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 7, 2015)

```
PORTLAND, OR and ST. LOUIS, MO–(Marketwired – Apr 7, 2015) –<strong>(ShutterFest 2015)</strong> — <a href="http://www.lensbaby.com/" rel="nofollow">Lensbaby</a>, providing creative effects lenses to photographers that ignite their creativity and expand their unique visions of the world, today announced the Velvet 56, a new high-end classic portrait lens. Velvet 56 will be on display for the first time during ShutterFest 2015, being held April 7-8 at St. Louis Union Station, St. Louis, Missouri.</p>
<p>Velvet 56 is a 56mm f/1.6 SLR and mirrorless camera lens with 1:2 macro capabilities. This “new classic” portrait lens delivers a velvety, glowing, ethereal look at brighter apertures, and beautifully sharp but subtly unique images as you stop down — with gorgeous, velvety tones that give digital images a film-like, organic quality. Incredibly versatile, Velvet 56 enables photographers to move seamlessly from shooting an environmental portrait, to capturing details in a subject’s clothing or jewelry. Nature and macro photographers will find its close-focus capabilities, combined with effects varying from impressionistic to just a touch of velvety smoothness, provide a set of visual tools that will expand their vision of the world.</p>
<p>Evoking the image style and construction quality of classic portrait lenses of the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century, Velvet 56 features the heft and smooth, dampened manual focus of these early lenses. Velvet 56, with an all metal body, will be available in two colors: traditional black, plus, Velvet SE, a special silver edition. Velvet SE will feature a beautiful clear-anodized finish, along with engraved aperture and focus markings.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>Industry Reaction</strong></p>
<p>“Excited was an understatement. When the box arrived, I ripped it open…5 minutes later I ran down into the studio shooting test shots…Result? LOVE LOVE LOVE. This is going to be a huge hit.”

– Sal Cincotta, photographer, educator, founder of ShutterFest, and publisher of Shutter Magazine —<a href="http://www.salcincotta.com/" rel="nofollow">www.salcincotta.com</a> and <a href="http://www.behindtheshutter.com/" rel="nofollow">www.behindtheshutter.com</a></p>
<p>“I am IN LOVE with this lens! The thing that makes me most excited, and the reason I never want to take it off my camera, is the way it jumps from macro to far away shooting. I adore it! It is the perfect lens for a portrait or lifestyle session because you never have to take the lens off.”

– Caroline Jensen, portrait photographer & educator, <a href="http://www.carolinejensenblog.com/" rel="nofollow">www.carolinejensenblog.com</a></p>
<p><strong>“</strong>I don’t know what it is about this lens that makes me so emotional, but when I opened this photo up on my desktop it made me cry…have never experienced that before, it’s like this lens sees like I do…It’s like coming home…”

– Kathleen Clemons, nature photographer & educator, <a href="http://kathleenclemonsphotography.com/" rel="nofollow">http://kathleenclemonsphotography.com/</a></p>
<p>Velvet 56 allows direct access to the creative process of making beautiful and compelling images. This lens is a fluid extension to the photographic experience — the touch of the flawless metal, the tactile feel of minute details etched into its surface, the sensation of smooth, dampened manual focus. Photographers can effortlessly evoke classic appeal and transition from distant subjects to macro easily, capturing a variety of details in any given scene.</p>
<p><strong>Images

</strong><a href="http://lensbaby.com/velvet56.php" rel="nofollow"><strong>http://lensbaby.com/velvet56.php</strong></a></p>
<p>“Velvet 56 is the result of our tireless efforts to offer a brand new lens design that combines the best qualities of classic lenses while eliminating the negative aspects of classic lenses,” said Craig Strong, Lensbaby Co-founder & Chief Creative Officer. “Utilizing a never before used singlet-doublet-singlet optical design, we have combined a variable glowing highlights with tack sharp latent details even at the maximum, f/1.6, aperture. This groundbreaking design, combined with macro focusing, gives photographers one of the most versatile lenses ever made, helping them create images of any subject matter with unique heart and soul. Portrait photographers can now add a new must-have lens to their bag of most-loved equipment. Nature and macro photographers will appreciate the subtle variable, buttery-smooth aesthetic.”</p>
<p><strong>Velvet 56

Specs and Features</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>f/1.6-16</li>
<li>1:2 Macro</li>
<li>56mm</li>
<li>62mm filter</li>
<li>Focuses from 5″ from front element to infinity</li>
<li>Metal lens hood included with Velvet 56 lenses for mirrorless cameras only</li>
<li>Dimensions (DSLR) 86mm at infinity to 112mm at Macro, 71.96mm diameter</li>
<li>Dimensions (mirrorless without hood) 94mm Infinity to 120mm at Macro</li>
<li>Weight ~400 grams</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Pricing

</strong>Velvet 56 retails for $499.95 (MSRP) and $599.95 (MSRP) for Velvet SE. The lenses will be available in Canon, Nikon, Sony A and Pentax mounts beginning 4/13/15 at lensbaby.com, B&H, Adorama, and from select specialty photo stores worldwide. Mirrorless mounts including Micro 4/3rds, Sony E, Samsung NX and Fuji X will be available in early May 2015.</p>
```


----------



## dpetry (Apr 7, 2015)

No example shots provided?
Just text reviews from anonymous or paid celebrities? 
US$500?
Lensbaby has gone mad, I believe only in what I can see (and even so I'm still skeptical).


EDIT: yeah, saw the link now. The images are not very interesting.
Even when using the original LensBaby people always assume you made a photoshop gimmick. With this lens they'll just assume that you did an Instragram gimmick, which is worst.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 7, 2015)

It is "velvety" wide-open?

That sounds like a bold spin on "not sharp" or something.


----------



## GuyF (Apr 7, 2015)

Oh dear, hipsters will leap on this gimmick and add it to their essential kit of beard, pipe and no socks.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 7, 2015)

Sounds like having your cake and eating it or could that be Red Velvet.


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 7, 2015)

dpetry said:


> No example shots provided?
> Just text reviews from anonymous or paid celebrities?
> US$500?
> Lensbaby has gone mad, I believe only in what I can see (and even so I'm still skeptical).



No offense but, I don't put much weight into the opinion of someone who's either unable or unwilling to read what's been posted and find the link to the images from this lens. 

As for the sample images, they're definitely different. I can see some people losing their minds over the images while others will be put off by the effects of the lens.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 7, 2015)

Interesting use of marketing lingo. Someone in the Lensbaby marketing department must have discovered an online thesaurus. Maybe they are paid by the adjective? ;D


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 7, 2015)

Definitely some hyperbole here. I'm not personally crazy about the look from some of the test photos, but I'll probably review one anyway. Might as well...I've reviewed what seems like about 20 other 50mm lenses - I'll definitely have a point of reference!!


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Apr 7, 2015)

jebrady03 said:


> dpetry said:
> 
> 
> > No example shots provided?
> ...



If you're going to be offensive to someone, don't wuss out by prefacing it with "no offense but".


----------



## DRR (Apr 7, 2015)

$500? I'm going to pass, thank you. 

Some may like the look of it, but I don't see anything here that couldn't be reasonably created through other means, like smearing vaseline on your UV filter, which creates a similar "velvety" look. Although it's a little messier.


----------



## dpetry (Apr 7, 2015)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > dpetry said:
> ...



Thanks for your comment. It's good to know that we are among humans and not robotic perfect not prone to mistakes like that guy. I didn't saw the link at first, I'm working and usually just scroll my eyes through this kind of stuff.
Anyway, thanks again.


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 7, 2015)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > dpetry said:
> ...



Trust me, if I wanted to offend, I absolutely could and would. I literally (not figuratively) meant that I didn't intend my comment to be offensive so one shouldn't read it that way. I was simply pointing out that someone shouldn't be commenting without being knowledgeable on the topic.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Apr 7, 2015)

dpetry said:


> IgotGASbadDude said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



Haha you said "I didn't SAW" . . . ;D now I'm busting on ya :


----------



## NancyP (Apr 7, 2015)

What? The Petzvals are no longer de mode?


----------



## dpetry (Apr 7, 2015)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> dpetry said:
> 
> 
> > IgotGASbadDude said:
> ...


The correct is "i didn't see?"
Sorry, non native english speaker here.
In Brazillian Portuguese we use "eu não tinha visto", which literally translated goes as "i didn't have saw". I know literal translations are the worst, just to explain.


----------



## Skirball (Apr 7, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Interesting use of marketing lingo. Someone in the Lensbaby marketing department must have discovered an online thesaurus. Maybe they are paid by the adjective? ;D



Perhaps they were doing their market research and stumbled across this site. Most threads seem to devolve into a pointless e-pissing match like this one, so you can't blame them for assuming the average photographer is simple minded and impulsive. Cover your lens with a shiny coat and dangle in front of them and they'll all come check it out. Look! Shiny! Just make sure it's water resistant in case one of their spit guard fails.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 7, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Most threads seem to devolve into a pointless e-pissing match like this one, so you can't blame them for assuming the average photographer is simple minded and impulsive.



That's why I consider CR the "Jerry Springer" site for photographers. You can't beat the entertainment factor!


----------



## cayenne (Apr 7, 2015)

GuyF said:


> Oh dear, hipsters will leap on this gimmick and add it to their essential kit of beard, pipe and no socks.



I"m not quite sure what a "hipster" is....
But I've been going without socks since my "preppy" days back in High School in the early, early 80's.
Usually with deck shoes....so, while not sure about the beards and pipe thing...going sans socks isn't a new trend.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 7, 2015)

The images hurt my eyes. I suppose it may be someone's idea of art, but a lot of the shots in the gallery are just simply out of focus. A portrait of a person where NOTHING is in focus, not an eye, not a nostril, not something in the foreground or background, nothing, is not even really something for which you need a trick lens. Just defocus and shoot. And the velvety-ness is just like a dirty lens in a lot of the shots.


----------



## Skirball (Apr 7, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Most threads seem to devolve into a pointless e-pissing match like this one, so you can't blame them for assuming the average photographer is simple minded and impulsive.
> ...



That's a good point. I think I'm just going to start chanting "Jer-ry, Jer-ry, Jer-ry"...


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 7, 2015)

...and people complain about the 50L...

I'm sure there's a market for this, but just like the rest of their gimmicky stuff, I'll pass. Then again, based on what I see that passes for "art" these days, at least in my area, if I started using their stuff, I'd be the toast of the town ;D


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 7, 2015)

Photo of cat green eye I find interesting, and the bird's feather with water droplets.

On the other hand, the bokeh is very strange and the effect "Dreamer" with no sharp object does not please me.  If I liked the dreamy effect, I would use my Canon 50mm F1.4 wide open. : But I just hate it, and today I have Sigma 50mm Art, pleasantly sharp and contrasted in F1.4.


----------



## dancook (Apr 7, 2015)

Sounds like snake oil to me


----------



## grainier (Apr 7, 2015)

cayenne said:


> I"m not quite sure what a "hipster" is....



Here is all you need to know.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 7, 2015)

dancook said:


> Sounds like snake oil to me



The same would also apply to the Nikon 58mm. "It's all about the bokeh", except that costs $1,600.

Sounds like I should just get it over with and buy the Sigma.


----------



## GuyF (Apr 7, 2015)

NancyP said:


> What? The Petzvals are no longer de mode?



Good grief, where have you been? Petzvals are _so_ last year.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm personally not a fan of the "creative" effects this lens produces. If I ever wanted to produce such effects, it seems like it wouldn't be difficult to do in Photoshop.

As for the sample photos, it was worth looking -- if only to get a good laugh at the one of the kid trying to make the toy Clydesdale mate with the toy longhorn steer. 

Crap...now I've really brought them some traffic. Maybe that was their plan all along.


----------



## GuyF (Apr 7, 2015)

cayenne said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > Oh dear, hipsters will leap on this gimmick and add it to their essential kit of beard, pipe and no socks.
> ...



This explains the whole issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M

By the way, if you were at high school in the 80's then you're now old enough to know better - a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach. Hmmm, maybe no socks on a yacht but it would have to be one with teak decking...hmmm, crap, I'll have to go and make a list now.


----------



## Andyx01 (Apr 7, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Interesting use of marketing lingo. Someone in the Lensbaby marketing department must have discovered an online thesaurus. Maybe they are paid by the adjective? ;D



Right? Someone from Apple probably wrote the ad for them. They missed the mark not going with Fruit themed lenses though.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 7, 2015)

*Option 1:* Spend $500 on a nifty looking lens to get "ethereal" and "dreamy" images.

*Option 2:* Switch your current lens from AF to MF. Twist the focus ring in either direction until everything looks "ethereal" and "dreamy". Press the shutter release button.

*Option 3:* Load a properly sharp image into Photoshop. Apply obscene amounts of focus blur until the image looks "ethereal" and "dreamy".

Too bad I can't get $500 revenue for everyone that chooses Options 2 and 3. I could be rich! I could get...like...$500...probably.


----------



## Skirball (Apr 7, 2015)

GuyF said:


> By the way, if you were at high school in the 80's then you're now old enough to know better - a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach. Hmmm, maybe no socks on a yacht but it would have to be one with teak decking...hmmm, crap, I'll have to go and make a list now.



Hipsters wear socks now







The no sock thing was 2014.


----------



## chromophore (Apr 7, 2015)

You could achieve much the same effect by slapping an extension tube on a 50L or 50/1.4, and you'd have autofocus.

The thing I have never understood about LB is that they design optics that are *deliberately* aberrant yet command a high price, especially considering that there are well-corrected and *AUTOFOCUSING* designs from a variety of other manufacturers. It smacks of willful exploitation of photographers who rely on gimmicks and special effects (I would have included "cheap tricks" in that list but clearly these tricks are not cheap), rather than strong subject matter, composition, and timing.

And the shamelessly melodramatic "I cried!" and effusive testimonials in their press release just makes me want to retch. It betrays the fact that some photographers are complete hypocrites, on the one hand talking about how "it's not the gear but the photographer," and on the other talking about how "Lens XXX is the most special and uniquely-rendering lens with better microcontrast blah blah blah and if you're not using one your images automatically are not as good as mine."


----------



## distant.star (Apr 7, 2015)

.
I'm pretty sure this is considered formal wear in the hipster community.




Skirball said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you were at high school in the 80's then you're now old enough to know better - a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach. Hmmm, maybe no socks on a yacht but it would have to be one with teak decking...hmmm, crap, I'll have to go and make a list now.
> ...


----------



## Etienne (Apr 7, 2015)

GuyF said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > GuyF said:
> ...



"a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach." ??

I don't know about that but ... a man wears whatever the he!! he wants, when he wants.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 7, 2015)

dancook said:


> Sounds like snake oil to me



true ... but it's velvety snake oil.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2015)

Early review and sample pictures here:
http://www.slrlounge.com/first-look-lensbabys-new-velvet-56/

From what's being described by the reviewer, it looks like it's an old soft-focus lens _but there's no soft focus selector_ -- the dreamy effect is apparently 'on' for larger apertures and 'off' for smaller apertures.

So if you want sharp and wide open at the same time, this would likely not be for you. 

- A


----------



## Danzq (Apr 7, 2015)

You guys just dont get it.

Do you know how many ppl wonder every day how some "dreamy" or nicely blurred/bokeh picture was taken? Do you know how many of em know how to use photoshop and still own a DSLR? Those kind of photographers just point, shoot and post on instagram. They will go mad over this kind of lens. They are the ones mentioned in the quotes "crying how wonderful the pictures came out". A clever salesman will make em test the lens out in a shop and tell them how every professional uses em showing some nice example pictures. "Come buy the lens that will instantly transform you into pro!"

There will be people in love with this lens - none of them will be found here.


----------



## grimson (Apr 7, 2015)

I cannot remotely understand why people buy these crappy lenses ???


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Apr 7, 2015)

Danzq said:


> There will be people in love with this lens - none of them will be found here.



Oh really? I'm thinking this lens would be the one that finally makes my stupid 1DX take good pictures.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Apr 7, 2015)

Is this any different from pulling the "clarity" slider in LR over to the left?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 7, 2015)

If you are attending an exhibition of "contemporary photography" will find many blurry, blurry and dark photos. These pictures are made by "artists" and not by photographers. ??? Artists do not understand S___ about cameras and lenses. :-\

I took a course of ART-TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CREATIVE where I told my teacher that:

_Conceptual art is the refuge of the incompetent._

She did not like my opinion but overcome our disagreement.
After several months, came the exhibition day. I took a Canon SLR with color film and lens Sigma 24-70mm F3.5-5.6. The teacher asked my camera to photograph our group. After looking at my camera, she asked me:

Where's the zoom?   

I feel confuse, and said, Here, on the lens rubber ring. :-X
A year later, she was arrested for stabbing his sister to death. She sat on the sidewalk and waited for police to arrive to say that would kill all the rest of his family.

:-X :-X :-X I'm just a photographer who prefers cameras and lenses, instead of knives and blood. : Please do not call me an artist.


----------



## skoobey (Apr 7, 2015)

chromophore said:


> You could achieve much the same effect by slapping an extension tube on a 50L or 50/1.4, and you'd have autofocus.
> 
> The thing I have never understood about LB is that they design optics that are *deliberately* aberrant yet command a high price, especially considering that there are well-corrected and *AUTOFOCUSING* designs from a variety of other manufacturers. It smacks of willful exploitation of photographers who rely on gimmicks and special effects (I would have included "cheap tricks" in that list but clearly these tricks are not cheap), rather than strong subject matter, composition, and timing.
> 
> And the shamelessly melodramatic "I cried!" and effusive testimonials in their press release just makes me want to retch. It betrays the fact that some photographers are complete hypocrites, on the one hand talking about how "it's not the gear but the photographer," and on the other talking about how "Lens XXX is the most special and uniquely-rendering lens with better microcontrast blah blah blah and if you're not using one your images automatically are not as good as mine."



The thing is, a pro can make these effects using autofocus lenses, there is no real need for lens baby, but an amateur would just be confused by all the options, so lens baby is easier for them.


----------



## justawriter (Apr 7, 2015)

Well, the overwhelming property of velvet is that it is fuzzy, so these lenses are named perfectly. They may also be going for velvet's traditional role in the art world ...


----------



## TeT (Apr 7, 2015)

I would like to put my hands on one... I generally cannot tell if lensbaby pics were intentional or missed focus, but they are often interesting. (and not interesting is not the same as good)


----------



## TAF (Apr 8, 2015)

Their demonstration images look a bit like what I used to get from the c1930's uncoated 3 element lens on an old Kodak folding camera I used to experiment with.

Only less sharp.

$500 is rather too steep for my taste; esp. when I can achieve the same result with an old (100 years old) view camera lens adapted to my EOS-M.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 8, 2015)

I never did get the appeal of the Lensbaby line. I find it reassuring that I'm in good company here. And I _really_ don't get what made that one huckster cry. Sheesh.

Still in all, it's a free country, and if Lensbaby wants to manufacture this stuff, and people want to shell out their hard-earned bucks for it, more power to all of them.

Personally, I'd rather save the $500+ and put it towards an EF 50mm f/1.x IS USM ... that is, if Canon ever gets around to producing one!


----------



## candc (Apr 8, 2015)

the images look like what you get with the 50l if it is front focused.


----------



## benperrin (Apr 8, 2015)

Yeah, I never understood the lensbaby obsession. But if people want to buy this stuff more power to them.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Apr 8, 2015)

It appears to me that this is a "girls only" lens. Men don't use this lens, evidenced by the fact ALL their sample images are credited to women......................


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 8, 2015)

From the looks of their samples, I can pretty much get the same thing with my $25 Helios 44M-6 (58mm f/2).


----------



## zlatko (Apr 8, 2015)

chromophore said:


> And the shamelessly melodramatic "I cried!" and effusive testimonials in their press release just makes me want to retch. It betrays the fact that some photographers are complete hypocrites, on the one hand talking about how "it's not the gear but the photographer," and on the other talking about how "Lens XXX is the most special and uniquely-rendering lens with better microcontrast blah blah blah and if you're not using one your images automatically are not as good as mine."



And I wonder whether the effusive testimonials are by people who paid for the the lens with their own money, or by people who got it for free, i.e. in exchange for a testimonial. People tend to be *just a little* less enthusiastic when their own money is at stake. It's the same for lenses, software, etc.


----------



## captainkanji (Apr 8, 2015)

Save some money. Buy a cheap filter for your current lens and just rub petroleum jelly over it.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 8, 2015)

I think I"ll save my $500 towards the new 50L...and maybe a pair of socks.

;D


----------



## GuyF (Apr 8, 2015)

Skirball said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you were at high school in the 80's then you're now old enough to know better - a gentleman wears socks everywhere except the beach. Hmmm, maybe no socks on a yacht but it would have to be one with teak decking...hmmm, crap, I'll have to go and make a list now.
> ...



Good grief, what a fanny. See, this is what happens when you get dressed in the dark or don't own a mirror.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 9, 2015)

GuyF said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > GuyF said:
> ...


Aw bless, his mother loves him. Probably...


----------



## Kristofgss (Apr 9, 2015)

Actually, I quite like their products; When I started out with my first DSLR (350D) and on a very limited budget, the lensbaby system was (and still is) something you could add to your kit for about the price of the nifty fifty and which allows you to experiment with the shape of the background blur and selective focus. I wouldn't say it is a professional tool, but it is a nice add-on when you have to make do with what you can afford and are learning. It was one of those things to which you could treat yourself if you managed to save up a little at the end of the month to extend your kit. (I only had the kit 18-55 and then saved for a speedlite followed by the nifty fity and a second hand 28-135). And when you had saved up a little more you could replace the plastic optic by the double glass and later on with the softfocus optic and just have fun with it. I remember shooting lego figures with it and running around after the kids in the garden and maybe keeping one out of every ten pictures because of what was in them.
I don't think this 500 dollar optic is in that same target audience though. But as a company, their products are a nice, cheap way to have fun with your camera.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 9, 2015)

Kristofgss said:


> but it is a nice add-on when you have to make do with what you can afford and are learning.



That's a great viewpoint. Thanks for bringing up the practical aspects.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Apr 9, 2015)

My wife is an eye doctor and says you can get a similar affect in your everyday life if you just don't fix your cataracts. The people who enjoy this lens are going to be so happy when they get older and everything can have that "dreamy" look


----------



## lintoni (Apr 12, 2015)

DPReview has some "real world" samples, if you're interested - 

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/lensbaby-velvet-56-samples-gallery


----------

