# does anyone here own lensbabies?



## Radeusz (Feb 24, 2012)

Hi
I am considering buying lensbaby composer pro with sweet35. I saw some sample images on lensbaby.com, but its their website so they might cheat by using some best photos... Is it worth spending $400? Are they sharp? or is it better to do these effects in PS?

thank you for your help in advance and I am looking forward to see some photos taken with lensbabies.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 24, 2012)

I've never used them. You should search on Flickr, I'm sure there are a ton of photos on there you can peep.


----------



## sb (Feb 24, 2012)

I have the Lensbaby composer and for the first couple of days it was kind of cool to play with, but bottom line is that it's a gimmick that gets old very quickly. Besides, once I got Bokeh 2 plugin for Lightroom, I do all blur effects in software because it's so much better. It does tilt-shift and lensbaby effects easily with unlimited tweaking possibilities while at the same time allowing you to shoot the original photo with premium canon lenses and not committing to the blur effect on the original RAW photo.

As far as the Lensbaby lens goes... it's "sharp enough" at f/2.8 and smaller, as long as you nail the sweet spot perfectly. It's too soft at f/2 in my opinion.

So to summarize, $400 is absolutely not worth it. Spend $199 instead on Alien Skin Bokeh plugin for Lightroom and you'll never look back.

https://app.alienskin.com/store/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=1382

Cheers


----------



## Radeusz (Feb 24, 2012)

thank you  In this case I think I better keep the money for the new 5d. Who knows how much it will cost...


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

Well, depends on what you want to do with it.

I got one a while back for a UV project and had some fun with it. In a pinch it can actually make a pretty low cost tilt-lens and you can do some really interesting things with both perspective and aperture shapes.

The are fun toys, but do not expect crisp images out of them, esp if you are playing with the plastic lens. For the money though they are good to experiment with. I think 'toy' is the operative word. If you enjoy playing with lenses and experimenting with how they effect light and the image, you are not going to get more flexiblity without a full view camera.

If you just want the end effects that lensbabies can get you, then yeah, doing them in post processing is probably simplier.


----------



## lecoupdejarnac (Feb 24, 2012)

I have a lensbaby and think toy lenses in general are a lot of fun; some people just prefer to get a cool effect right out of the camera (that you can preview in the field) instead of more post-heavy solutions.

That said, $400 seems a bit steep. Maybe you should just get the Composer (with double glass optic) instead of the Composer Pro and save some money. The plastic body should be fine; it is not a lens you'll use everyday, afterall. If you can find it used, that would be an even better option.


----------



## M_Max (Feb 24, 2012)

Radeusz said:


> _
> Hi
> I am considering buying lensbaby composer pro with sweet35. I saw some sample images on lensbaby.com, but its their website so they might cheat by using some best photos... Is it worth spending $400? Are they sharp? or is it better to do these effects in PS?
> 
> ...



Yes I have a Lensbaby Composer with Double Glass and fisheye optics. There are a couple of pictures *here* in a thread I started in the Lens Gallery section.



lecoupdejarnac said:


> _
> I have a lensbaby and think toy lenses in general are a lot of fun; some people just prefer to get a cool effect right out of the camera (that you can preview in the field) instead of more post-heavy solutions.
> 
> That said, $400 seems a bit steep. Maybe you should just get the Composer (with double glass optic) instead of the Composer Pro and save some money. The plastic body should be fine; it is not a lens you'll use everyday, afterall. If you can find it used, that would be an even better option.
> _



+1 to all of this.


----------



## Radeusz (Feb 24, 2012)

the link does not work, but I found it. thanks (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3360.0.html)


----------



## M_Max (Feb 24, 2012)

Blast, sorry about that. *HTML Fail*


----------



## dirtcastle (Feb 24, 2012)

I am rarely impressed with Lensbaby shots. They don't seem to compare with shots from a tilt-shift lens.

My question is whether software (like Alien Skin) can match all the qualities of a shot with a tilt-shift lens.


----------



## cx1 (Feb 24, 2012)

You might also want to check out the Holga or Diana lenses for Canon bodies. Super cheap. The Holga is the cheapest around $20.

Not super sharp but fun occasionally.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 24, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> I am rarely impressed with Lensbaby shots. They don't seem to compare with shots from a tilt-shift lens.



Well, for starters, they are much, much cheaper, so it makes sense that they are not nearly as good.

Though there are also things you can do with lensbaby that you can not with a tilt-shift, like swap out the aperture shape. Since they are modular there are a number of things that can be swapped out, which one generally can not do with a dedicated (and pricy) tilt-shift.


----------



## sb (Feb 24, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> My question is whether software (like Alien Skin) can match all the qualities of a shot with a tilt-shift lens.



Just to be clear - Alien Skin Bokeh 2 cannot exactly do what tilt-shift lens can do. It can do a great job of simulating a tilted focal plane by applying blur on either side of your subject (and you can move the sweet spot, or have multiple "graduated filters" applied for a very complex blur mask). 

However real tilt-shift does way more obviously:

1. The whole "shift" functionality of the tilt-shift lens obviously cannot be replicated in software.
2. Tilt feature actually tilts the plane of focus allowing objects which sit diagonally in your frame to be in focus entirely. Bokeh 2 can't really do that. you can rotate the blur mask and kind of fake it if you shot with "everything in focus", but it's not really the same look.

So Bokeh 2 can simulate certain aspects of the tilt-shift functionality ( blur caused by tilted focal plance for creative portraiture, or "fake miniatures" etc) but it cannot fix your converging verticals if you shot architecture, and it obviously cannot truly tilt the focal plane. 

Here is one of my "fake tilt-shift" shots done in bokeh 2. Just to illustrate what it can do:

http://www.bn-photography.com/lifestyle/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IMG_6842-Edit.jpg


----------



## Radeusz (Feb 24, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > I am rarely impressed with Lensbaby shots. They don't seem to compare with shots from a tilt-shift lens.
> ...



you can try that  : http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 25, 2012)

I've got a lot of Lensbaby stuff, and love it all (I've put some examples of mine in the thread that M_Max linked).
I started off with the Double Glass Muse, all the examples there I took with that. I've since got the 0.42x UWA adapter, then the single glass, plastic, and just recently the pinhole/zone plate (all off ebay, if you're patient you can get them for $5-10 each, don't pay $50 in a shop). I later got a Control Freak, 0.4x wide, 1.6x tele, +4 & +10 macro, and creative aperture kit off ebay, for about 3/4 the price of just the control freak in a shop.

The effect isn't for everybody, and isn't for every shot, just like Fisheye it can get old quickly. When I go to process some photos, after a while I get sick of looking at them and give up. But I do go back to them, and I like the fact that they're "not just another boring landscape" and "not just another boring portrait". They have character, personality, individuality. Maybe i'm a 'purist' in that I don't PP much (except colours/WB, and the occasional background-blurring of birds), but if you're handy in photoshop, by all means try doing it that way too.

And lensbaby is not a tilt-shift, they may give similar effects, but totally different images. Lensbaby blurs the image border, it draws your eye to the subject. Tilt can either blur the top/bottom, or left/right of the image, never all at once, because it changes the plane of focus. Tilt can also give you seemingly infinite focus if you line it all up properly. Both take a lot of practise to get right, it all depends how much time you're willing to put in.
(and to try out a cheap tilt lens, I've also got a Pentacon-Six to EF tilt adapter, $100 off ebay, and a lot of Pentacon Six lenses, the best widest-angle is the Zeiss Flektogon 50mm f/4.0, pay maybe $100 again, $200 is a lot cheaper than a TS-E 45mm)


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 26, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> I've got a lot of Lensbaby stuff, and love it all (I've put some examples of mine in the thread that M_Max linked).
> I started off with the Double Glass Muse, all the examples there I took with that. I've since got the 0.42x UWA adapter, then the single glass, plastic, and just recently the pinhole/zone plate (all off ebay, if you're patient you can get them for $5-10 each, don't pay $50 in a shop). I later got a Control Freak, 0.4x wide, 1.6x tele, +4 & +10 macro, and creative aperture kit off ebay, for about 3/4 the price of just the control freak in a shop.
> 
> The effect isn't for everybody, and isn't for every shot, just like Fisheye it can get old quickly. When I go to process some photos, after a while I get sick of looking at them and give up. But I do go back to them, and I like the fact that they're "not just another boring landscape" and "not just another boring portrait". They have character, personality, individuality. Maybe i'm a 'purist' in that I don't PP much (except colours/WB, and the occasional background-blurring of birds), but if you're handy in photoshop, by all means try doing it that way too.
> ...



I have the lensbaby composer pro with sweet 35 too and agree with all of this too you definately cant compare it to a tilt shift lens.
its a fun lens to use at the widest aperture of f2.5 it is quite soft, not too bad but not great, however the in focus area at this aperture is too small imo as well.
also the FEEL of the depth of field at f2.5 on this lens feels alot more narrow that 2.5 on a conventional lens
i would put it more like feeling like 1.4 or 1.2 DoF. Wide open all you really get is massive amount of blur and very little in focus. of course its also all releative to how close to you subject you are too.
So I prefer to stop it down to f4 or f5.6 and around here its sharp the oof blur is super smooth as it has 12 circular blade aperture even at f4 or 5.6 the oof blur goes to mush very quickly.
It takes some practice to use but is fun for creative stuff.
no AF confirm chip is annoying for the price they should have put this on
Build quality is good though on the sweet 35 and composer pro. perhaps it is a bit overpriced


----------

