# This is no easy lens to use.



## Ron Evers (Oct 14, 2014)

Actually, very frustrating to use.  Lensbaby Sweet 35 on Composure Pro body.  

I went renewed with enthusiasm to try this lens today but out of 10 frames I only got 4 barely acceptable exposures.  

1. Where the rubber meets the road is the only part of this shot in semi-sharp focus.  




 


2. Some Paw-paws but the Lensbaby effect is not really noticeable.



 


3. A leaf caught in weeds, where the lens seems to work.  



 


4. It seems to work on this woodpile shot.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 14, 2014)

These are certainly interesting.  I like the firewood stack.
Isn't that the appeal of these lenses, though, like having light leaks and whatnot with the Holga?


----------



## mrs.hankIII (Oct 14, 2014)

I don't understand what this lens is and what it's supposed to do? It's just dizzy and confusing? Guess I'll need to research because I'm not "getting it."


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2014)

Well, you have discovered the way the Lensbaby images with that aperture setting. It takes a while to learn how to use a Lensbaby. I've had three different models over the years, the original, the 2.0, and then the third one, the crazy semi-permanently-focus-able model with the struts...each one was different. And the aperture used had a lot of impact on how wonky the edges were. Not every subject or every scene is idea for a Lensbaby type of effect, and again, the effects vary with how the thing is configured. Your third and fourth shots are good examples of subject matter and camera placement where the effect makes sense, and worked well; the first two images the camera's relation to the subjects and the way the lens was used are not particularly compelling. It's like anything new--it takes some experimenting and practicing and maybe some evaluation/analysis to figure out how and where to use the lens. Shooting 10 frames is not much of an effort; that's like me saying I bought a harmonica today and practiced for five minutes, and I can't play the blues worth a damn yet.

Would ANY of these subjects have made good photos with a regular lens? I mean, seriously?


----------



## Rick50 (Oct 14, 2014)

At least you got started with it. I have owned one for a year and it's never been on my camera yet.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 15, 2014)

The lensbaby is like a fisheye you use it a few times and then it never gets used again


----------



## JoeW (Oct 15, 2014)

Here's my take....Lensbaby is good for really two types of concepts/shots:
--something where you want a dreamy, romantic, almost a haze kind of atmosphere.  Some boudoir or fantasy or cosplay concepts are all examples.
--shots with a foreground and background (so you get an distorted bokeh and is startling and jars the viewer).  That's part of the reason your woodpile shot works.


----------



## paigew (Oct 15, 2014)

yay! lensbaby  I love mine...don't give up! Make sure you adjust your diopter to help with focus


----------



## Ron Evers (Oct 15, 2014)

gsgary said:


> The lensbaby is like a fisheye you use it a few times and then it never gets used again



I can see that happening with this lens but I often put the fish-eye into service. 




Derrel said:


> Well, you have discovered the way the Lensbaby images with that aperture setting. It takes a while to learn how to use a Lensbaby. I've had three different models over the years, the original, the 2.0, and then the third one, the crazy semi-permanently-focus-able model with the struts...each one was different. And the aperture used had a lot of impact on how wonky the edges were. Not every subject or every scene is idea for a Lensbaby type of effect, and again, the effects vary with how the thing is configured. Your third and fourth shots are good examples of subject matter and camera placement where the effect makes sense, and worked well; the first two images the camera's relation to the subjects and the way the lens was used are not particularly compelling. It's like anything new--it takes some experimenting and practicing and maybe some evaluation/analysis to figure out how and where to use the lens. Shooting 10 frames is not much of an effort; that's like me saying I bought a harmonica today and practiced for five minutes, and I can't play the blues worth a damn yet.
> 
> Would ANY of these subjects have made good photos with a regular lens? I mean, seriously?



I have experimented a few times previously but trashed every frame.  The biggest issue for me is determining exactly where the sweet -spot is.  I would like to try it for portraits, will you come sit for me.


----------



## paigew (Oct 15, 2014)

The sweet spot is related to the angle of the lens. So if your lens is angled down in the left corner, that is where your focus will be. Angle the lens in the direction you want focus, then adjust the focus ring.


----------



## Ron Evers (Oct 15, 2014)

paigew said:


> The sweet spot is related to the angle of the lens. So if your lens is angled down in the left corner, that is where your focus will be. Angle the lens in the direction you want focus, then adjust the focus ring.



That is what I have been doing but there is still a point within that will focus sharper & I have difficulty finding it.


----------



## paigew (Oct 15, 2014)

what aperture are you shooting at? did you do the diopter adjustment?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

Oh Ron, I'll gladly sit for portraits for you! Just send me airfare, put me up in a fancy hotel, and get me a good rental car and I'm there! Not sure which Lensbaby you have, meaning model and focal length. My experience is that the Lensbaby's effect depends on a few things, such as subject matter, aperture, and focal length. For example, the side of the dark-colored SUV us a large, rugged, monotone object filling a lot of frame space, so the defocus effect is kind of minimized on smooth, one-toned paint, and the subject itself is "rugged". The subject matter itself is maybe not optimal. The red leaf though has some "angle" to the subject, and has one tone, greenish, then the crimson red leaf, so the defocusing effect totally Pops!

Focal length: I used the Lensbaby classic, which was a 50mm model, with a Nikon 1.4x converter, and also a cheap Tokina 2x converter, and I LIKED it much,much better as a 75mm or 100mm soft-focus lens, and I liked it with the f/4 aperture disc in, because the f/4 aperture disc used a good portion of the OUTER edges of the crappy lens, and I liked the crappy lens performance: un-sharp, lots of chromatic aberration, but a mostly sharp center.

The Lensbaby 2.0 model had a multi-element lens, but had no way to "lock" the lens, and it was a hair-trigger, friggin' nightmare to get the sweet spot positioned, and I junked maybe 85% of the frames I made with it., I HATED THAT MODEL! That model is why the later ones have a mechanism that "sticks in one place", I am convinced!

Anyway, I think soft subjects: kids, cats, plates of food, women, flowers, beach and river scenes, high-key kinda' scenes, that sort of stuff, looks best with the Lensbaby, stuff that is sort of impressionistic, or "romantic", and so on. I think some subjects do not lend themselves well to Lensbaby effects. But again, it does take some practice. Maybe try it on a nice sandwich, cut in half, plated, and with a beverage nearby, or something romanticized, like a steaming bowl of oatmeal and some buttered toast on a side plate. Or try it with a telephoto converter added, which seems to exaggerate the effect a bit, and is, well, more telephoto.


----------



## Ron Evers (Oct 15, 2014)

paigew said:


> what aperture are you shooting at? did you do the diopter adjustment?



My diopter is adjusted & I am shooting @ f5.6 as recommended for beginners.  

Show us some of your LB shots please.


----------



## Ron Evers (Oct 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Well, you have discovered the way the Lensbaby images with that aperture setting. It takes a while to learn how to use a Lensbaby. I've had three different models over the years, the original, the 2.0, and then the third one, the crazy semi-permanently-focus-able model with the struts...each one was different. And the aperture used had a lot of impact on how wonky the edges were. Not every subject or every scene is idea for a Lensbaby type of effect, and again, the effects vary with how the thing is configured. Your third and fourth shots are good examples of subject matter and camera placement where the effect makes sense, and worked well; the first two images the camera's relation to the subjects and the way the lens was used are not particularly compelling. It's like anything new--it takes some experimenting and practicing and maybe some evaluation/analysis to figure out how and where to use the lens. Shooting 10 frames is not much of an effort; that's like me saying I bought a harmonica today and practiced for five minutes, and I can't play the blues worth a damn yet.
> 
> Would ANY of these subjects have made good photos with a regular lens? I mean, seriously?



Thanks for the tips, I will just have to try some more.

As I noted in the OP, I am using a Lensbaby Sweet 35 on Composure Pro body.


----------



## paigew (Oct 15, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > what aperture are you shooting at? did you do the diopter adjustment?
> ...


here are some of mine from flickr. I usually shoot at 2.8 or 4, but the top one may have been 5.6  (lensbaby album)




paigewilks.com.jpg by paige_w, on Flickr




paigewilks.com-3.jpg by paige_w, on Flickr




sun drenched by paige_w, on Flickr




paigewilks.com-7.jpg by paige_w, on Flickr




paigewilks.com.jpg by paige_w, on Flickr


----------



## Ron Evers (Oct 15, 2014)

Very nice Paige!


----------



## Ron Evers (Oct 19, 2014)

Getting better??


----------

