# Petzval Nouveau



## cgw (Jul 26, 2014)

What's what with this $600 living fossil lens:

www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/a-new-old-lens


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

What do you mean, "What's what"?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

Sharpish in the center, and significantly blurred on the edges. Uses Waterhouse stops inserted into the barrel instead of a more modern iris diaphragm. I would say that many people would be just about as well-served by an ORIGINAL Lensbaby, or a Lensbaby 2.0, and a telephoto converter. The new Petzval lens really isn't done much justice by the hurried, awful images in the Lensrentals.com review...those photos are so poorly suited to showing what this kind of lens is supposed to be best at, but then he does apologize for the photos. The idea of committing to a lens-than-sharp, less-than-perfect image is anathema to many modern-day shooters. But there are a number of people who like the idea of making a firm commitment to a deliberately less-than-perfect image, or who really like different, rare types of lenses. Shooting with an effects lens used to be relatively common; in the early days of photography this was not "an effects lens"--it was at one time actually a good, highly-desired desired lens. Fl;ash forward to the twenty-first century however, and yes, it's now basically a throwback lens offering. This lens, like the Lensbaby, and other "effects lenses" made over the decades, puts a visual impression, or a stamp, on the images it creates. I know it's considered by many to be unacceptable to create a less than state-of-the-art lens, but this is the kind of lens for the shooter who's got the strength of his or her convictions, and is not afraid to make an actual commitment at the tme of shooting, and not content to "capture RAW data" and then hope later, to f*** around with the pixels later at the computer, and maybe create a picture.

Does that explain it to you? Do you understand how this kind of a lens might be used in the modern era, now that we've the vast majority of lens buyer have moved from doing "photography" to being involved with what is more properly and more-accurately described as digital imaging? I think at some level, this lens appeals to people who want to go back in time, or at least feel like they are going back in time. perhaps the buyers enjoyed the pictorialist ethos that was killed off by self-righteous A-holes like A. A. and his cohorts.


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

Here are better examples of pictures taken with a petzval lens:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pet...auyASwmIH4Dg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=487

I like the look and would have one of these if I could find an affordable one that would fit a camera I have.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

Yeah, the prominent "swirling bokeh" effect is one thing that many people seem to like. Some of the m42-mount Helios lenses exhibit a similar swirling background bokeh, but are actually a LOT sharper both in the center and at the edges and even to the far corners.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lomog...ional/sets/72157634783708727/with/9361880529/

The kind of people who really seem to dig this distinctive bokeh hang out in droves in multiple manual focus lens forums that I've been to.

Again, though, if all a person wants is a sharp center and a realllllly degraded, soft edge and corner area, the original Lensbaby, used with a telephoto converter, works pretty well. But it does not give the "swirling effect". The Lensbaby original was so,so soft, and the 2.0 is markedly sharper, and then the later ones are much sharper still.


----------



## limr (Jul 26, 2014)

Nice stuff in that photostream!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2014)

limr said:


> Nice stuff in that photostream!



Yes, this particular Petzval lens photostrteam is a good example of photos made by multiple people, people who want to actually COMMIT, fully, to a lens that puts a strong visual impression on every single image it creates. In the modern era, we have a number of lenses that do this: extreme ultra-wide angles, like the Sigma 4mm. Super-telephotos, like the 600mm and 500mm super-teles. The Nikon and Canon 200mm f/2 primes. And even the fairly modest Nikon and Canon 135mm f/2 lenses; ALL of those lenses put what I have long called a "*visual impression*" or "stamp" on the images they make. Again, nobody bats an eye when people lust after the Canon 135mm f/2 L lens: hell, I OWN one and have for years, and will probably always keep it because when I shoot with it, it puts a distinct visual impression on the images.

The same thing is true of other lenses; the Leica Noctilux. Old photocopier f/0.7 and f/0.95 prime lenses used for macro photography. The Nikon 58mm Noct-Nikkor. Cheap screw-on adapter lenses. There are lenses that very strongly show something about the lens that made the photo. Canon's 50mm f/1.2-L and 85mm f/1.2 L also create very strong visual impression on their images when shot at wide f/stops.


----------



## cgw (Jul 27, 2014)

limr said:


> What do you mean, "What's what"?




Test data and discussion by one of the smarter photo gear bloggers around. That's all.


----------



## limr (Jul 27, 2014)

cgw said:


> What's what with this $600 living fossil lens:
> 
> www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/a-new-old-lens



WHY did I think there was a question mark there? Duh. Sorry. Brain fart.



cgw said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean, "What's what"?
> ...


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 27, 2014)

I have one... What do you want to know about what's what? LOL 

I haven't used it a lot yet, but I've really enjoyed using it. I don't know about using it with an auto anything camera, in the review that somehow just doesn't seem quite... right! LOL seems like a mismatch I guess but really you could use it however you want, it's preference more than a right or wrong way. 

I didn't even have a camera for it so this was a first, getting a body to go with a lens. I got a Nikon F with a waist level so I can hold and support the lens. And it gives me a little feel of how it might have been to use a Petzval lens back in the day of big wooden daguerreotype cameras etc.

I find that it focuses nicely, but then I usually focus manually anyway (which might be one reason to me why using auto settings doesn't seem to quite be necessarily the best option with this lens). And I metered the scene (which I don't think was done in the review) to determine shutter speed to help get a decent exposure. I found it fun to use the Waterhouse stops (a feel for the history of it, and I seem to be quite easily entertained) but did get vignetting with the smaller apertures on a bright sunny day. I used Portra and got some lovely blue sky but was too far from the background to get swirl. I haven't gotten back out with it yet but plan to go to some formal gardens in the area that I think might be a good setting. 

I did get photos that were similar to what I've gotten with my Lensbabies but the difference is with those I move the lens in and out manually to focus like you would with little tiny bellows, then tilt. You don't obviously get the tilt with the Petzval. 

I'm glad I got one, and got in not quite in the first of the pre-ordering but did get in early enough to get a lot of extras that later weren't included. They apparently got way more pre-orders than anticipated so I guess I'm not the only nut who loves antique and vintage cameras, which I collect and use, and like being able to get a lens modeled after what was used early in the history of photography.


----------



## cgw (Jul 27, 2014)

"_I have one... What do you want to know about what's what? LOL_"


Some pix SVP?


----------

