[popo]

On paper, it seemed to be an interesting lens. Manual focus 56mm f/1.6 with 1:2 macro capability. That's not that far from the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 makro-planar, where it feels like I'm the only person in the world who actually bought one. The Zeiss isn't cheap, and neither is the Velvet at US$500, 600 for "SE" whatever that gets you, but it still is ball park half the Zeiss.

 

I saw the marketing description. I recognise the individual words, but together they lacked any meaning whatsoever. Never mind that, where are the sample images? Oh dear... is soft focus back in fashion again? That was my first thought. Some images appeared to show something resembling normal. Is it all about the bokeh? Nope, there's some obvious rings, particularly on highlight points.

 

It took a visit elsewhere to find out in plain language that the blurry effect wide open is intentional. As you stop down, it gets normal/sharper. I'm left wondering if there really is a niche for this lens?

[Rover]

Made me wonder / chuckle as well. Though the dandelion sample shot will make a decent desktop wallpaper.

[Guest]

I'm left wondering if there really is a niche for this lens?

 

Only those with more money than sense. Everyone* knows you can pick up a Super-Takumar and extension tubes for far less.

 

* Except popo.

[popo]

Only those with more money than sense. Everyone knows you can pick up a Super-Takumar and extension tubes for far less.

 

I wouldn't know how much a Super-Takumar would be, and I don't really care either.

 

I guess we can break the Velvet down into a few use cases:

1, fast, wide open, soft focus look. Any 50mm prime could do that, with a spot of photoshop afterwards. Or use an old school filter.

2, macro-ish, usually stopped down. Any regular macro lens.

 

I had my sanity questioned when I got the Zeiss, where many pointed out I could get a fast 50 and a macro for less than the Zeiss. The difference was in my case I did want both parts at the same time, that is, close® focus than is possible with a normal 50mm, and wide open. It is a niche use, but a real one. To be fair I would likely have got away with a f/2.8...

 

The Velvet... I'm not sure if anyone can think of a use for a wide open soft focus semi-macro. So that case aside we're left with the two above which are separate. Do you really need them in one lens?

[Rover]

The Macro-Planar 50mm looks like a badass lens (which also destroys its non-macro f/1.4 sibling on IQ, albeit at a price).

[Guest]

I wouldn't know how much a Super-Takumar would be, and I don't really care either.

 

Thanks for the info - I updated my original post.

[PuxaVida]

Well, if I had the 50mm Zeiss macro already in the bag, I wouldn't be interested in this one because of the availability of softening effects in PS and other applications. But instead of the Zeiss macro I own the lousy Zeiss 50mm 1.4, which in fact is very soft at f/1.4, but not as much as this one :-)...

 

Could be a nice fit for the ones who like close-ups with higher magnification and softening effect. I'd rather like to have these functionalities on a wider lens though...

 

Serkan

[Rover]

Could be a nice fit for the ones who like close-ups with higher magnification and softening effect.

This looks bad. Believe me. I was shooting just the same kind of thing for fun yesterday, and hated the shots that came out this way.