04-07-2015, 07:23 PM
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?
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?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.