Lensbaby

[loneranger]

Does anyone know if you can put a lensbaby on a leica M with some adapter?

 

[rogue_designer]

You could probably find a way - but since you don't have a ttl view, you won't know if you are ever in focus.

 

[pvdhaar]

Nikon to M/LTM mount adapters do exist, but they cost a fortune.

I'm sure you'd be cheaper off with a Nikon or Pentax mount Lensbaby and a used film body.

 

[MelanieC]

I've never understood the Lensbaby appeal. They're expensive, and don't do anything you can't do in Photoshop, right?

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I had one on a Nikon F3 - sold it a week later.

 

[pvdhaar]

I've never understood the Lensbaby appeal. They're expensive, and don't do anything you can't do in Photoshop, right?

Most associate the Lensbaby with shallow regions of sharpness, but you can use it the other way round as well. Tilt it forward, and the entire floor can be in focus from here to infinity (like with viewcamera movements)..

Of course, Photoshop virtuosi will argue that you can get the same effect if you laboriously merge a slew of stacked focus shots, and perspective correct each one a slight bit for different angle of view..

But then again, if you construct an image pixel by pixel using the pencil tool, you don't even need any camera at all, do you?

 

[IGMeanwell]

http://cameraquest.com/adaptslrRFM.htm

You could buy a Nikon or Pentax mount lensbaby and use them with those adapters

but your talking quite a bit of money

I have thought about one of the lensbabies for my Nikon DSLR... but I always think my money could be spent on something much better

 

[zuikologist]

I think the lens baby is T mount - I swpped a Canon EOS for K mount on a lensbaby. Seems to work ok. Find a cheap one with an obscure mount and change to an M42 T mount. M42/M mount or L39 adaptors are relatively cheap.

Otherwise, try making your own with an old single lens and duct tape.

 

[rogue_designer]

I've never understood the Lensbaby appeal. They're expensive, and don't do anything you can't do in Photoshop, right?

Massive chromatic abberation and flare can be hard to fake. But then, why would anyone want to?

For $100, I can understand having one in your bag - it allows for a particular look that can't really be achieved with 35mm/dSLR any other way. If you sell just one image from it, you've paid for it.

But for me, shooting moslty RF's (for 35mm anyway) - it doesn't really offer much. If I want the perspective and focal control that's what my LF cameras are for. If I want that much abberation, I put away the cameras and go out for a drink.

 

[ferider]

I was always playing with the idea of getting one because of the tilting
and shifting you can do - selectively put image areas in and out of focus,
which cann't be done in PS. Doesn't seem very attractive on an RF though.

Roland.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think Vaseline around the edges of the front element of a really-shot lens would be more cost-effective, don't you think? 😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

All smart-@ssness aside, rogue_designer is right, you'd need TTL viewing, so a Visioflex attachment may be required for this on an M body.

 

[loneranger]

I guess, theoretically, the viewfinder problem with the lensbaby and RF cameras will be less of a problem if mounted on a digital body (like M8). Then you could use trial shots until you get the effect you want.

 

[VinceC]

>>Vaseline around the edges of the front element of a really-shot lens would be more cost-effective, don't you think?<<

Or Vaseline on a filter. That way you can use any lens. You could even use an SLR to get a sense of the effect before moving the filter to a rangefinder.

 

[loneranger]

Probably should be a cheap russian filter, so you would not mind tossing it after the vaseline drys.