Differences between LB Versions?

[igcollection]

hello and welcome to the forum!

One question....what is the difference between lensbaby 1.0 and 2.0?

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by igcollection.com

hello and welcome to the forum!

One question....what is the difference between lensbaby 1.0 and 2.0?

From what I know, slightly different max aperture in the newer lensbaby, better lens optics/ coatings (which some people see as a negative) and improved aperture ring changing. LB2.0 has magnetically held aperture rings, the LB1.0 had some sort of rubberized aperture holder ?

I'm sure the lensbaby people can provide better info than me though.

[Lensbaby]

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for answering igcollection.com's question. I'll try to fill in a little bit. There are three basic differences.
First, Gordon you are right in noting that the max aperture of the Lensbaby 2.0 is f/2.0, while with the Original Lensbaby it's f/2.8. Both lenses go up to f/8.0.
Second, Lensbaby 2.0 has a better aperture system. Both the Original and Lensbaby 2.0 use a disk system of apertures in the front of the lens. The Original Lensbaby holds the disks in place with a rubber gasket. To change apertures, you remove the rubber gasket, tip out the aperture disk and drop a new one in, and then put the gasket back in place. With Lensbaby 2.0, the apertures are a metalicized plastic, and a shielded magnetic field inside the lens holds the disks in place so that they float right above the optic. You change the apertures by lifting the disk out with a complimentary Lens pen and then just drop the new disk into the front of the lens and it snaps into place.

The third difference is a bit more subjective. The Original Lensbaby has a single uncoated optical glass element. It's quite sharp in the sweet spot at f/5.6, but by the time you get to f/2.8 its quite diffused and soft focus, almost impressionistic. Since it's a single, uncoated glass element, you also get glowing highlights and subtle prismatic color shifts. Lensbaby 2.0 has a high quality coated doublet so that it's tack sharp in the middle, with minimal diffusion and no color shifts, all the way down to f/2.0.

Some people love the Original Lensbaby's look, especially Holga lovers. About 80% of our sales are Lensbaby 2.0 though. Some people can't make up their mind and get both:)

I have attached some sample shots so that you can see the difference.

[Lensbaby]

The first two are Lensbaby 2.0, and the second two are Original Lensbaby shots.

[Abel]

Ahh... I was wondering the same thing... Great info.

I split the posts out into their own thread so others that may not know the difference can find out very easily...

[merock]

I want one

[OversighT]

Originally Posted by merock

I want one

Get it, you'll have fun with it


T.

[LoungeLizard]

So...for the "experts"...is a new 2.0 worth the difference over a "gently used" 1.0?

Also, do the macro attachment work with the 1.0?

[CypressPhotog]

Yeah, I would like to know the opinion of those of you who already have a Lensbaby. What version do you have and which do you prefer and why? I'm planning on getting one but I really like both styles.

[Lensbaby]

LoungeLizard,

The macro sets work with both the Original and Lensbaby 2.0. I can't help you decide on the Lensbaby 2.0 vs. Original issue. The galleries page of our website does have some more examples of both. I could also post more samples here.

Sincerely,

Sam

[huxley]

the original lensbaby has a softfocus look that is eerily similar to my 135 soft focus prime..... i wish there was a 1.5 that way i would have the best of both worlds!

[Soopahgal]

I think I may go ahead and order the 2.0 in addition to my original. They're different lenses. Same principal, but to me, the difference is pretty vast. Thanks for posting the examples!