Personal View site logo
Dog Schidt Lenses
  • 119 Replies sorted by
  • These look really fun, but if you want the look without buying a dedicated lens, I think a lot of these effects you could get with lens whacking and filters on the front of the lens. Putting an ultra-con in front and not flagging off light it with a matte box gives a similar low contrast haze.

  • @theshittywizard I really love the look of the FF58 Fixed Quasi f1.5, Contrast option: Stupidly low, Dirt option: Element separation, Tint option: Gold/red tint blend as seen in this clip:

    I'll be ordering something similar from Richard in the next couple of months to compliment the FF58 I currently own: Variable aperture circular f2-f16, Contrast option: Stupidly low, Dirt option: Element separation, Tint option: Gold.

  • @sunscreen

    Thanks for the feedback! I'm going to scour vimeo this weekend for ff58 videos and try and sort it out so I can place an order this week.

    Also, that fixed Quasi footage is pretty awesome!

  • Do these work with a GH2, or do you need a convertor? I just stumbled upon this topic today, and wow these lenses seem very interesting.

  • they have Canon EF, Nikon F, and PL mount options

  • @shian did you ever end up getting one of your own?

    @regaliafilms as mentioned you should be able to adapt any of those to MFT with a relatively inexpensive adapter. Though, I'll probably go the EF mount knowing that metabones is releasing the EF to MFT speedbooster in a few weeks.

  • Not yet. It's gotten to the point where I'm working so many gigs where I'm not using any of my own gear [I just show up, grab a breakfast burrito (or two) and start giving orders] that I've been neglecting my own kit.

  • I wouldn't trust this guy. I have a helios, and it's really a great lens to begin with. The video does show a helios with just the paint stripped off.

    If this guy is just giving lenses a coating treatment, then he can coat any lens, not just the helios. Even then, it would be hard to tell if he did anything to the lens at all.

    Say he did something to the coating to increase flares: why would you even want that? Flares are really cliche. I could understand a gimmick lens for your bag, but to wreck a helios?

    Coatings are usually meant to reduce flaring and chromatic aberration: if he's doing anything, he's probably stripping the coating off with isopropyl alcohol or something.

  • You should maybe do a little more research on your subject before slinging accusations.

    There are plenty of photographers that would consider the basic Helios a "gimmick" lens. You obviously haven't spent time looking at who the customer of a Flare Factory 58 is. It's obviously not you. Speak for yourself. We're not on your lawn.

  • @burnetrhoades Fine, go buy several: ignore my advice.

    I wasn't the first person to say this. Read people on this thread:

    And no, I disagree. A helios is not a gimmick lens; it is essentially a Soviet Union duplicate of the Zeiss Biotar. The Russians got the technology from Nazi Germany towards the end of WWII. If you want to dispute history, be my guest. The Russians got to Berlin before the US did.

    I am not saying at all that there is no room for a gimmick lens. I think every photographer/videographer should have at least one: be it fisheye, lensbaby, perspective control whatever. It sets them apart. However, the Helios is an excellent portrait lens with rich bokeh.

    As far as this Dog lens: I went to their website. They state that they "recycle" vintage optics. What would that mean? They recycle one vintage lens into another vintage lens? Are you serious? I could see maybe if they were able to treat fungus ridden elements, but they didn't claim that. They just took the paint off a lens that is blatantly marked USSR and put a tint on the lens. You can do that with a lens filter.

    This company is located in the UK and the Soviet Union dissolved in the 1990s. Even the name of the company: Dog Schidt; is clearly meant to sound German (to connote German optics), but dog has it's etymology in Old English. Something doesn't smell right here.

    You can still see some of the Helios engraving on the lenses on this page:

  • @photoman ... I was kind of seeing where you were coming from right up until you started talking about being suspicious of the company name...It is clearly meant to be a joke. As in the quality of the lenses is dog shit...but that's kind of the gimmick the bad optics give you a unique vintage look. I was agreeing that it may be kind of silly to wreck old lenses to get an effect...but it's certainly not sinister...

  • @matticusmaximus I figured the name might have been a joke, or at least the logo being a play-on-words. But there are people out there who wouldn't think about it and just buy it.

    The fact they are tinting old Soviet era lenses is bothersome to me. The tint is destructive in terms of editing: you can't get that color back. If you tint the lens, all your footage will be monochrome.

    I look at these old lenses and think of the great mechanical ingenuity of our species. It's not computerized, yet it still stands as a testament to fine optics years later. Further, it's a piece of history: to hold (and use) a lens made in the USSR invokes a lot of my curiosity and imagination.

  • image

    750 x 600 - 67K
  • "I do not understand this product which means that everybody who buys it must be an idiot."

  • @BurnetRhoades Have fun paying for a 50% mark-up for a junk lens! But, wait a minute...lens fungus and irreversible tints are a feature!!! So let's throw money at it!

    Matter of fact, I'm going to sell my car and buy stock in the company when they go public. Yeah, I'm going to do that because apparently the customers are such die-hard fans that they will do the same!

    I can explain it another way: If I have good vintage wine from the 1890's, then put Kool Aid in it, can I sell it to you at a 120% premium? Because that's what you're telling me: that taking something good, making it terrible will increase it's inherent value.


  • Yeah, I didn't understand the product initially, mostly because I can't understand why anyone would buy this. The prices are 155 pounds for a Nikon mount.

    They are literally advertising cleaning marks as a feature. You are buying a broken lens (that you can buy on E-Bay for under $10) for 18 times that. I can't make this any simpler.

    618 x 522 - 28K
    604 x 574 - 76K
  • It's vintage! It's got what photographer's crave!

  • This plus your other thread, and the story within, kinda puts things in perspective I think.

  • the shots made with the Dog Schidt Optiks FF58 Q1.5 Amber really stick out. They are pure gold, nailing the mood. Its a spacial look for special moments in special light. Sure you can buy a 10$ lens and modify it your self – if you have the time, the knowledge and the tools – and if you went to far, you just get another 10$ lens and start it over. Or you just give a little extra money to someone who did all the look research ...

  • @BurnetRhoades Your perception is apparently incredibly judgmental without much evidence. You are assuming my personality, my worth on two threads on the internet.

    Where are you located? England? Because I think, based on what you said earlier ("We're not on your lawn.") that your hostility is based in ethnocentrism. This company being located in the UK, you immediately find it more reputable than every single person located in the United States regardless of political affiliation or intelligence.

    If I am wrong about your location, tell me. I am human and I make mistakes. I am willing to admit that.

    And as far as the other thread: I asked this forum because I have respect for a great number of you. I've been reading this forum for about four months without posting. I was looking for advice and was railroaded by several people.

    So ask yourself. This is the way you personally treat people with differing opinions? It's not enough to say "I disagree." But to say "We're not on your lawn?"

  • GOD DAMN you're entertaining, son.

  • @photoman Either you or your communication skills have a problem. Re-read what you've written, it makes no sense, I promise :-)

  • @3kids I'm sorry for being indignant, OK? I didn't understand why anyone would buy a broken lens for over 150 pounds when they can get it for less than 10 somewhere else.

    My opinion: it's a bad idea.

    The company might have a clever name. If you want a broken lens go buy one somewhere cheaper; if it's not broken enough, break it some more.

    Companies exist to make money. The only thing this company offers that you can't do yourself is tinting the lens, and you can achieve the same effect as a lens filter.