This is what a Lensbaby should look like:

AdamLewis wrote in post #4028443
Im 99% sure that is the only difference. I mean theres not much you can do to change a little piece of glass in flexible tube.

I know, but they sure command a lot for the "innovation". I've heard from a photog friend of mine (who has met the guy) that the Lens Baby "inventor" is one cocky fellow...he apparently thought he was "too good" to speak at a function he attended. That kinda sucks...

I like the idea of the LB but I could never bring myself to buy one. There just always seems to be too much OOF in all the examples I've seen.

They're too gimmicky for me. That's just my opinion. Lots of people like them. It's just that I don't.

Mark

I believe that v1 to v2 has a larger aperture and MC glass for better flare control.. anyone care to comment?

But seriously, i think the production cost of the LB is probably very low.. less than a 18-55 kit lens mayb.. and still sells more.

They arn't meant to be sharp that's not the point of them!

If your looking for sharp you have brought the wrong product.

Go out and use it creatively and make good fun pictures but don't pixel peep on a lens baby.

Yes, these are gimmicky lens. I remember reading an article in ShutterBug which was entitled: What is inside the Pro's bags?"

Interestingly enough, almost all the wedding photographers had a Lens Baby 2G in common. Must be a staple for wedding folks?