Notes on the Loreo Lens in a Cap.
Copyright © 2007 NK Guy
http://photonotes.org/reviews/loreo/
The Loreo Lens in a Cap for SLR cameras is a really really clever idea. And, uh, well... that’s all I can say positively about it. I really hate to do that, as it’s such an ingenious concept, and it’s also the product of a small and innovative company in Hong Kong, China. But the fact is I found photos taken with the lens to be really boring. And I’m fairly sure the dullness is a result of the inherent optical qualities of the lens, not of my skill as a photographer.
What’s a Loreo?
Basically, the Loreo Lens in a Cap is a plastic body cap which fits onto your SLR camera. (Canon EOS, Nikon F, Canon FD, Pentax K, Olympus OM, Minolta MD, Minolta AF and M42 universal screwmount versions are made - be sure to get the right type as they are system-specific) It has a small three-element plastic lens and a rotating disc containing holes of varying sizes. This rotating disc is the adjustable aperture for the lens. And that’s pretty well it. You can’t focus the lens, since it’s prefocused from about half a metre through to infinity like a cheap point and shoot camera. You can just alter the aperture setting from f/5.6 to f/64; the latter being a near pinhole aperture in size. The focal length is about 35mm or so on a full-frame camera and roughly 55mm on a 1.6x crop camera.
The cap is very small, so it allows you to take photos without a bulky lens attached to your SLR. On a small camera like the EOS 300D/Digital Rebel you get a pretty tiny and portable combination. It weighs virtually nothing - 30 grams.
But the whole thing is kind of pointless since the photos it takes look like crap. They’re not interesting at all, like a Lensbaby can sometimes be. They don’t have any personality, like a lot of toy cameras. They just make photos from your expensive SLR camera look like they were taken with the crummiest point and shoot piece of junk - washed out, low-contrast, colourless, out of focus, dull. And if that’s the effect you’re after you’re best off using the crummiest point and shoot piece of junk and saving the money and hassle.
So. Sorry, guys, but I simply can’t recommend this one. I really wish I could. If the lens was of higher quality or produced photos with interesting aberrations, then I think it’d be a terrific, convenient and fun way to shoot. But that is not the case.
Loreo also sell tilt-shift and 3D (takes 2 photos via a prism) versions of this lens, but I didn’t buy either of those.
Photo comparison
Here’s a series of the same basic scene, London’s Browning Pool during the annual Cavalcade canal boat meet, taken with three different lenses. The camera used was a digital Canon EOS 10D, which has a 1.6x cropping factor.
The first shot was taken with a professional Canon autofocus lens - the 28-80 2.8-4L. The focal length used was about 80mm. I probably should've used a shorter focal length to more closely match the manual focus lenses. Ah well.
The second shot was taken with an Original Lensbaby lens, which has a focal length of about 50mm. I think it was taken without an aperture disc in place, hence the heavy blurring. And it’s an effect that not everybody likes, but I think it’s fair to say that it does have a pretty characteristic look to it. This shot is a little overexposed and could benefit from a little Photoshop contrast adjustment.
The next shot was taken with a Loreo Lens in a Cap at f/64, the smallest or "pinhole" setting. The Loreo’s focal length is about 35mm. And I think you’ll agree it doesn’t look particularly spectacular. It just looks blah and washed out, as if I’d taken the photo through a sheet of dirty plastic. Not only that, but the small aperture setting makes every single speck of dust on the digital image sensor appear as a small black dot on the photo.
The next shot was also taken with a Loreo Lens in a Cap, this time at a medium aperture setting - probably f/8 or so. Still looks like it was shot through a sheet of plastic.
Finally, a Loreo shot at the widest setting - f/5.6.
Conclusion
Frankly I wish I hadn’t bought this thing, since I know I’ll never use it. Still. The only reason I bought it was for a review on this site, anyway, and it was pretty cheap.
Disclaimer and copyright:
This document is copyright © 2007 NK Guy, PhotoNotes.org. This information is provided with neither warranties nor claims of accuracy or completeness of any sort. Use this information at your own risk. All trademarks mentioned herein belong to their respective owners.
I wrote this document in the hope that others in the Internet community might find it useful or interesting. However, I don’t think it’s reasonable for anyone else to earn money from - or take credit for - my work.
Therefore you may copy and print this document for your own personal use. You may not, however, reprint or republish this work, in whole or in part, without prior permission from me, the author. Such republication includes inclusion of this work in other Web sites, Web pages, FTP archives, books, magazines or other periodicals, CD-ROM and DVD-ROM compilations or any other form of publication or distribution. Please do not frame this site within another.
Please send feedback if you find this article to be of interest or value or if you have any comments, corrections or suggestions.
Please also consider making a donation to help defray some of the costs of building and maintaining this site. Thanks!