PDA

View Full Version : Best soft focus lens for the money?



durr3
19-Mar-2017, 12:06
What is the best "soft focus" LF lens for the money? 5x7 to 8x10 size. Say around $500 or so.

thanks
J

cowanw
19-Mar-2017, 12:12
Quite seriously, a magnifying glass on your choice of strength put in a tube to fit.

wiseco
19-Mar-2017, 12:19
WoW....what a brilliant idea! Where did you study physics?

mdarnton
19-Mar-2017, 12:21
Yes, a simple magnifying lens meets a lot of the criteria for a SF lens--spherical aberrations, chromatic aberrations, but with a lot of field curvature and bad performance around the edges, plus, no diaphragm. OK for some portrait work, not so hot for some other types of photos.

You can buy one of Reinhold's new Wollastons for about $100, and for that you get a nice mount and waterhouse stops. It is a great deal. As with a lot of other SF lenses, you need to budget for a Packard shutter to go with--another $100 there.

My current favorite is a shutter I emptied and screwed a two-element achromatic close-up lens into the back, $35 plus the shutter. This is not a lot different from some of the vintage SF lenses in both concept and results.

IMO, don't bother with the Fujinon SF. It is simply not sharp, that is all. If you want that look spend twenty bucks on a diffusion filter for a lens you have. That is the shutter I gutted for my two-element close-up lens.

Otherwise, the cheapest things you can get that are "real" vintage lenses are the various focal lengths Veritos, mostly under $500 and they are fine.

jnanian
19-Mar-2017, 12:36
durr3,

do you need a shutter ?
or is a barrel lens OK ?

cowanw
19-Mar-2017, 13:03
WoW....what a brilliant idea! Where did you study physics?
High school. Not sure if you are being sarcastic or sincere.
Perhaps I misunderstood the best value for money part. I assumed that meant the OP did not want a spendy lens. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?110222-Soft-focus-(portrait)-lenses-for-4x5
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...s-on-the-cheap
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?35097-A-new-line-of-Chinese-pictorial-lenses

wiseco
19-Mar-2017, 13:16
I would like a shutter since I am planning on shooting film and wet plate, but I may have to buy the shutter after.

wiseco
19-Mar-2017, 13:17
High school. Not sure if you are being sarcastic or sincere.
Perhaps I misunderstood the best value for money part. I assumed that meant the OP did not want a spendy lens. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?110222-Soft-focus-(portrait)-lenses-for-4x5
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...s-on-the-cheap
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?35097-A-new-line-of-Chinese-pictorial-lenses

I was just playing with you. Thanks for the info

wiseco
19-Mar-2017, 14:09
durr3,

do you need a shutter ?
or is a barrel lens OK ?

I would like a shutter since I am planning on shooting film and wet plate, but I may have to buy the shutter after.

Jac@stafford.net
19-Mar-2017, 14:24
WoW....what a brilliant idea! Where did you study physics?

Would you please tell us how physics relates to the aesthetics of soft focus lenses? Show your work and experience. This question determines 80% of you reputation here.
.

jp
19-Mar-2017, 14:32
Kodak 305 portrait or a verito, though verito usually have bad shutters. you can do wonderful stuff with a magnifying glass or Reinhold Wollaston meniscus. I studied physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Tim Meisburger
19-Mar-2017, 14:51
Value for money, magnifying glass. I mounted one in a cardboard shipping tube (spray painted black), cut a slot for cardboard waterhouse stops, and glued it all to a homemade wooden linhof board. Its crazy wide open, and pleasing for pictorial portraits and landscapes at f/8. Use it in dimmer light with slower film and a hat or cap shutter. Total cost in materials? Less than two dollars. Value in learning and shooting? Priceless...

jp
19-Mar-2017, 15:26
For budget, check out my spaghetti measure lens on YouTube

wiseco
19-Mar-2017, 15:37
Thanks to all for your input. I will do some study.

Greg
19-Mar-2017, 15:56
I've picked up 2 soft focus lenses and 3 Petzval lenses over the past few years at that big auction site for very, very reasonable prices. Definitely all bought at way less than what they were worth. Secret is never to search with the words "soft focus" or "Petzval". "Brass" is also a term not search with. Do search with the words "old lens" or "antique lens". The VM is a must to use as a reference. Also don't be afraid to ask the seller if there are any words engraved on the lens. One time the seller Emailed me back the words "Darlot Portrait"... bought that lens in an instant.

Steven Tribe
19-Mar-2017, 16:10
Actually, I don't think there any Darlot lenses engraved "Darlot Portrait"!

Check ebay.fr as most french listings by "amateurs" do not have right english keywords for english based searches.

wiseco
19-Mar-2017, 16:30
I've picked up 2 soft focus lenses and 3 Petzval lenses over the past few years at that big auction site for very, very reasonable prices. Definitely all bought at way less than what they were worth. Secret is never to search with the words "soft focus" or "Petzval". "Brass" is also a term not search with. Do search with the words "old lens" or "antique lens". The VM is a must to use as a reference. Also don't be afraid to ask the seller if there are any words engraved on the lens. One time the seller Emailed me back the words "Darlot Portrait"... bought that lens in an instant.

Good advice...thanks

Greg
19-Mar-2017, 16:43
Actually, I don't think there any Darlot lenses engraved "Darlot Portrait"!


There actually were 5 Darlot Portrait lenses with rack & pinion and central stops sold in 1890:
4 1/2" (3 1/4 x 4 1/4)
5 1/2" (4 1/4 x 5 1/4)
7" (5 x 7)
10 1/2" (8x10)
15" (11x14)

Took mine apart to see if it was a Petzval... yes it is a Petzval with just beautiful image qualities. I believe the sole agent for the USA was Benjamin French & Co in Boston, Mass. Lenses sold by them were engraved "B. F. & Co."

pjd
19-Mar-2017, 22:07
Russ Young's PhD thesis (The Soft-Focus Lens and Anglo-American Pictorialism) is worth reading. Wish I had a copy with all the images.

Jim Galli
19-Mar-2017, 22:47
I believe the venerable Verito remains the best real value. They simply were in production for such a long period that they remain available. To get an 11 1/2" one which will work on your formats you may have to bump the budget up a couple hundred more bucks. Over your budget but in my ever so humble opinion the best dollar value to this day is the Hermagis Eidoscop. They are the equal to the Pinkham Series IV in every way and hover at less than 1/2 the cost.

Jim Noel
20-Mar-2017, 02:08
What is the best "soft focus" LF lens for the money? 5x7 to 8x10 size. Say around $500 or so.

thanks
J

A +1 diopter lens

Steven Tribe
20-Mar-2017, 03:12
Greg.

Darlot's portait lenses were always listed as portrait lenses in catalogues, for instance here:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html

But, unlike their competitor Voigtlander, they never got around to engraving them as such. The only times they actually wrote "Portrait" somewhere on the lens was in connection with Convertible lenses, like the Universal and the centralising cone.

This creates enormous problems to-day for buyers and sellers as Darlot made very large numbers of Projection Petzvals late in the 19th century. These, in appearance and brass details, are just about impossible to distinguish from non-Waterhouse stop early Darlots.

Now about soft lens purchases for the OP!

You will have to look through the list of known sales made in a period up to about 2014.

http://www.antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenssales.html

After this period you will have to search through the thread here called "soft lens sales". The last entry here (currently) is a Dallmeyer Patent lens (a smaller F4, series A) for under 500 usd.
Soft lenses were mostly for studio/family portrature, so shutters, when fitted, were mostly of the open/shut variety.

jnanian
20-Mar-2017, 03:53
durr3

if it is a shuttered lens you need, most all ( except for the kodak, and using a diopter/magnifying glass on another lens ) are limited to a barrel...
the wollensak veritos as mentioned come in a studio shutter, so your speeds are limited to
how fast or slow you are able to manipulate a degroff air cylinder to vary your speeds( i'm able to get a fast and slow speed ). sometimes
you might find the veritos mounted in a betax shutter ... factory mounted. the veritar comes in a 14" size
and will easily cover your 5x7 and 8x10... its a "coated(for color)" lens and comes in a more modern alphax shutter and a bii post flash sync.
good luck !
john
ps. i didn't study physics in college

durr3
20-Mar-2017, 06:01
All of your posts have been some great information. Thank You to All...Now to get one!

Leszek Vogt
20-Mar-2017, 10:12
Back in '82 I was bumpin' around Europe and walked out of some museum and saw this Getty-esque light (those that live near Malibu would get this) and decided to use vaseline on a UV filter. The results were fine.

Getting reliable results might be tricky, one can use just tiny amount and place it where it counts on the glass or just glob it on thick :>). Anyhoo, cleaning the filter was an ***itch***.

Disclaimer: No lens has been harmed and one does not need physics degree (even classes) for this.

Les

alex from holland
20-Mar-2017, 11:06
Just a silk stocking covering any lens....

Leszek Vogt
20-Mar-2017, 11:21
Indeed, agree with Alex above. Many cinematographers use this idea...and use Dior, since too many types are inconsistent.

Les

Mark Sawyer
20-Mar-2017, 11:40
Just a silk stocking covering any lens....

No, no, no! There's a big difference between true soft focus achieved through spherical/chromatic aberration and fuzzing up the image with a stocking or Vaseline smeared on the lens.

Probably the best soft lens in the "uber-cheap" category is to take a shutter you already own and trust, and buy a diopter set that matches the rear thread size. The Ilex 4 and Copal 3 are 58mm front and rear, so if you buy a couple of $12 sets of diopters, and maybe a few spacer rings, you could have years of experimenting with a single menisci of various focal lengths at the rear, or try front and rear elements with different spacings as a periscopic layout. Or get ambitious and blow a few more bucks for a nice achromatic meniscus, (here's a listing: http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html ). Or put an achromat at the rear and a single diopter up front and make your own Verito! (Except it won't really be a Verito...)

But then you're stuck with explaining to people that your lens is something you cobbled together on the cheap. There's a certain satisfaction, at least for some of us, in owning and using a true piece of history.

The Verito is the best and most available deal out there, as they made so many for so long. And there's a really good reason why they made and sold so many: they're really nice lenses. I wouldn't argue with Jim Galli about the Eidoscopes and Pinkham & Smith's being fabulous lenses, but a Verito is every bit as nice, at least in my eyes. But each has its own look, which is why some of us rationalize having small (or large) collections of these lenses. Hell, Alvin Langdon Coburn had a dozen P&S Semi-Achromats because each one was a little different!

Then again, those magnifying glasses from the 99-cent store were a lot of fun, and really did make some beautiful images...

Whatever floats your boat, it's all good! :)

BrianShaw
20-Mar-2017, 11:58
I know a real SF lens is the real thing (I have at least one) but I get some good results from SF filters - Softar, Tiffen Soft/FX and dutos. Please forgive my heresy.

Mark Sawyer
20-Mar-2017, 13:03
...Please forgive my heresy.

YOU SHALL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE, YOU HEATHEN! :rolleyes:

Eric Woodbury
20-Mar-2017, 18:35
For the money, probably a pinhole, although you might argue it's not a lens.

Peter De Smidt
20-Mar-2017, 18:54
I'd look for a Veritar. They're available in decent shutters for not all that much money, and they are a true soft focus portrait lens.

Amedeus
24-Mar-2017, 17:16
300mm and 360mm Rodenstock Imagons show up quite often reasonably priced in Copal 3 or Compound shutter. I got mine well below $500 but that takes some patience. Used both of them shooting portraits while at Burning Man.

jim10219
25-Mar-2017, 17:08
On some lenses you can partially unscrew the elements to increase the distance between them and get a soft focus effect. It's free to try! I saw a site where a guy did this to a Tessar and got some interesting results. It might be worth an hour of your life to experiment with the lenses you already own to see if any of them give you something worth using. Just don't unscrew them too far! You could drop something!

Jim Graves
25-Mar-2017, 19:45
I believe the venerable Verito remains the best real value. They simply were in production for such a long period that they remain available. To get an 11 1/2" one which will work on your formats you may have to bump the budget up a couple hundred more bucks. Over your budget but in my ever so humble opinion the best dollar value to this day is the Hermagis Eidoscop. They are the equal to the Pinkham Series IV in every way and hover at less than 1/2 the cost.

+1

For me, the Verito has a really nice full softness @ f-4.5 and a nice "portrait softness" @ f-5.6 and is sharp from f-8 on out. I think it's the everyman's soft-focus lens. But, if I was to choose only one lens just for portraits ... it would be the Eidoscope.

Jac@stafford.net
25-Mar-2017, 19:51
I believe the venerable Verito remains the best real value.

Yes. I have one in which I removed the limit stop so that it can turn more than another 360 degrees beyond maximum soft focus, PLUS it has a major, major scratch on the front element! Priceless! :)

Mark Sawyer
25-Mar-2017, 20:23
Yes. I have one in which I removed the limit stop so that it can turn more than another 360 degrees beyond maximum soft focus...

I think you're thinking Velostigmat Series II. The Verito's softness is only adjustable by changing the aperture.

durr3
26-Mar-2017, 04:52
OK, Now, Who has one that they will sell me? The only way I'm gonna know is to shoot with one. Right?

thanks
J

jp
26-Mar-2017, 05:54
Not just shoot, but shoot a bunch to "know" a lens well. I'm sure a WTB forum post would be successful.

durr3
26-Mar-2017, 06:17
Not just shoot, but shoot a bunch to "know" a lens well. I'm sure a WTB forum post would be successful.

Thanks

Jac@stafford.net
26-Mar-2017, 07:35
I think you're thinking Velostigmat Series II. The Verito's softness is only adjustable by changing the aperture.

You are right. Thanks for the correction!

Mark Sawyer
26-Mar-2017, 10:58
Hard to keep those Wolly V-lenses straight! Either the Verito or the Velostigmat Series II (with the fuzz-o-matic diffuser) would be a fine choice for someone wanting a true vintage soft-focus lens for a reasonable price.

Of course the OP's "for the money" caveat renders the whole issue dependent on what deal one finds. I'm still hoping for that elusive $50 Pinkham & Smith...

wiseco
26-Mar-2017, 13:26
Hard to keep those Wolly V-lenses straight! Either the Verito or the Velostigmat Series II (with the fuzz-o-matic diffuser) would be a fine choice for someone wanting a true vintage soft-focus lens for a reasonable price.

Of course the OP's "for the money" caveat renders the whole issue dependent on what deal one finds. I'm still hoping for that elusive $50 Pinkham & Smith...

Mark, If you find two of them, I will buy one! Maybe give you a small profit too!!

ridax
18-May-2017, 15:49
...Now to get one!

Your PM box is full.

Greg
18-May-2017, 16:50
OK this is going to sound completely sacrilegious to some members in this group but is an interesting side note...

I wanted to take a series of six images using a Petzval lens on my 11x14. Final Platinum/Palladium print size around 10x13". I have an 11x14 view camera but didn't have a Petzval lens to use on it. Purchasing a Petzval optic for this small project was totally cost prohibitive, never mind probably adapting a Sinar Copal shutter to it.

After thinking it through and considering alternative ways of reaching my end goal, I bought a 100mm Spiratone Portragon lens for my Nikon D4 for under $30. The Portragon is 100% a Petzval optic but was made to cover the 24x36mm format. Shot many exposures with it and finally chose 6 final images to print. Made 11x14 digital negatives (per The New Inkjet Negative Companion by Dan Burkholder). Because I had already calibrated and made multiple Platinum/Palladium this way, made the 6 final prints quite easily (saved a lot of $$$ by not having to make test prints). The final prints were viewed by two experienced (one former) LF portrait photographers and they told me that there was no way that they could tell that the images hadn't been taken with Petzval lens on an 11x14 view camera.

Bill_1856
18-May-2017, 17:19
Your favorite current lens, a jar of Vasoline, and a UV filter.

durr3
18-May-2017, 17:26
Found a really nice example of the 9 inch Verito ... just have to get the shutter CLAd .... photos to come!

cowanw
18-May-2017, 17:56
OK this is going to sound completely sacrilegious to some members in this group but is an interesting side note...

I wanted to take a series of six images using a Petzval lens on my 11x14. Final Platinum/Palladium print size around 10x13". I have an 11x14 view camera but didn't have a Petzval lens to use on it. Purchasing a Petzval optic for this small project was totally cost prohibitive, never mind probably adapting a Sinar Copal shutter to it.

After thinking it through and considering alternative ways of reaching my end goal, I bought a 100mm Spiratone Portragon lens for my Nikon D4 for under $30. The Portragon is 100% a Petzval optic but was made to cover the 24x36mm format. Shot many exposures with it and finally chose 6 final images to print. Made 11x14 digital negatives (per The New Inkjet Negative Companion by Dan Burkholder). Because I had already calibrated and made multiple Platinum/Palladium this way, made the 6 final prints quite easily (saved a lot of $$$ by not having to make test prints). The final prints were viewed by two experienced (one former) LF portrait photographers and they told me that there was no way that they could tell that the images hadn't been taken with Petzval lens on an 11x14 view camera.

This interested me so I googled. What is on the web describes the lens as a single element lens, with just one aperture and is designed as a soft focus lens. Petzvals are really quite sharp in the centre where they were designed to be used; even the periphery cannot really be called soft focus, more like distorted with aberrations. It is cool that you got what you want. Can we see the pictures?

PS it is a +10 close-up lens in a focusing mount

Mark Sawyer
18-May-2017, 18:12
The Petzval is not a soft focus lens by nature. It does have a curved field which can throw the focus off in the corners, and a few had a "diffusion" adjustment that, in my experience, doesn't introduce softness (spherical aberration) so much as cause even more field curvature. Stop down any lens to f/11 or so and they all start to look about the same...

Jac@stafford.net
18-May-2017, 18:26
Your favorite current lens, a jar of Vasoline, and a UV filter.

Oh, ya big silly.

Keith Fleming
18-May-2017, 19:15
To follow up on COWANW's comments on the old Spiratone Portragon lens, its factory configuration provides a "somewhat" sharp central area. Unscrew the retaining ring in front, and reverse the single lens gives softness across the entire field.

Keith

Pere Casals
19-May-2017, 03:38
What is the best "soft focus" LF lens for the money? 5x7 to 8x10 size. Say around $500 or so.

thanks
J


"Best" does not exists in this case. It depends on what you want.

There is a well stablished Soft Focus imaging culture, in 1905 opticians were dealing yet with the problem that lenses were too sharp for portraits.

A DIY project is to convert a $500 Voightlander Heliar to $2500 Universal Heliar, this is making inner element position adjustable, to me the Universal Heliar is the glass I want, I'm considering that cheaper DIY choice.

Here you can explore how Mr Biilman uses a number of weird glasses, like eyeglasses to get powerful results:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/johanbiilmann/page2

Of course Rodenstock Imagons and Fuji SF are sweet options.

I like the Universal Heliar because the adjustable sph aberration ( and "coma") it produces is projected inwards , delivering a very special look I like.

You also have the option to soften the image in post, beyond Scan+PS it also can be done in the darkroom, expose paper as usual and when remaining 30% of the exposure time just defocus a bit the enlarger, or move up/dn a bit the enlarger head. This is not the same because the effect do not depends on the subject distance, but it is an important resource.

Then there is induced Halo, just place an alluminium (kitchen) foil in the back of the collodion plate...

Soft Focus images are easier than sharp ones :) , true, still taking advantage of SF it can be a very sofisticated labour.

What I recommend to you is exploring flickr for SF styles and results, so you can have an idea of what different effects you can get and what you want to try to get, and perhaps you may also like more using defocus + movements rather than a pure SF style: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jay_defehr/28178709155/in/faves-125592977@N05/


https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=soft%20focus%20%208x10



Here you can see how Universal Heliar difusion works: enlarge the image and see coma of distant bright points

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/24080971035/in/photolist-CFXgHM-hSujZJ-hWRAQh-g6goSj-FSu6Xo-rpxVVY-g6gstA-S9CYgb-g6giee-g6fMGt-g6h5vz-g6gaEs-649e8j-o1K7gx-fHexWF-fGrubd-pgPTHs-fCDrMf-oC8ogs-ovvVsT-fNUxmw-phthTF-oC9yan-fHfrEV-gHG7w6-dndYUj-psnssk-cu8TRC-pcA29U-p1bSzW-g4kn6B-oZuMbQ-e69EJf-qBKRFk-oC77gH-pu3D24-9FU22P-eK2uus-g29z4E-oUiSwF-h7qjRD-gKfgt3-gf6ecH-g6fRaG-oLycZM-e6a6MY-qBBKVz-RT9Mk8-dndZW7-P3vjNj



Also:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/24080971035/in/photolist-CFXgHM-hSujZJ-hWRAQh-g6goSj-FSu6Xo-rpxVVY-g6gstA-S9CYgb-g6giee-g6fMGt-g6h5vz-g6gaEs-649e8j-o1K7gx-fHexWF-fGrubd-pgPTHs-fCDrMf-oC8ogs-ovvVsT-fNUxmw-phthTF-oC9yan-fHfrEV-gHG7w6-dndYUj-psnssk-cu8TRC-pcA29U-p1bSzW-g4kn6B-oZuMbQ-e69EJf-qBKRFk-oC77gH-pu3D24-9FU22P-eK2uus-g29z4E-oUiSwF-h7qjRD-gKfgt3-gf6ecH-g6fRaG-oLycZM-e6a6MY-qBBKVz-RT9Mk8-dndZW7-P3vjNj




Regards

xkaes
19-May-2017, 05:14
You have a LOT of options -- from FREE to INEXPENSIVE. Here is a summary:

165105

For details and links, check out:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/close-up.htm

goamules
19-May-2017, 06:31
OK this is going to sound completely sacrilegious to some members in this group but is an interesting side note...

I wanted to take a series of six images using a Petzval lens on my 11x14. Final Platinum/Palladium print size around 10x13". I have an 11x14 view camera but didn't have a Petzval lens to use on it. Purchasing a Petzval optic for this small project was totally cost prohibitive, never mind probably adapting a Sinar Copal shutter to it.

After thinking it through and considering alternative ways of reaching my end goal, I bought a 100mm Spiratone Portragon lens for my Nikon D4 for under $30. The Portragon is 100% a Petzval optic but was made to cover the 24x36mm format. Shot many exposures with it and finally chose 6 final images to print. Made 11x14 digital negatives (per The New Inkjet Negative Companion by Dan Burkholder). Because I had already calibrated and made multiple Platinum/Palladium this way, made the 6 final prints quite easily (saved a lot of $$$ by not having to make test prints). The final prints were viewed by two experienced (one former) LF portrait photographers and they told me that there was no way that they could tell that the images hadn't been taken with Petzval lens on an 11x14 view camera.

You realize that A) a Petzval is a sharp lens, and B) A Spiratone Portragon is a single meniscus lens, not a Petzval, right? Who were your experienced LF portrait photographers? Because it sounds like they've not seen a Petzval portrait, which is sharp. Show us a capture of your shot.

UPDATE: sorry, I didn't see Mark and the others already told you the same thing.

Pere Casals
19-May-2017, 07:05
Just I'd like to point that a Soft Focus image is not a pure soft image.

In general (IMO) we can consider a SF image has 2 overlaped image components. The base image can be a pretty sharp image, then we have an additional less sharp image overlaped on it, this less sharp component can be produced in more than one way: Aberrations can be used, diffraction, filters...

The sharp component can have a bigger or smaller share in the result, and the less sharp component can have different difusion patterns, that also intereract with defocus.

At the end SF is a pretty complex issue with a number of flavours.

Perhaps we should look backwards, I feel that pre-WWI portrait photographers developed interesting aesthetic flavours with rich nuances from SF, that today are overlooked, while still being a powerful resource.

So one thing is playing with softness, an another one is SF, this is Sharp+Soft.

Greg
19-May-2017, 10:23
You realize that A) a Petzval is a sharp lens, and B) A Spiratone Portragon is a single meniscus lens, not a Petzval, right? Who were your experienced LF portrait photographers? Because it sounds like they've not seen a Petzval portrait, which is sharp.

You are totally right, the Spiratone Portragon lens is is a single meniscus lens.

I was wrong... Memory had me using the Portragon lens, but when I looked at my notes, I wrote down that I used my unmarked "brass lens" which is a Petzval.

CCHarrison
22-May-2017, 05:05
Information on Petzval Lenses http://antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

Information on Soft Focus Lenses http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses.html

Pere Casals
22-May-2017, 05:36
Information on Petzval Lenses http://antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

Information on Soft Focus Lenses http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses.html

This a great article !!

I read it in the past, but I did it again. That advertising literature is just a wonder. The 1884 Dallmeyer advertisement is just fantastic, and perhaps a landmark.