What Lens for This Look??

[Scott Rosenberg]

okay, so i recently took the attached shot of me and my wife, and after a bit of scanery and photoshopery i was able to achieve a look i'm really pleased with. the original was shot with a 210 APO-Sironar-S on Fuji Across, so bears little resemblence to the final product. i love the low contrast, the softness, and smooth, easy out of focus areas. is there a lens i can use that will yield a look similar to this right out of the box?

i know there are lots of old lenses like petzals and soft focus ones like veritars, and smooth ones like heliars, but with the exception of the last, i have little experience with the really old lenses.

any suggestions as to what i should start looking for?

thanks!
scott

[David A. Goldfarb]

Try a Heliar--21 to 30cm on 4x5". It has the most pronounced break between the in-focus subject and out-of-focus background and will give you the smooth transitions in the background.

An older Tessar might not be a bad choice.

A soft lens like a Verito or Veritar would give you more diffusion in the sharp area.

A Petzval would give you more of the "swirly" effect in the background.

[Jim Galli]

A 36cm Heliar on 8X10 (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/The1940FordPortraits.html) is pretty hard to beat. You'll have to wean yourself from such modern conveniences as shutters though.

[Frank Petronio]

Just shoot the modern Sironar wide open. While I haven't fooled with old lenses as much as the fellas above me have, the modern Sironars I've had always were pleasing at f/5.6 to f/8. Plus when they are wide open you get a perfectly round aperture for circular flare (not hexes).

I am also starting to believe that this bokeh stuff really is at least 50% contigent on amount and quality of the backlighting.

[Ole Tjugen]

That example looks more like a wide-open Plasmat than a Heliar.

It all depends on the level of correction for spherical aberration the designer has put in the lens (and I don't know the Sironar), but just about any modern lens should give that look when shot wide open. My choise would be a Symmar, but that's only because I have them already. A 180 or 240 for 4x5", or 240 or 300 for 5x7"?

[Walter Calahan]

Try on a Cooke if you have the cash.

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/52614d4325c1735a85256ee7005e8edb/ea6ebec9c195544585256e850029570e?OpenDocument

They have nice examples on their site that you can enlarge on screen to compare.

[Jack Flesher]

A second on the Cooke. The PS945, a 9" lens so it's pretty close to your 210 perspective, will deliver that look straight out of the box at f8. It won't have the vignette though. You can then vary the effect from strong to slight by adjusting between f5.6 and 11 -- each 1/3 stop change makes a visible difference in the effect. From f10 up it is as sharp as anything else in your bag yet maintains buttery smooth Bokeh.

It's big and expensive and the absolute last lens I will ever sell -- unless I can find serial #55 to replace my #58 ;)

[BrianShaw]

For a slightly more affordable solution than the Cooke, I use a Fujinon-SF 250 and get nice, controllable SF effect with decent looking background. Now if I could only figure out how to get a sample in an up-loadable format/size.

I've also used vintage lens and had nice effect but prefer the greater control offered by a real SF lens and a modern shutter.

[Christopher Perez]

As a test to see if you can get closer to what you're looking for, I agree with Frank. Try your Sironar-S at f/5.6 or f/8. Then critique the results to see which way, if any, you need to go.


Just shoot the modern Sironar wide open. While I haven't fooled with old lenses as much as the fellas above me have, the modern Sironars I've had always were pleasing at f/5.6 to f/8. Plus when they are wide open you get a perfectly round aperture for circular flare (not hexes).

I am also starting to believe that this bokeh stuff really is at least 50% contigent on amount and quality of the backlighting.

[Jack Flesher]

A few follow up notes offered FWIW:

1) I tried the Plasmat wide-open route before buying the Cooke. It worked pretty well and even better if I unscrewed the front element about one turn. But it still does not match the look of the Cooke and no real adjustability.

2) I tried the Rodenstock Imagon 250 before the Cooke too -- *hated* it. The Bokeh was horrible and quite different in front of compared to behind the subject. If you try one, the middle basket was the best IMO. I believe all they did was use the rear cell from a shorter lens and add the sink-strainers up front. If you want to experiment with some glass you might already own, you could try taping two or three layers of black netting with a 1/2" hole in the center over the front of your shutter. I have no personal experience with the Fuji version, but have heard they are even clumpier than the Rodenstock.

3) Based on some digging and some generous help from another LF regular, I also tried a Heliar. Out of all of the above options, it was the smoothest -- but also the least sharp and had some trouble with shadow detail. It also flared like a mother... However, for portraiture in good light, definitely worth a look and they have the advantage of being relatively inexpensive.

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, I'll be a heretic here. It's not the lens, in this case, it's the setup. The lens was closed down enough to give good DOF, long enough to compress depth a little, and the nearest background object was far enough behind the subjects to *look* like a shallow-DOF but without the knife-thin effect you'd get with a normal LF lens wide open. On 4x5, I'd guess a 210 at around f/11 to f/16, and the lamppost with the ivy was ten feet or so behind the subjects. Given that setup, any lens that's sharp when in focus should give the desired effect (though you can certainly fine tune the bokeh by selecting from a wide range of glass and/or aperture shapes, if you have access to such).

[Frank Petronio]

I used my CSI crime scene computer to determine that it is fricking impossible to tell what was done to Scott's shot, but my intuition tells me that the blur is mostly from Photoshop, not the lens. It is more of a flat even blur, unlike how a lens would render it.

It is such a tiny jpg it is impossible to tell tho.

[BrianShaw]

Wow, I have to get one of those CSI computers! I've been assuming that Scott's image was "out of the camera" rather than a post-processed image. Scott... please clarify.

p.s. I've been using Fujinon SF on a rare basis for the past 8 months. Mostly I've been looking at it wishing that I had time to use it. My most successful images to date with it were high-key portrait with relatively neutral background. I'll be shooting LF tommorrow (God willing) and plan to use that lens for landscapes. I'll try to report back with some data on "clumpiness".

[EDIT] Forget my question... I ought to learn to read. I now saw the 'photoshopery' part of the original post. In that case, I change my mind about anything I've said. My new opinion is: just do the same photoshppery in the future! :-)

[Jack Flesher]

Taken directly from Scott's original post: "...after a bit of scanery and photoshopery i was able to achieve a look i'm really pleased with."

So even without the benefit of the CSI computer I'd say it's a safe bet Scott manipulated the image ;)

[Scott Rosenberg]

Just shoot the modern Sironar wide open. While I haven't fooled with old lenses as much as the fellas above me have, the modern Sironars I've had always were pleasing at f/5.6 to f/8. Plus when they are wide open you get a perfectly round aperture for circular flare (not hexes).

I am also starting to believe that this bokeh stuff really is at least 50% contigent on amount and quality of the backlighting.

frank, et al... that's precisely what i did... i took the shot with my 210 Sironar-S wide open. however, the resultant was still much too sharp and contrasty for my liking. SO, i resorted to some scannery and photoshopery to manipulate the image to attain the look i had originally envisioned.

i have a 150 heliar, which i thoroughly enjoy, but still doesn't yield the effect i am after. i suppose the simplest thing would be just to do it digitally... but it sure would be fun to have a lens that did it naturally.

jack, thanks for bringing up the cooke. whilst it's a wonderful lens to be sure, i think it's a little beyond me right now!!

[Jack Flesher]

SNIP

jack, thanks for bringing up the cooke. whilst it's a wonderful lens to be sure, i think it's a little beyond me right now!!

Well it will be closer to your grasp when you sell that Kern ;) In the meantime, try unscrewing the front cell of your 210 a bit -- just make sure it is in far enough it doesn't fall out!

[David A. Goldfarb]

i have a 150 heliar, which i thoroughly enjoy, but still doesn't yield the effect i am after.

I've found the "Heliar look" is much stronger with a Heliar that is on the long side for the format. I had a Bessa II 6x9 folder with a 105mm Heliar, for instance, and I didn't think it was as interesting as the 21 cm Heliar I use on 6x6 or the 36cm Heliar on 8x10" and occasionally 4x5" or the 100/3.5 Medalist Ektar (another Heliar type) on 35mm.

[Scott Rosenberg]

I've found the "Heliar look" is much stronger with a Heliar that is on the long side for the format. I had a Bessa II 6x9 folder with a 105mm Heliar, for instance, and I didn't think it was as interesting as the 21 cm Heliar I use on 6x6 or the 36cm Heliar on 8x10" and occasionally 4x5" or the 100/3.5 Medalist Ektar (another Heliar type) on 35mm.

david, thanks for that bit... i had never would have guessed the 'look' is more pronounced as the lens gets longer. that would corroborate what jim said earlier in this thread.

jack, i will definitely try unscrewing the front element of my 210. what a clever idea!!

[Ted Harris]

I don't find the Imagon so disagreeable. Both it and the Cooke take some practice to use. The Cooke will outperform any other modern lens for environmental portraiture where you want smooth out of focus areas both in front of and behind the subject but in the studio it cn be hard to tell the difference between an Imagon and a Cooke. You should able to find a used Imagon for lots less than a Cooke. I got minefor $659 new from Calumet when they were closing out the last of their stock.

[Don Hutton]

Ted

My experience with the Cooke and Imagon is very different to yours - having used both for many months now, I finally sold the Imagon because it is simply not in the same league as the Cooke under any conditions. The most noticable feature of any soft shot with the Imagon is a pretty nasty sort of halo around everything. I really dislike it and wish that I had shelled for the Cooke earlier.

[Jack Flesher]

I agree totally Don. Not only that, any oof specular highlights with the Imagon have a hotter center surrounded by a darker ring -- and they are pretty obvious in an image.

[ronald moravec]

I don`t like Fuji SF glass either. I have had better luck with Imagons.

I would go for the Cooke if I wanted 4x5.

Now if were spending money, RB or RZ67`s can be fit with a 150 or the newer 180 soft focus. I had a 150 years ago, and sold it to buy Leicas. There are two sets of controls, the three diphragms stops (strainers ), or the plain diaphragm without the disc, or diaphragn in conjuction with the strainer. For portrait work, this is my choice.
For 4x5, the current Cooke.

E mail Barbera at Cooke Optics for some printed samples. They may have some by now. She is a super lady and will be glad to help.

[Frank Petronio]

Next life I will just start with the Cooke and not mess around. Until then, just shoot the Sironar wide open and practice your focus/portrait technique because that is so much more important than any "bokeh". Figuring out how to shoot people consistently with proper focus, using a 4x5 (or in my case an 8x10!) at f/5.6 is quite challenging.

[Frank Petronio]

In terms of value per square inch, has anyone figured out the return on the 4800 vs. 7800 vs 9800?

[Christopher Perez]

My thoughts exactly.

I had a pair of Fuji SF (180 and 250). They had a wonderful effect wide open. But you couldn't enlarge too much because lack of resolution. An interesting aspect of these lenses is that the aperture (not on the disks) by f/8 had sharpened things up nicely, and there was still a subtle SF effect around the highlights.

The thing I could never get over was what the Imagon/Fuji lenses did to the shadows. It brought them up the range so much that to the eye the lack of contrast lead to the impression of a lack of resolution.

So why do I now have a brace of Heliars and an early 300 Imagon f/5.5? Search me. I have no clue. I still reach for my contrastiest, sharpest lenses when I'm "serious" about an image.

Gods! I'm a photographic mess...



Next life I will just start with the Cooke and not mess around. Until then, just shoot the Sironar wide open and practice your focus/portrait technique because that is so much more important than any "bokeh". Figuring out how to shoot people consistently with proper focus, using a 4x5 (or in my case an 8x10!) at f/5.6 is quite challenging.

[Ernest Purdum]

Q. for Jack Flesher. What is the approximate age of the Heliar you tried? Is it coated?

[Gregory Gomez]

Scott,

I agree with the others about the Cooke lens. By carefully looking at the sample photos on the Cooke web site and the photo you have submitted here, I would say that the Cooke lens is your best alternative. Unfortunately, it's very expensive at $3,400. Badger Graphic sells it:

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=160

If you don't want to pay that much, but would like to buy new, my next choice would be the Fujinon CMW 250 f6.3 at only 29% of the cost of the Cooke:

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=170

Because I'm not a professional photographer, the Fuji would be good enough for me, but if you make your livelihood from portraits, then you may have to get the lens that will produce the very best results. And that Cooke is mighty nice indeed!

As for classic lenses, that's a real tough one. David has suggested a couple that sound good to me, but I don't have enough experience to second his recommendations. Also, finding really good examples of classic lenses may be somewhat difficult.

Yet, Fujinon makes their own version of a soft focus lens, but I don't know how good it is. Maybe someone with more experience can share their thoughts on that alternative.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=178

Good luck!

[Jack Flesher]

Q. for Jack Flesher. What is the approximate age of the Heliar you tried? Is it coated?

I'm guessing 30's -- it was in a rim-set Compur and was uncoated.

[Jay DeFehr]

I think you could get a similar look with just about any uncoated lens of similar FL shot at a similar aperture, or wider, but it's kind of hard to tell much from that tiny jpeg.

Jay

[Donald Qualls]

I'm guessing 30's -- it was in a rim-set Compur and was uncoated.

That narrows the dating pretty well -- the rim-set Compur came out in 1928 in #1 size, other sizes from 1929-1932, and almost all lenses above box camera level were at least single coated after WWII (many German lenses made for the military were hard coated starting in 1938 or 1939, and some had soft coatings on protected surfaces starting as early as 1936, IIRC). Given that almost all German production from 1938 until 1945 was for the military, your lens pretty well has to have been made between 1928 and 1938.

BTW, there's a Schneider web page that will allow approximate dating of the lens from serial number -- it's buried in Schnieder's current English-language pages somewhere.

[Armin Seeholzer]

TO Don Hutton

If you had an Imagon and only used it with the dics, then you did not master the lens at all!
I prefer the look for many things like Stillives without the dics and the lens closed 1 f stop down with the shutter f stop blades!
No nasty halos just a tiny bit fuzzines!
The Imagones are wonderfull but in the beginning really tricky and if you close the dics then the halo is also gone even if you close them only a bit more the half!
The Imagon was and stil is the most versatile SF lens wich I now but for some out of focus and bokeh results I prefer the Universal Heliar!
I'm still on a learning curve on booth and if I get a new scanner I can show you what I mean!

[Don Hutton]

Amin

I used the lens with all three discs and without (just using the aperture). It's all very well stopping the lens down using the aperture: it makes it a little sharper but the halo is always noticable while the lens is being used for "soft focus". To be honest, I don't see the point of stopping the lens down much - you loose the soft focus (which is what the lens is designed for). I had the Imagon for about 6 months and probably exposed around 100 shots with it. I'm certain that I didn't "master" it, but I'm also certain that I haven't yet mastered the Cooke and get way better results with it. If you have the opportunity to compare it to the Cooke, you will never want to use the Imagon again.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Don

The Cook is not my price category and I have enough SF lenses for now.
90mm Dreamagon 120mm Imagon in 35mm
Wollensak Velostigmat 9 1/4, Imagon 250mm, Universal Heliar 360mm for 4x5 and 8x10!
Sorry but I do not see a halo without the disc in front of the lens and just to have it not to fuzzi stop 1 f-stop down and its still soft!
But anyway if you are happy with the Cooke so it fine with me Im happy with my collection to!
Chears!

[Jack Flesher]

Scott:

Have you considered a Veritar? They make a pretty good second choice to a Cooke for probably 1/3rd the price.

I am no expert, but I believe the Veritar was a version of the older Verito coated and optimised for color. If you only do B&W, perhaps the Verito would be worth considering as I suspect it will be even less.

Jack

[Scott Rosenberg]

Scott:

Have you considered a Veritar? They make a pretty good second choice to a Cooke for probably 1/3rd the price.

I am no expert, but I believe the Veritar was a version of the older Verito coated and optimised for color. If you only do B&W, perhaps the Verito would be worth considering as I suspect it will be even less.

Jack

jack, i thought briefly about the veritar lenses, but was under the impression that they would not fit on a technika lensboard. i know lots of folks think highly of them, but i think that big alphax shutter is a little too large for the lens boards i'm using.

[David A. Goldfarb]

jack, i thought briefly about the veritar lenses, but was under the impression that they would not fit on a technika lensboard. i know lots of folks think highly of them, but i think that big alphax shutter is a little too large for the lens boards i'm using.

Here's a thread about big lenses and small lensboards--

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=11846

Personally, I prefer the Verito to the Veritar, which looks a bit mushy to me.

[Jack Flesher]

Yes, many of the Verito/ar come with the flange -- so they will mount on Tech boards and kind of come with their own extension. I mean for the SF effect on the cheap, not a bad solution... An 8-1/2", 10" or 11-1/2 Veritar will probably set you back $1000 or so, the Verito (same size) even less.

[Christopher Perez]

How did you guys figure how how much to stop down? There is no aperture scale on my 1950's 30cm Imagon f/5.5 in #5 Compound shutter.


I used the lens with all three discs and without (just using the aperture). It's all very well stopping the lens down using the aperture: it makes it a little sharper but the halo is always noticable while the lens is being used for "soft focus". To be honest, I don't see the point of stopping the lens down much - you loose the soft focus (which is what the lens is designed for)...

[resummerfield]

I have the same 300 Imagon in the Compound 5. I computed the aperture opening at various f-stops, measured this diameter, and marked it on a paper scale opposite the aperture pointer. I then attached that paper scale over the metal scale.

But then I thought of another way—I used a Minolta Booster to measure the readings on the gg center, compared against a 300 Sironar-S. I used a tight-fitting dark cloth, the light was stable, and the readings were consistent from start to finish. Using the meter readings, the aperture pointer on the Imagon had to be closed down about 1/3 stop more than the computed settings on the Imagon to get the same f-stop as the Sironar. Wide open, the Imagon was about f4.5 without any disc.

[Christopher Perez]

Perfect. Thanks.


I have the same 300 Imagon in the Compound 5. I computed the aperture opening at various f-stops, measured this diameter, and marked it on a paper scale opposite the aperture pointer. I then attached that paper scale over the metal scale.

But then I thought of another way—I used a Minolta Booster to measure the readings on the gg center, compared against a 300 Sironar-S. I used a tight-fitting dark cloth, the light was stable, and the readings were consistent from start to finish. Using the meter readings, the aperture pointer on the Imagon had to be closed down about 1/3 stop more than the computed settings on the Imagon to get the same f-stop as the Sironar. Wide open, the Imagon was about f4.5 without any disc.