Recommendation for Soft Focus lenses for 4x5

[Lee Christopher]

I've been reading though some of the threads here and elsewhere about old, antique, badly corrected lenses and so on, but the range of lenses confuses me.

I've just gotten to grips with conventional (modern) highly corrected lenses.

Could someone recommend a few specific complete lenses with shutters that I could look into for use on a 4x5 view camera with a minimum flange distance of 60mm? Budgets are tight so if I can find something $300 or less, it would be great.

From what I think I've noticed so far, my Horseman LX is not able to take lenses with large shutters (e.g., #3s) or large rear lens diameters.

If it helps, here are the lonks to my camera specs and lens compatibility list:

http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/lens_list.html
http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/pd_vc.html

Is this a soft focus lens that I could use on my LX: YAMASAKI DAGOR SW-CONGO 135MM F4.5?

Thanks for the advise and patience.

[Archphoto]

The Imagons are no option because of their #3 shutter, so the only one I found on your list is the Fujinon SF 5.6/180mm.
And maybe the Congo as you mentioned, if it is a Soft Focus at all, but I don't know this lens.
That is from the modern lenses.

Peter

[Archphoto]

It is a bit surprising though: the LX has lens boards 14x14 cm and does not fit a #3 shutter ???
Did you include the right list ????
This seems to be one from a smaller camera: I have a #3 on a Technika board !

Peter

[BrianShaw]

If you can't fit a #3 shutter, you might be better off using a lens you already have with a SF filter. There are some soft focus filters that perform in an acceptable manner.

[aduncanson]

Peter is correct. Lee linked to a lens list for the smaller Horseman technical cameras. IIRC, the LX uses a Sinar type board and should have no problem mounting almost any lens.

It is hard to know what a "YAMASAKI DAGOR SW-CONGO 135MM F4.5" is. It is not in Congo's current catalog and I can find no other mention of it other than the item currently on ebay as Item number: 170339495844 .

At f/4.5 it is almost certainly not a Dagor (6/2 elements/groups) as implied, but a Tessar (4/3) or maybe a Dogmar (4/4) and probably has no special covering ability as claimed. Also there is no reason to believe that it is an intentionally soft focus lens and it is a bit short for conventional portraiture on 4x5.

I am sure that others will scream sacrilege, but have you considered playing with mesh or toile fabric, or vaseline on a filter, over a sharp focus 210mm lens to play with soft focus effects?

[Lee Christopher]

Oh Noooo!

I've been looking at the wrong list all this while!

Just to clarify, on my LX which has a 140mm x 140mm lensboard that's compatible with Sinar type boards, I should be able to take any lens with 0 - 3 shutters?

That fact alone opens up a world of opportunities I thought I never had!

I have seen an Imagon at work before, and while the results are pleasing, what I'm after are the slightly 'older' look, but I am avoiding any lens that requires me to make/fit a shutter or do any modifications as that is beyond my capabilities as well as the fact that we have such a small lf community here in my country that what few practising lf photographer use only modern commercial lenses for the most part.

[BrianShaw]

I am sure that others will scream sacrilege, but ...


Redeem your mortal soul... say "S-O-F-T-A-R" three times and say a good Act of Contrition!

[Peter De Smidt]

#3 shutters fit on Sinar sized boards with no problem. Are you planning on doing landscapes or portraits?

A couple of suggestions, most large format lenses are corrected best for f16 or f22. Using them wide open will give some softness. You might also try unscrewing the front cell of the lenses you have, which'll often give a lens that's longer and softer. The f-stops will change a little, but it's not that hard to figure that out.

The old hollywood way was to stretch a piece of silk over the back of the lens. Different types (black, white...) will give different effects, and you can try just about anything, including plastic wrap, clear packing tape.... You can vary the effect by putting a hole (or holes) in the material.

[Jiri Vasina]

The Heliopan Zeiss Softar filter might be a way to go, too (most probably the cheapest, especially if you happen to buy a used Softar filter like me ;) )...

Here (http://www.vasina.net/?p=1162) and here (http://www.vasina.net/?p=1170) are shots with Symmar 300mm (which is not soft-focus at all) and Softar No.II filter on 5x8" format. For your 4x5", you could use a 180-210mm Symmar (or any equivalent lens you have at hand...)

[Bob Salomon]

I have seen an Imagon at work before, and while the results are pleasing, what I'm after are the slightly 'older' look,

Lee, what does "older look" mean. The Imagon is a hundred year old design that hasn't really changed over the years. The Imagon changes its' effect with aperture and lighting ratio so there isn't a single look to an Imagon. It is almost infinitely variable, if used properly, from very soft, yet with sharpness to very sharp. Which depends on the disk used, or not used, and the position of the outer holes. The amount of haloing is a function of the disk and the contrast of the lighting and the type of main light used.

[jnantz]

The old hollywood way was to stretch a piece of silk over the back of the lens. Different types (black, white...) will give different effects, and you can try just about anything, including plastic wrap, clear packing tape.... You can vary the effect by putting a hole (or holes) in the material.

just to add a few more things to peter's list
screen (from a screen window), wavy glass or ... a dirty window.
there are lots of ways to change the light coming onto your film.

sorry i am not familiar with your camera, but you might also look
for a beater-folder on Eboo or your neighborhood thrift/junque store, harvest the lens/shutter from it,
shoot it wide open, and front focus (focus on something infront of your subject ).
you can do this ( focus technique ) with a modern lenses as well ...

have fun !

john

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/blurfilter.jpg

Some (not all) soft-focus effects can be easily mimicked with editing tools like Photoshop, Gimp, etc. There are countless tutorials freely available on the web. This effect took only moments to apply, and can be adjusted to taste. This style might be appropriate for certain kinds of photography, like weddings or portraits - but all I have are rocks. :rolleyes:

The original 4x5 image is on the left, and the same image with a digital "halo" effect is on the right. In the second image, the high values have a soft glow, which is most noticeable where they are placed in front of a dark background. The "halo" layer has been applied as a gradient, along the diagonal from upper-left to lower-right.

[Bob Salomon]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/blurfilter.jpg

Some (not all) soft-focus effects can be easily mimicked with editing tools like Photoshop, Gimp, etc. .

But the rocks are no longer sharp. One of the beauties of the true soft focus lens is that it leaves a feeling of sharpness. Not just a smudging effect with a lack of contrast and detail.

[Ken Lee]

"But the rocks are no longer sharp. One of the beauties of the true soft focus lens is that it leaves a feeling of sharpness. Not just a smudging effect with a lack of contrast and detail."

Excellent - Thanks !

[Paul Ewins]

Ken,
The Fuji 180SF and 250SF are relatively common but often lack the all important diffusion discs. Midwest Photo Exchange sells the discs separately ($32 - $38) so if you see a lens without the discs you can replace them. I got both Fujis very cheaply because of missing discs.

Imagons are probably the commonest soft focus lens but are rarely cheap. You need to find out what focal length is appropriate for your format. From memory that is 250mm for 4x5 and it is no surprise that Imagons tend to be more expensive in that size. Again, beware of missing diffusion discs and in this case there are usually three or four.

Congo have a 150/4 (for 4x5) and a 200/4 - more info here:http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html

The thing is that there are a lot of different ways to achieve soft focus and each lens has its own 'look' so it is impossible to say whether one lens is better than another since it is entirely subjective. If you are comfortable buying and selling on eBay (or the classifieds here) then buy one, try it out, and if you don't like the look sell it and try something else. Chances are you won't lose too much on the exchange as there seems to be a steady demand for soft focus lenses.

[Lee Christopher]

Thanks for the contributions!

Bob, I made a mistake in satying that I wanted an older look (as compared to the Imagon). What I should have said was perhaps that I was looking for a different look than what the Imagon offers. Something similar to the Petzvals or what I see in Post #26 and #146 in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=42963&page=3 Would it be correct to say that I'm looking for a soft focus lens with a different set of abberations or how would you describe that effect in post #26/#146?

I've been through the old hollywood cheats even right down to scratching the surfaces of filters and applying hair gel and sand/other particles. They offer nice effects, but what I'm really after is what I mentioned above. I still have a fairly old B+W soft filter which I was told mimicks the Zeiss Softars, but in all honesty, I remember that I don't like the effect it gives. I'll dig it out and try it again.

Loosening the lens cell or removing the front cell and see what that offers also sounds interesting, unless I can find something that offers the effect in Post #26/#146. What are the drawbacks/dangers of doing this, besides dust?

I've had a peek at ebay for Imagons - too rich for me at the moment, and Petzvals - besides rich, doesn't seem to be mounted in shutters. I would need something ready-made if possible.

I come from a country with probably less than 50 lf users out of 6 million people, and in the past, TLRs besides 110s and Kodak Brownies predominated. Chances are, if I need a shutter CLAed or something repaired, I would have to send it overseas. The chances of finding anything which I could swop or scavange is very very unlikely.

[Peter De Smidt]

First off, remember that there were casket sets, a group of lenses with one shutter; and there are convertible lenses. Hence, removing the lens cells isn't that big of a deal. The dangers are that you could drop the front group, you could mis-screw it back in, or you could get something in the shutter. When you screw it back in, set the group in place and turn it backwards until there's a click. After that, turn the group clockwise until finger tight. That minimizes the chance of mis-threading. (You can only damage the threads if it is mis-threaded, and you force it. Don't do that. If there's resistance, turn it back a few times.)

With a little care, this is no big deal.

Another option is to use a meniscus lens, or a magnifying lens, or frankly any type of cheap lens. Tape whatever lens to the back of your shutter. (Remove the normal front and rear lens groups and put them in a safe place.) You can get surprisingly interesting images doing that sort of thing.

[amoebahyda]

There is no problem in fitting an Imagon 250mm lens to a Sinar board, and there is also a Imagon 120mm lens which can be fitted onto a #1 shutter for use with Linhof Technika board (both 2x3 and 4x5)

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/imagon250a.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Imagon120a.jpg

[amoebahyda]

Full set of Imagon consists of 3 adjustable diffusion disks, one filter of either green (earlier) or ND (later) and a lens hood...

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Imagon250mm-2.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Imagon120mm.jpg

[Mark Sawyer]

Just a note that yes, you can do imitations of a soft focus lens in photoshop. And it will look like an imitation of a soft focus lens done with photoshop.

And you can use a soft focus filter. And it will look like something done with a soft focus filter.

Not to dispute that those things can look nice. They can. But there's a satisfaction and authenticity in doing things as they were originally meant to be, and there's a reason some of us really appreciate the admittedly minute differences between this old lens and that old lens. There's a Softar filter, but there's no Verito filter, no Cooke Portric filter, no Imagon filter, no Dallmeyer 3b filter...

You're at a point where you're deciding between:

a.) I want to work with an authentic vintage soft focus lens, and learn to appreciate and draw the most from the intricacies and oddities and potentials of its nature.

or

b.) I'll find an easy and inexpensive way to imitate the old soft focus lenses, and that's good enough.

Your call...

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for the contributions!

Bob, I made a mistake in satying that I wanted an older look (as compared to the Imagon). What I should have said was perhaps that I was looking for a different look than what the Imagon offers. Something similar to the Petzvals or what I see in Post #26 and #146 in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=42963&page=3 Would it be correct to say that I'm looking for a soft focus lens with a different set of abberations or how would you describe that effect in post #26/#146?

I've been through the old hollywood cheats even right down to scratching the surfaces of filters and applying hair gel and sand/other particles. They offer nice effects, but what I'm really after is what I mentioned above. I still have a fairly old B+W soft filter which I was told mimicks the Zeiss Softars, but in all honesty, I remember that I don't like the effect it gives. I'll dig it out and try it again.

Loosening the lens cell or removing the front cell and see what that offers also sounds interesting, unless I can find something that offers the effect in Post #26/#146. What are the drawbacks/dangers of doing this, besides dust?

I've had a peek at ebay for Imagons - too rich for me at the moment, and Petzvals - besides rich, doesn't seem to be mounted in shutters. I would need something ready-made if possible.

I come from a country with probably less than 50 lf users out of 6 million people, and in the past, TLRs besides 110s and Kodak Brownies predominated. Chances are, if I need a shutter CLAed or something repaired, I would have to send it overseas. The chances of finding anything which I could swop or scavange is very very unlikely.

Lee,

For many years Heliopan exclusively sold the Softars in screw-in types (Yashica also had the 67mm one only) and B+W sold a Japanese copy similar to Hoya's. But these copies did not perform the same as a Softar. They simply looked like one. When B+W was absorbed into the Mandermann family of companies (Schneider, Rollei, Exacta et al) thy also started to sell the actual Softars along with us.

So if you have an "older Softar" it isn't and you should get one and try it as well. But however good the Softar is it is not the equal of a true soft focus lens.

Many of the old Hollywood shooters used a Kodak DUTO type soft focus disk. Some of these are still made. Heliopan sells it as the DUTO filter. It has circular rings to soften the light.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for the contributions!

] Would it be correct to say that I'm looking for a soft focus lens with a different set of abberations or how would you describe that effect in post #26/#146?



26 is easily done with an Imagon of the proper focal length for your format by not using any disks (shoot a 5.8) and playing with the lighting ratio. You would also use elliptical reflectors for the lights, not umbrellas.

[Lee Christopher]

Thanks for your insightful and informative posts Bob.

I'll keep an eye out for an Imagon that's affordable (well, we can all hope and dream a bit can't we? LOL!) or look out for a Peztval, Verito, Cooke, Congo or anything similar that comes with a shutter already built-in.

I'm shooting with a roll-film bck (6x6-6-12) till I find suitable subjects for my 4x5 sheets, as well as till I get a suitable JOBO or similar to soup my negs in.

What focal lengths do you reckon I should be looking at for portrait work?

Also, thanks amoebahyda for posting those photos, and not forgetting Peter, Paul and Ken as well as anyone else I might have missed, in no particular order. I appreciate your taking some time to post up and share your views, which are all the more crucial to me as I am still a newbie in the lf world.

Warmest regards,

Lee

[russyoung]

Mark Sawyer's comments were dead on... nothing else has the appearance of a true soft focus lens. ANYTHING put in front of the lens will degrade the image; a soft focus lens produces an image with a softer image overlaying a firm image. No filter can do that although the Rollei Duto, introduced about 1934, comes as close as any. As Bob S. notes, Heliopan now makes them.

A Petzval is NOT a soft focus lens. It produces a very sharp image over a small angular field (>20 degrees). When used beyond its design limitations (too large a format), the aberrations create the 'swirlies' and other characteristics not shared with soft focus lenses. A soft focus lens is equally soft across the entire field, not sharp in the centre and falling off toward the margins.

I own the two Fujinon soft focus lenses and must say that I am not impressed although your mileage may vary... I also own the Congo and the same applies. If your camera can use a 12" (305 mm) lens, then the Kodak Portrait lens is an excellent choice. So is the 12" Spencer Port-Land although unlike the Kodak it comes without a modern shutter. If your camera can only use a lens of under 10" (250 mm), you are pretty limited in your choices and there's not much else than the Verito and the 9 inch Spencer Port-Land... All three of these lenses are easy to learn to use.

Many other soft focus lenses were made at shorter focal lengths (such as the Graf Variable, the Struss Pictorial, etc.) but they are either horrendously expensive or their effect seems less than optimal for my eyes/aesthetic.

The modern Imagons are substantially different than the pre-war models, and even those were revised from the Kuhn/Staeble original design. When they are operating at T/4.5 rather than T/5.8 and have three rows (instead of two) of perforations in the diaphragm, they are lovely lenses. Can't say as much for the newer ones but - your mileage may vary!



Russ

[Lee Christopher]

How could I forget ... thanks Mark, and Russ.

What are your impressions of the Congo, if I could ask?

[Toyon]

Instead of spending a lot or going the photoslop route, find some old poorly-made rectilinear lenses, or petzvals and start experimenting with the effects they give you. You might find you favor overall diffusion, sharpness in the center, halo effects or swirl effects. I think it is a mistake to go with a classical soft focus lens or filter in the beginning. Instead of a shutter, you can buy 25 speed film and a lens cap. You can also experiment at the enlarging stage.

Soft focus photography is something you need to learn from the ground up through experimentation, trial and failure. It is non-linear and non-objective. The worst thing you can do is to license your brain to Adobe systems and let them do it for you. Think of a 4x5 differently from a DSLR. A 4x5 is a magnificent movable platform on which you can mount your experiments and take your own pathway. The process is exactly backward. When you fail with a DSLR you just press delete. When you fail with a 4x5 you are actually making progress. Over time you will generate some honestly and deeply earned results. At first by serendipity, and then increasingly by your growing mastery of the medium.

[Bob Salomon]

The modern Imagons are substantially different than the pre-war models, and even those were revised from the Kuhn/Staeble original design. When they are operating at T/4.5 rather than T/5.8 and have three rows (instead of two) of perforations in the diaphragm, they are lovely lenses. Can't say as much for the newer ones but - your mileage may vary!Russ

That is exactly how the 120 and 150mm versions that were sold up until about 1990 worked. The 200 and up used different types of disks.

[wfwhitaker]

...looking for a different look than what the Imagon offers. Something similar to the Petzvals or what I see in Post #26 and #146 in this thread: [url]...

I hate to be the one to throw you under the bus, but if you're looking to use vintage soft focus lenses, you'll find a much bigger selection for 8x10 than for 4x5 because that was the format of the day. Having said that, however, I'm sure that if you're persistent, you'll find something that catches your eye and fits your format. Don't forget that lighting control is the other side of the soft focus equation.

[Jim Galli]

I hate to be the one to throw you under the bus, but if you're looking to use vintage soft focus lenses, you'll find a much bigger selection for 8x10 than for 4x5 because that was the format of the day. Having said that, however, I'm sure that if you're persistent, you'll find something that catches your eye and fits your format. Don't forget that lighting control is the other side of the soft focus equation.

I'll add salt to Will's wound and say with an old cheap wooden 8X10 you can ween yourself from modern shutters (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Article_About_Packard_Shutters.html) and really open pandora's proverbial box with any and every ancient portrait lens your pocketbook can accomodate.
Trying to accomplish the equivalent in 4X5 with modern shutters is limiting in the extreme.

[Lee Christopher]

Thanks Will and Jim, for the honest and candid feedback.

I'll go ahead and fool around with what I already have, and see how I can move on from there.

[Toyon]

Its true, your options are more limited with a 4x5 than an 8x10 in terms of classic sf lenses and for control of depth of field. However, that is nothing that some inventiveness and experimentation can't overcome. For example, unscrewing the elements of a tessar can produce remarkable results. They are cheap and often available in shutters.

[rdenney]

But the rocks are no longer sharp. One of the beauties of the true soft focus lens is that it leaves a feeling of sharpness. Not just a smudging effect with a lack of contrast and detail.

If you put the blur effect on a layer, and then make it partially transparent, the underlying sharp image will come through. The effect is similar to a Softar filter, which is a flat filter with spherical bumps distributed around on it. The flat parts allow a sharp image, and the bumps create the halo. A gaussian blur on a transparent layer will have a a similar effect.

I find the effect better than using a lens that dials in considerable spherical aberration to achieve the soft-focus effect. Such lenses also undermine basic sharpness.

Rick "not generally a fan of the soft-focus effect, however" Denney

[Ernest Purdum]

There is an article on soft focus among those towards the bottom of our homepage. It might be helpful.

[Bob Salomon]

If you put the blur effect on a layer, and then make it partially transparent, the underlying sharp image will come through. The effect is similar to a Softar filter, which is a flat filter with spherical bumps distributed around on it. The flat parts allow a sharp image, and the bumps create the halo. A gaussian blur on a transparent layer will have a a similar effect.

I find the effect better than using a lens that dials in considerable spherical aberration to achieve the soft-focus effect. Such lenses also undermine basic sharpness.

Rick "not generally a fan of the soft-focus effect, however" Denney

That still comes down to a lot of time and effort doing PP on each image rather then capturing it when you shoot it.

[rdenney]

That still comes down to a lot of time and effort doing PP on each image rather then capturing it when you shoot it.

Yes, but that's a whole different debate.

Rick "avoiding religious discussions, heh, heh" Denney

[Mark Sawyer]

I know some people don't care for the look of an Imagon, but I've always found it quite lovely, whether wide open or closed down a bit, (I never use the discs, just the conventional iris in the compound shutter). An old image from a wide open 300mm Imagon on an 8x10...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/Ripley1500hi.jpg

[Jeremy Moore]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/Ripley1500hi.jpg

One of my favorite portraits... ever. Mark, I need to talk to you about a possible print trade when I return from Europe if you're interested.

[Mark Sawyer]

We'll do the pm thing, Jeremy! Maybe something from the Texas Church Project...

[mandoman7]

I agree with the Galli and Sawyer posts that touch on embracing the method rather than trying to get there without having to change tools or methods.

In general, its always good to experiment with small adjustments; gauze, vaseline, and filters, for the learning benefits, and familiarity with CRAFT that one gains. On the other hand, if you're hanging prints for a viewing public, you don't want compromises in your commitment to be on display, if only for the personal satisfaction.

I've played around with sf for years, back in my darkroom days, using gauze and hassleblad filters and almost bought an imagon. The thing that always disappointed was the degradation of the shadow values, and the overlaid look. Add on effects always look to me like a windshield that needs cleaning.

The look I came to appreciate was one where the highlights had a certain halation, and the out of focus areas have a sense of depth and three dimensionality.

This year I've bought a couple of lenses from the esteemed Mr. Galli and am really glad that I went ahead and made the plunge and am working with the real thing. The verito I purchased may not be the most desirable of this ouerve, and the absence a timed shutter has forced some altered strategies, but in the 2 weeks I've been using it, the percentage of very interesting shots I've been able to get has been quite motivating.

Sometimes, venturing out of your comfort zone leads to some important growth in your craft.

JY

[Lee Christopher]

I know some people don't care for the look of an Imagon, but I've always found it quite lovely, whether wide open or closed down a bit, (I never use the discs, just the conventional iris in the compound shutter). An old image from a wide open 300mm Imagon on an 8x10...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/Ripley1500hi.jpg


Mark,

That's a gorgeous portrait!

[Brian Ellis]

I know this isn't the "in" thing to do - much more 21st century to buy a 19th century lens - but I use Nikon soft focus filters and really like the look. They render some parts soft and some parts sharp in varying degrees and the combination looks very nice to my eyes. They aren't cheap - I think I paid $100 or so for each (I have two, for two different degrees of "softness"). I've also heard that the Softar filter (Zeiss I think) is also excellent. I'd avoid the cheaper soft focus filters, the ones I've seen just make everything look blurry, like you didn't know how to focus your camera.

As an added bonus if you do your own darkroom work, you can put the filter under the enlarger lens to create a soft focus effect in negatives that were sharp to begin with. And even better, you can expose part of the time with the filter under the lens and part without it for varying degrees of "softness." I actually liked this method better than using the filter on the camera since it gives you so many different options for the degree of softness. If you don't like the result with one ratio of filter to no-filter time just change the ratio and try again.

This method does reverse the way the highlights and shadows blend together as compared with doing it in camera (the blurred highlights blend in camera and the blurred shadows blend when using the filter under the enlarger or vice versa, I can never remember which is which).

[Lee Christopher]

Again, I can't thank you all enough for contributing and sharing your experiences, knowledge and wisdom.

I'm still trying to get the more basic lenses of my set-up settled, and will then look into add-on options. By 'add-on', it could be physical by means of filters, vaseline, diffusion material or after scanning the negs.

Would it be frowned upon here if I tried something in photoshop and posted it up?

[William McEwen]

Just a note that yes, you can do imitations of a soft focus lens in photoshop. And it will look like an imitation of a soft focus lens done with photoshop.

And you can use a soft focus filter. And it will look like something done with a soft focus filter.

Not to dispute that those things can look nice. They can. But there's a satisfaction and authenticity in doing things as they were originally meant to be, and there's a reason some of us really appreciate the admittedly minute differences between this old lens and that old lens. There's a Softar filter, but there's no Verito filter, no Cooke Portric filter, no Imagon filter, no Dallmeyer 3b filter...

You're at a point where you're deciding between:

a.) I want to work with an authentic vintage soft focus lens, and learn to appreciate and draw the most from the intricacies and oddities and potentials of its nature.

or

b.) I'll find an easy and inexpensive way to imitate the old soft focus lenses, and that's good enough.

Your call...

Very well said!

I don't use soft focus lenses or try to produce that effect, so this is unchartered territory for me. At first I found myself thinking, why can't he just use his present lens? He can get a soft focus filter or put a few layers of cellophane from cigarette packages in front of his lens.

Foolish me.

You can use a DSLR to shoot a portrait against a white background, and use photoshop to put a sheet film border around it, but it still won't look like an Avedon.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Could someone recommend a few specific complete lenses with shutters that I could look into for use on a 4x5 view camera with a minimum flange distance of 60mm? Budgets are tight so if I can find something $300 or less, it would be great."

Try to find a Goerz Dogmar 164/4.5 in shutter. Complete it's a nice normal lens BUT it's triple convertible. The front cell is 1.9FL, the rear is 1.4FL and both are very nice soft-focus look. Maybe too soft and require stopping down.

You could try building a Voigtlander Heliar 240/4.5 in the WRONG shutter. Mines 8mm deeper than the barrel and makes it into a very nice soft focus lens, in the barrel it's almost process lens sharp. Should work for the 210mm also.

Have fun with the hunt.

[community1313]

Hello, today I tested these lense on my 4X5 Arca F line view camera:
250 Rodenstock imagon on copal 3 shutter
240 Schneider Symmar MC on compur 5.6
180 Sinaron Apo Macro (rodenstock selected sinar) 5.6
210 Voigtlander coated Heliar 4.5
The subject was orchid flowers, I managed to keep approximatly the same frame despite different focals, used 2 packs of Fuji instant film 100 asa (ok I will scan them I am sure you would like to see)
My conclusions: all lens give good close up/macro results with good bokeh and the arca has enough bellow extention, stays always perfectly rigid and is as light as a can be!
At F 11 the results get very similar but for the density and saturation that is more pronounced on the modern MC lenses.
The 240 symmar is a wonderfull beast, solid german feeling and the compur shutter is
very solid as well, better than a copal 3, this thing is made to last! It was my first LF lens. It's very sharp, at 11 good balance between hard and soft, at 22 razor sharp and the background can be too obvious, at 5.6 good bokeh but the blur gives an impression of movement , "bougé" in French and in not the best. I think it's obviously made to be stopped down and gives it's best then, it's very warm but natural, very good contrast, not a soft focus but a very good portrait lens.
The Sinaron macro is an amazing work, I do not know who's behind that design but they rocks! In many ways the bokeh compares to the heliar, it's very soft and progressive..The pictures are also more dense and contrasty due to multicoating, I use it regulary for portrait work and fashion to get details on fabric ect, it's very flexible, closed down super sharp but also very smooth when opened.
How does compare a 1950 Heliar to a very expensive 180 apo macro ? It's kick ass!
I was so very positively surprised, the forground is so sharp and the background is so creamy resulting in a gorgious 3D effect! In many ways the most all around/creative flexible lens, the simple coating lives the highlights more clear and etheral producing a better "image" separation than with the sinaron, it's all smooth gradients of contrast, definition and color, I read it was good but experiencing a H:rolleyes: :rolleyes: eliar is something!
At this point I know that all these are just very good lenses and the results are mostly the work of the beholder, they won't fail you if you can handle them! last and not the least the imagon. It's not an easy lens to use, if you want to experiment go for it, closed down it's sharp like the symmar (but much lighter to carry), it's got three different discs that you can fine tune plus a diaph in the shutter and it's a lot of choices plus it reacts strongly to light composition..wide open it's dreamy, nothing is really focused or out of focus, closed down more like a regular lens, it's definitely "special".
Concusion: the Heliar was a great discovery, in germany you get them for 300E, The compound is very sweet and solid but needs a CLA, normal for a 60 years old equipment! The 180 macro is quite rare and amazing, get one if you can. The 240 symmar was in india before and a friend shot GEO magazine with it, a great traveler, a bit heavy but solid. The imagon has it's own class and deserves a test just by himself! I hope the article was not too boring..I will post the resulting images or a link when I can.http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[cowtown_eric]

Peter was sayin,,,

You might also try unscrewing the front cell of the lenses you have, which'll often give a lens that's longer and softer.

Seems to cowtown eric that there's actually some documentation about this in the Leclerc books, methinks they called them "doublet" lenses,

Peter mentioned f-stop changes, but if I recall from the days when I had an Exacta 66, it mattered not a tad. Focal length didn't change either. Just softer all round, and more towards the perimeter. Taking off the front elemnt unleashed the spherical/chromatic and what's that other abberation called?

As far as I recall it was a design feature. Landscapes and portraiture with one lens.


Eric in Calgary

[rdenney]

Peter was sayin,,,

You might also try unscrewing the front cell of the lenses you have, which'll often give a lens that's longer and softer.

Seems to cowtown eric that there's actually some documentation about this in the Leclerc books, methinks they called them "doublet" lenses,

Peter mentioned f-stop changes, but if I recall from the days when I had an Exacta 66, it mattered not a tad. Focal length didn't change either. Just softer all round, and more towards the perimeter. Taking off the front elemnt unleashed the spherical/chromatic and what's that other abberation called?

As far as I recall it was a design feature. Landscapes and portraiture with one lens.


Eric in Calgary

The old Schneider Symmar was intentionally convertible in this way. With any moderately symmetrical lens, the focal length will change significantly. Removing the front cell of a 180/5.6 changes it to a 315/12, for example. The aperture doesn't change, of course, but it provides a different focal ratio at the longer focal length. With a wide-angle lens like a Super Angulon, the rear cells will be decidedly soft with considerable spherical aberration wide open, though it will improve as it is stopped down. I've looked at the effect on the ground glass but have never made photos with it. Just playing with the 65/8 Super Angulon that is sitting here on my desk, the focal length seems to increase by about a factor of 1.58 or so. That would make the 65 something like a 100. That's in the same general vicinity as the Symmar Convertible, where the focal length of the rear cell is 1.75 times the focal length of the whole lens. At 65mm, f/8 has an effective aperture of 8mm. 8mm would be about f/13. Figuring the apertures is pretty easy once you know the actual focal length, which can be measured in the camera.

Hmm. I'd be able to turn my 121/8 SA into a 190-200/13 triplet with considerable spherical aberration. Must experiment.

Removing the front cell of a Tessar-formula lens does indeed leave a doublet. But with most more modern lenses you end up with a triplet or even four elements remaining.

Rick "now curious" Denney

[Henrim]

I know some people don't care for the look of an Imagon, but I've always found it quite lovely, whether wide open or closed down a bit, (I never use the discs, just the conventional iris in the compound shutter). An old image from a wide open 300mm Imagon on an 8x10...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/Ripley1500hi.jpg

Sorry to wake up an age old thread but as I was searching for some info on soft focus lenses I stumbled upon this picture. What a marvellous portrait, wow!