VERY interesting Ernest. Thank you. Does anyone else remember reading somewhere that the Visual Quality was a copy of the Busch Nicola Perscheid? Or is my CRS disease just playing with me.
VERY interesting Ernest. Thank you. Does anyone else remember reading somewhere that the Visual Quality was a copy of the Busch Nicola Perscheid? Or is my CRS disease just playing with me.
Chris, Cooke's Portrait lens is largely, but not completely, based on the P&S Series IV. A combination of reverse engineering and other research. The Cooke lens differs in several important ways in the amount of aberration it achieves and how it gets there. Unfortunately, these, like the original design, are trade secrets, and not patented.
Wasn't the P&S lens aspherized by hand in some way, so that each lens was unique?
My sense was that Cooke figured out how to replicate this mechanically for the PS945 and for their soft-focus attachment based on the PS945 for their cine lenses (which costs as much as the PS945, by the way).
"Unfortunately, these, like the original design, are trade secrets, and not patented."
Unlike the original, these are pohibitively expensive. I wonder what has changed in regard to the differences in expense for producing a SF lens compared to a sharp lens since the P&S was originally produced.
Jay
Jay said "I wonder what has changed in regard to the differences in expense for producing a SF lens compared to a sharp lens since the P&S was originally produced."
Numbers for one thing. Whatever your profit is, it'll likely come from less than 100 lenses. Optically it's about the simplest lens formula out there. Far simpler than their own "series II" which would cost a fortune because of the machanics and spacing issues.
I was looking into P&S Visual Quality IV's a while ago. I eventually lost interest in the old lenses because of A) shutters, B) size, and C) coverage. I'd really want a mild wide angle soft focus lens, and the old lenses mostly don't fit the bill for that.
What I do remember from my research is that the lenses weren't common, and I found a reference that claimed that Stieglitz had some kind of promotional deal at first where the lenses would only go to people he approved or referred. No idea whether this is true or not, but it definitely adds a little romance to early examples.
They were also definitely hand-ground aspheric. I don't know how many surfaces (just one, I assume) and have no idea which surface got the treatment.
I personally hope Cooke is doing well with its successor to the P&S, but I find these lenses much less attractive in formats which you have to enlarge. It would be tempting to cam one up for a Technika though and start shooting at 240/4.5 handheld.
As an interesting aside, I don't think there's been a Cooke PS945 ever up for sale use, in fact this has happened to the Cooke convertible which came later than the portrait lens, where one is up on e-bay right now.
I'll be very surprised if more than a few Cooke PS945 examples ever go onto the used market and only because someone becomes financially 'strapped', or someone purchases the lens thinking it's a 'magic bullet', finds out it's not, and sells.
Congrats to Jim Galli on showcasing the differences in these lens, I've followed the discussions on these lenses, and somewhere there was some conjecture about what the lens was doing, regarding one shot where the eyes are in focus and the nose goes out of focus, and I'd ask you at what distance were you from the sitter when you shot these close-ups?
The reason I ask is because I'm curious about whether this is the lens or more an issue of distance, even when I'm shooting medium format and depending on the lens/exposure, when I can't hold the focus on the eyes and have the nose go out of focus to distraction, I'll back up and shoot a head n shoulders instead of a tight head and crop in closer to get a tight head with the nose decent, as a workaround to the focus issue. I'm figuring there's even less focus wide open w/LF, and the shooting distance may not have anything to do with it, but I thought I'd ask.
I've been looking for a Pinkham & Smith for about 3-4 years, have always ended up hours/a day/a week late to whoever's selling 'em, let me know when you go absolutely insane and decide to sell the lens :^).
Jonathan Brewer asked "somewhere there was some conjecture about what the lens was doing, regarding one shot where the eyes are in focus and the nose goes out of focus, and I'd ask you at what distance were you from the sitter when you shot these close-ups?"
Jonathan, it was totally operator error, but since all I had was the 5 shots, I posted it anyway. Better editing next time I always say. To answer your question though, I was less than 4 feet away with both of the smaller lenses. The 11 1/2 is different enough that I actually picked up the tripod and moved in to try to get the same framing as the 13", and I simply got in too close. And it was so damned cold, I got in a hurry. If I had backed out so the magnification was the same as what it was in the 13" shot, I probably would have gotten away with it, as Jay De Fer points out correctly.
This has been a very satisfying discussion and I've learned much. Thanks to all who participated.
I actually have a PS945 that I purchased used awhile ago. If I remember correctly, the first owner decided that he didn't like the SF look (or something to that effect). Since buying Ted Harris' 8x10 Phillips I haven't shot a lot of 4x5, but I almost finished a full plate back for that camera so I can use the PS945 at portrait distances.
Well, there's no error about these being great shots, and I think they're so good in showing the difference between these lenses, that they ought to be used as a permanent reference to any future questions about Soft focus lenses.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks