...what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

[Jim Galli]

Thanks for the reply Jim ...

As one who uses modern lenses (Sironar-N, -S, Super-Symmar-XL and Grandagon-N, although my favorite is a late-model 305 G-claron) what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

And so, how can I find a nice inexpensive portrait lens for 8x10 ? Any advice (apart from buy when Jim Galli let's a lens go for sale !) ?

Thanks,
Ron

Not an un-common question these days and of course the best advice is to immediately plop down any amount Jim Galli asks for on his various and sundry sales

I thought it would be fun to bring this to the forums and let all the voices get heard, pro and con, not just mine.

I absolutely love Ernest Purdum's opener on his excellent article about this. I hope he won't mind if I steal it for a minute.

Critic A: "This image has a certain ethereal quality.
Critic B: "It's a fuzzy picture."

That's it in a nutshell. Some of us see ethereal glowing tonalities like falling into a box full of pillows, and others see a lot of balderdash. Very subjective and no one's right or wrong.

I can put a little tech spin (very little) on it. The older non coated lenses with up to 8 air-glass interfaces at 4% image loss for each one introduce less contrast and more non image forming light to the film than your modern lenses do. In some cases a lot more. That tends to soften all of the transitions. Now on 4X5, to me at least, that just dis-appoints. But in 8X10 and larger I see a different effect. There's still plenty of sharpness to define, but I see a LOT of added tonality and glow with the old lenses. Almost anyone that pages through some of the stuff on my web site can begin to get infected.

What say ye...? Which are the best lenses to start with? I'll vote for the Venerable Wollensak Verito. There seem to still be plenty of them and while other classic name lenses go through the roof, they still seem a good value for soft focus. Wolly Velostigmat Series II is another old favorite. And occasionally you can steal a projection petzval.

[Brian Bullen]

The verito does create a beautiful look in the right hands, Kerik Kouklis, Mark Sawyer and others have amazing work with these lenses so I would second the recommendation for this lense. Not to mention you can use the rear element for a longer focal length that is still soft and sweet. Jim is also right that the soft lenses go hand in hand with larger formats. Seeing an 8x10 or 11x14 contact print that is full of glowing tones and soft in areas but sharp in other areas is breathtaking.
That being said some of the well known softies are a little hard on the wallet. I like to look for old brass lenses that no one cares about get them on the camera and see what they can do. I have 3 brass "junkers" all for under $30 that look beautiful especially when taken apart to use one element or one group of elements. Luckily the single elements cover the larger cameras too. I've seen numerous portraits with brass projection lenses or magic lantern lenses that are wonderful.
I think you have to look at how much you want to spend. I treated myself recently to a Dallmeyer 3d on ebay it was under $200 because it wasn't in original condition. I don't care about that, I care about the image it makes and it sure looks beautiful on the ground glass. Can't wait to get to the darkroom!
I think maybe it would be good too if people posted lens they think aren't that good. I haven't seen any photos from an Imagon that tickle my toes but I'm sure someone has one.

[Ole Tjugen]

Let's see...

I wouldn't mind a Universal Heliar, but they have a stupid habit of going for way over my budget.
So I'll have to settle for my "normal" Heliars - 120, 150, 240 and 300mm. They're actually pretty sharp and not at all "soft focus", yet they have a "smoothness" that most other lenses lack.

Another weird Voigtländer is the 18cm W.Z. - which could be an abbreviation for Weichzeichner, or perhaps Walter Zilly... It's a Periskop, two facing meniscii with an aperture between. The really weird thing about it is that it was made as an enlarger lens, with softness depending on aperture!

Then there's the other Periskops. And the mis-spaced Aplanats. I have a nice casket set similar to the Busch Vade Mecum, with spacers. You remove the spacers to gain wide-angle "coverage", but far more apparent is that the corners go to mush at wide apertures. Can be really "neat".

And the one I posted just the other day - the "soft" lens in a Thompson Bros. casket set. Unlike most other "softies" this one doesn't introduce spherical aberration, but a lot of coma and a little bit of astigmatism.

For small formats I also have a pair of old Rodenstock Eurynars (dialyte-type, 4 elements in 4 groups) of about the same age. One has been coated at a later date, and is impressively sharp. The other one is uncoated, and has a big chip missing from the front lens. The two are equally sharp, but the uncoated one has lots of flare and looks softer...

I'm also well satisfied with my old Zeiss Doppel-Amatar 15cm f:6.8. Just like the Heliars it's sharp, yet smooth. I like it a lot better than the Dagors (BTW the amatar is a reverse Dagor: Dagor cells are (+-+(; the Amatar is (-+-(, - like the Angulons, only different. )

Speaking of Dagors and the like: Any old lens called "Doppel-" somethingorother is a convertible. since Dagor is an abbreviation for "Doppel-Anastigmat GOeRz", it was intended to work as a convertible. It's just not a very good one, which of course means that half a Dagor is a good one to test for softness!

[Dan Fromm]

Speaking of Dagors and the like: Any old lens called "Doppel-" somethingorother is a convertible. since Dagor is an abbreviation for "Doppel-Anastigmat GOeRz", it was intended to work as a convertible. It's just not a very good one, which of course means that half a Dagor is a good one to test for softness!

Are you sure? I ask because I don't think half of a dialyte can form an image and have a Goerz Doppel Anastigmat that is a dialyte type. I've been mistaken this time, could be again. I ask you because I'm away from my kit so can't ask the lens.

[Ole Tjugen]

According to my literature (and lenses), half-dialytes need to be stopped down to at least f:22 to give a reasonably sharp image. Half a dialyte does form an image, but so "wuzzy" that it can be difficult to focus wide open.

[Jim Galli]

Are you sure? I ask because I don't think half of a dialyte can form an image and have a Goerz Doppel Anastigmat that is a dialyte type. I've been mistaken this time, could be again. I ask you because I'm away from my kit so can't ask the lens.

Yep, a single group from a dialyt will form an image. That one you sent me focuses at about 36 inches. Want it back?

[Ken Lee]

...what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

Bokeh

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

...what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

Speed. Sure you could use a Aero-Etkar, but the truth is (at least as I know it) that my 125 year-old 11" f3 Dallmeyer Petzval is sharper on 4x5 than all four of the 50 year-old Aero-Etkars I have tested.

[Dan Fromm]

Yep, a single group from a dialyt will form an image. That one you sent me focuses at about 36 inches. Want it back?

I thought that it was half a plasmat. Live and learn.

Thanks, but when I give a gift I want it to stay given. If you want to dispose of it, I'm sure you can find a good and worthy home for it.

Thanks, Ole. Now that I'm home I'll take out one of my dialytes and see what a single cell can do.

[Dave_B]

The opportunity to induce a serious case of lens envy among your colleagues......