7 Antique Soft Focus Portrait Lenses Compared

[John Z.]

I would be curious to see the same photo with each lens stop down a bit, say to f16 or f22.

[Mark Sawyer]

Ah, the little winks and nudges the old glass gives to those photons that are just passing through... I'm caught between the 10" P&S Synthetic and the 19" Eidoscope wide open myself, at least for this set. But I imagine for you, Jim, it would be like trying to choose a favorite child...

Was the bi-quality yet another P&S line?

[Jim Galli]

Ah, the little winks and nudges the old glass gives to those photons that are just passing through... I'm caught between the 10" P&S Synthetic and the 19" Eidoscope wide open myself, at least for this set. But I imagine for you, Jim, it would be like trying to choose a favorite child...

Was the bi-quality yet another P&S line?

My fear is I won't do them justice. So many nice old lenses, so little time. Bi-Quality was a later run of the Visual Quality Series IV. Identical but for some lost reason they couldn't use the old name on the last run? The 14" in this test is in fact the late "Bi-Quality" version.

I would be curious to see the same photo with each lens stop down a bit, say to f16 or f22.

Actually, the shows over about f8. F16 and f22 are no more remarkable than any other lens of the era. Some of these are sharper than the run of the mill anastigmats at f16.

[Shen45]

Thanks. There is a second boot back there, and the format on all is 8X10. Yes, that would make a huge difference. Jim

Hi Jim,

as always a great education.

Would it be possible to do a shoot with the same lens on 5x4 and 10x8 to see the real differences that the format makes.

I remember seeing the wonderful glow of the tail stock on your 2D with the 12 Velostigmat and while the lens is still truly remarkable the format is a big influence on the "fuzzies"

If you could possibly compare 2 classic SF lenses at 5x4 and 10x8 [ it is coming into winter in your part of the planet I believe so nothing to do upstairs on those cold nights!!] I would be much obliged.

Steve

[Jim Galli]

Hi Jim,

as always a great education.

Would it be possible to do a shoot with the same lens on 5x4 and 10x8 to see the real differences that the format makes.

I remember seeing the wonderful glow of the tail stock on your 2D with the 12 Velostigmat and while the lens is still truly remarkable the format is a big influence on the "fuzzies"

If you could possibly compare 2 classic SF lenses at 5x4 and 10x8 [ it is coming into winter in your part of the planet I believe so nothing to do upstairs on those cold nights!!] I would be much obliged.

Steve

Hmmmmm...... Possibly a good project. Let me think how to approach this.

[Asher Kelman]

Good expensive taste

Someone will know more than me and hopefully chime in. P&S had at least 4 different series of their soft lenses. Series 1 is just a modified portrait petzval and isn't very desireable. Any petzval would act the same and you'd pay 3 times as much because it says Pinkham. Series III is a non achromatic doublet. What you see is not what you will be getting. They are difficult to learn to use but they are considered the most valuable and rare of the bunch. I'd love to have one!! Anyone??? Next is Series IV which is the Visual Quality. It was a modified RR design that purposely leaves aberation in. Stop it down and it is sharp and contrasty enough for any use. This is the one Cooke copied for their now infamous PS 945. PS was for Pinkham Smith, 9 (inch) and 45 (4X5 use). Series VI is the Synthetic. Kind of a mystery lens. I just got this lens and what you see is the first and only picture made with it. Shows very interesting promise. It is some kind of an achromatic meniscus but designed to P&S specs. Of all of the above the only ones I've seen from time to time on EvilBay is the Series IV.

So Jim,

Where do the Cooke Series IIb and IIe fit in?

Asher

[Jim Galli]

So Jim,

Where do the Cooke Series IIb and IIe fit in?

Asher

I class the Cooke series II with both the Heliar and the Wolly Velostigmat. They are anastigmats, sharp corner to corner. I use these when I want a smooooth / sharp look. I don't care much for the fuzz-u-lator effect of any of them. They're best for the velvetty smooth look. Different tools, different jobs.

[goamules]

Jim, these are wonderful and instructional. The Wolly comments above fall right into what I was going to ask: Could you one day compare all the Wollensak "soft" types? I mean, it would be educational to see the diff between Verito fuzz and Velo fuzz, and vesta and ? Maybe it's just the novice in me, and I would understand these things as I learn. I'm learning though, I know what a petzval does, anyway....

[Petzval Paul]

Hey everyone,

New to this forum, but wanted to chime in on this one...

I recently got a P&S Synthetic Series VI as well and haven't had a chance to do much with it yet but it shows great promise. I shot a whole-plate ambrotype yesterday with it as a test and the lens far exceeded my expectations. I still have to learn its nuances to make the most of it, of course. I can't figure out how to attach the image here so if anyone wants to see it, just contact me offline and I will email you the jpeg.

It seems as if the Visual Quality series has received undue attention since Cooke based its PS945 on that model. I have even seen comments online such as "Steichen and Coburn used the visual quality..." although I have no idea where people are getting such information, which is probably pure speculation and hype. We know that Coburn used "about a dozen semi-achromats" and even is credited with suggesting the designs of the II and III series (from P&S's 1920 catalog). Steichen mentions in the book "A Life in Photography" that he first encountered the P&S lens through Holland F. Day around 1902 (it's not specifically stated, but close enough). Day suggested the Series I about 1901. Since the Visual Quality is the fourth series and it wasn't introduced until sometime later, it stands to reason that most of the pictorial photographers with whom we are familiar used the Semi-Achromats since that was all that was available at the beginning of the century. Steichen was already making sharper images by WW I, so I doubt one could dig up much reference to his using the Series IV lens.

Yet, "Visual Quality" has become almost synonymous with "Pinkham and Smith". From what I have seen the Synthetic is really the undiscovered gem of the P&S line-up. I'd love to hear more from Jim about his experiences with his. I paid too much for mine, but I still feel as if I won the lottery! The ground glass image is just glorious and, although it is listed as 9", it illuminates my 8"x10" GG at infinity, which really surprised me.

- Paul

[Mark Sawyer]

Hi, Paul! Welcome to the forum, and congratulations on your "new" P&S. I've always wanted one, though I'm really quite fond of my Veritos, Imagon, and home-brewed lenses...

I recently got a P&S Synthetic Series VI as well and haven't had a chance to do much with it yet but it shows great promise. I shot a whole-plate ambrotype yesterday with it as a test and the lens far exceeded my expectations.

Something I've noticed over the past year or two is an increasing tendency to mix different historic lenses, processes, etc. in a single image. The ambrotypes were long gone by the advent of the pictorial lenses, so you might be doing the first ones! Similarly, Kerik Kouklis has been using a Verito with wet-plate collodian (on aluminum plates, no less!), although those three items never came together before. And the fellow who did the "Texas Tintypes" used fuzzy old lenses (petzvals pushed past their intended coverage, I think) to get an effect the original tintype photographers would have probably deplored...

Not a complaint at all, just an observation. Perhaps it's something peculiar to large format photography that we can enjoy mixing our history. Can you imagine the fuss if you showed up at a civil war re-enactment with a civil war uniform, a Thompson sub-machine gun, and an ipod?