Aperture blades and look...

[Frank Petronio]

I own about 854 lenses LESS than Ole ;-) but a readily available Kodak Ektar from the 1950s should do the trick and probably be better for color work as well. I bet various Schneider Xenars and Zeiss Tessars would be fine as well.

[Ole Tjugen]

All Heliars, except Universal-Heliars and pre-WWI Heliars, are really Dynars (late RF lenses named "Heliar" excepted - most are neither Heliars nor Dynars). These Heliars seem to have better coverage than "real" Heliars. Note that Voigtländer continued to use the "real Heliar" diagram in brouchures right until the end, 60 years after the design used was changed from Heliar to Dynar...

The only lens I own that is as smooth as the old Heliars is even more expensive - it's the Apo-Lanthar (which just happens to be an "enhanced Dynar").

The short-lived Doppel-Amatar really surprised me when I got the first films developed. I'll never understand why Zeiss stopped making them after a run of only 6 years or so!

Some triplets are nice and smooth too, but that design is so variable that I don't dare say anything general about them.

Tessars and -derivatives can be considered triplets for this purpose.

[Jim Noel]

I think the older lenses that were meant to be sharp would probably give you the look you're after -- not soft focus or anything, but just smoother than a modern lens. You can always increase contrast on the file/print side to suit.

The other guys know more than I do about this, but I suspect the "sharp" vintage lenses start with Kodak Ektars...

Frank,
To some of us Ektars are modern lenses, not vintage. I consider vintage lenses those made w/o coating, and up to about 1940.
Yesterday I made a few images with a 1903 Gundlach Rapid Rectilinear wide open and closed to f 16.
Sharp as a tack in the focused plane but with a roundness to the objects not evident when using coated, and multi-coated lenses.
I believe the real cut off point was when crown and flint glass were no longer the primes for lens making and the sands from one of the northern Japanese islands began to be prevalent.

[Dan Fromm]

Frank,
<snip>
Sharp as a tack in the focused plane but with a roundness to the objects not evident when using coated, and multi-coated lenses.
I believe the real cut off point was when crown and flint glass were no longer the primes for lens making and the sands from one of the northern Japanese islands began to be prevalent.

Jim, this entire discussion has baffled me. I can understand the effect of the aperture's shape on rendition of out-of-focus highlights, but don't understand what other effect it has. Most of what people who talk about bokeh seem to discuss has to do with the effects of aberrations that I don't think are affected by the aperture's shape.

And then you come along and add to my confusion by asserting that coating, i.e., control of flare, affects rendition of out-of-focus areas.

Not only that, you blame the loss of roundness that you see in images produced by whatever you mean by modern lenses on the glass used in making them. Now, if I understand things correctly the glasses used in lens-making are characterized by two numbers, refractive index and Abbé number; modern glasses offer a wider range of both than ancient glasses, give the lens designer more ways of reducing aberrations. I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection between use of modern glass, as from Schott starting in the 1880s, and the roundness you value.

It just isn't fair. I try and try and try butI just can't understand what you (all of the posters so far in this discussion, not just you, Jim) are talking about, why you're writing what you do, and what you believe. Will someone, anyone, please post a clear explanation of the models behind all the confusing words and show why they should be taken seriously?

Yours in puzzlement,

Dan

[Don Hutton]

It also matters if the shape of the blades are curved versus straight like modern Copals are, why they couldn't cut them with a curve is beyond me.... Modern Copals only have 5 blades -- as do cheap SLR lenses -- higher end SLR lenses have 7 or 9 blades, Leica and VC lenses usually have 9. If you look into a stopped down Leica lens they make a nice flower-shaped aperture hole. And Rolleis have rounder apertures than on the similar 80/2.8 Zeiss in a Hasselblad... which is why Rollei TLR shots usually a bit creamier.

Sometime in the 60s Synchro-Compurs went from 7 to 5 blades, so the earlier Linhof shuttered lenses can be found both ways... I think all the Copals have been 5 blades, as have been most of the post war American shutters. You simply have to look and ask before buying.

Of course you get perfectly round apertures if you shoot wide open. Oftentimes that's what I try to do. But if you try to shoot outdoors wide open you may want to find a shutter with a fast 1/400 or 1/500 speed, and/or some ND filters and use slower film.

I went through all this myself and currently use a later 5-bladed shutter because I want a nice, newer, reliable shutter (I really prefer Compurs) and I do try to shoot wide open when I think the background will benefit. But it is always a compromise... I doubt Copal will change their design at this late date, it is a pity they didn't care about such details but in the 1950s-60s when things changed over... I think the prevailing trend was to emphasize how darn sharp everything was over other lens qualities.

Only Copal 0 shutters have 5 blades - both newer (black ringed) and older (the silver ringed "coarse" tooth) Copal 1 and 3 shutters have 7 blades. Personally, I don't feel that the actual shape makes a huge difference to the Bokeh (and I know I am in the minority on that opinion...) - however, it does define the specular highlight shape and pentagonal ones do not look great. 7 sided highlights are close enough to round that I do not find them distracting.

Interestingly, the latest Rolleiflex TLRs (the FX) has a 5 bladed Copal shutter in it. It's a very nice camera, but I did find that single feature a drawback when I owned one.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Marc,

"back again...so in my search into some the older lenses that will give both a smooth AND detailed look for my 8x10 requirements Ole has suggested a Dynar-type Heliar or a Zeiss Doppel-Amatar in the 240mm range and a Rapid Rectlinear for the longer lens..any other smooth and detailed gems out there?"

Goerz's answer to the 'Heliar', their 'Dogmar', very nice look to it and very well color corrected. The 420/5.5 just fits a 6" lens board.

Cooke portrait lenses but I have no idea of their series numbers.

Have fun with the hunt.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Dan, you answered yourself,

"Now, if I understand things correctly the glasses used in lens-making are characterized by two numbers, refractive index and Abb&#233; number; modern glasses offer a wider range of both than ancient glasses, give the lens designer more ways of reducing aberrations."

"And then you come along and add to my confusion by asserting that coating, i.e., control of flare, affects rendition of out-of-focus areas."

Not only did the ability to control aberrations change, the taste of the buying public changed. The manufacturers could and did change their priorities. The blade count seems to have dropped from lack of competition and simple economics, less is cheaper.

As to blade count changing bokeh, the easy answer is Kodak Ektar 127/4.7 & 152/4.5. They did make them in Supermatic shutters (5 blades), Rapax shutters (10 blades) and barrel mount (12-15 blades). All anyone needs to do is buy all three of each and shot-em-up.

[Former Member 8144]

Thanks for these recommendations guys...the way I see it I am looking for heliar, dogmar, dagor, dynar, amatar, apo lanthars!

I'm going to spend a bit of time doing some research working all these names out and which goes with which and the exact models to look for...


Marc

[Christopher Perez]

Marc,

Take a look at "modern" (ie: post 1950) Compur shutters. Many of the shutters I have contain more aperture blades than their Copal counterparts.

Another "modern" shutter that I like is the Prontor Press. These tend to be very light and offer a pleasingly round aperture shape.

As for an absolute number of aperture blades, I happened to stumble upon a couple shutters (Prontor and Compur) that give more pleasing out of focus renderings than Copal shutters some of my modern lenses were originally mounted in. Then I had a chance to shoot a Compound shutter'd lens against it's Copal shutter'd equivalent. The difference in OOF rendition was equally obvious. It was really that simple.

A person can go really nuts and look for 1950's - 1970's lenses in Compur, Compound, or Prontor shutters. I love Schneider Xenars for their creamy OOF rendition. I think Ole mentioned a 300mm f/4.5 Xenar in #5 Compound - I have one and it's brilliant sharp where sharp is desired and lovely in the OOF regions.

There are many other lenses to look for too. In fact, a friend wrote me about a cheap 180 f/4.5 Xenar in Compur that he found. It's OOF rendition is actually nicer than a Compound mounted Heliar of similar focal length. Granted, optics design plays a role in OOF rendition. HOWEVER, aperture shape is easily verified as one of the most/more important factor in OOF rendition.

Thanks for reading/looking.

So a simple question.
As far as these visual affects are concerned what is the number required for the 'many aperture blade' effect?

7?
10?
etc,
And then how old a shutter would one need to put the lens in to achieve this.

Thanks,

Marc