Recommendation for Soft Focus lenses for 4x5

[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 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.in...s/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...

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!