PDA

View Full Version : Stop this soft focus crap!!



cyberjunkie
17-Sep-2014, 05:15
Hi!
Because of a tragic loss, lately i'm not staying at home for long. Hence no large format photography, no B&W contact prints, no experiments with X-ray film.
I spend most of my time abroad, and i've restarted doing travel photography with my Pentax DSLR bodies, mostly with modern zooms (heaven forbid!), and with a few nice vintage primes (employed on a rotation basis, so i can at least try all my new purchases :) ).
I still buy a few collector's items every now and then, with the secret hope that sooner or later i will have time to actually try them on film.
When i have nothing better to do i browse Ebay in search of some nice find.
Very often, more often than before, i find lenses sold at hefty prices, and mislabeled as "portrait".
I don't think that it's coming from simple ignorance on the seller's side, not most of the times at least...
Have a look at this pearl:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/7-F-4-5-Cooke-Series-II-Portrait-lens-brass-/201152269380?

A long blurb on soft-focus lenses, a high price (IMHO)... but what you get is a very common focal, a very common model (albeit from an extremely good lensmaker).
The word "portrait" comes from nowhere. No such engraving on the lens, no adjustable element, nothing.
I contacted the seller, but i'm almost sure i won't get any reply.
Buyers beware!
Better buy the Vademecum before committing to the purchase of a lens which has just the capability to take portraits of human beings. No more no less than all the other glasses which can project a properly focused image on the ground glass plane! :)

What do you think?
Am i too picky, too naive, too concerned?

cheers

Paolo

jp
17-Sep-2014, 05:37
Whenever I see pages and pages of neatly formatted text on an ebay item, I assume it's lifted from somewhere and not created for the auction. Spelling errors and poor formatting more often mean authentic seller-written text and maybe a reasonable deal.

BrianShaw
17-Sep-2014, 06:18
Have you verified your claims? It seems that a quick search on Cooke Series II turns up numerus mentions of it being a portrait lens... with or without the sorft focus feature.

Example:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?55799-cooke-series-II-anastigmat&p=526878&viewfull=1#post526878

It might not be that you are picky, too naive, or too concerned; you may just be incorrect. :o

mdarnton
17-Sep-2014, 06:52
I worked in a studio that used an Ilex Paragon (Commercial Ektar type) as a portrait lens, as I'm sure many similar studios of the 50s and 60s did. As with the Cooke mentioned, the manufacturer didn't call it a portrait lens, either. Now I'm using a similar one for my portraits. Therefore, it is a portrait lens. If I ever sell it, I will certainly be using the word "portrait" and tacking $600 on to the price!

I agree with Cyberjunkie--"portrait" does seem to the the sucker word of the moment.

adding: I just checked the Ilex catalog. The first thing they specify this lens for is portraiture. Now I even have the maker's word for my future price!

Dan Dozer
17-Sep-2014, 07:09
I'm with Paolo on this one. He has a paragraph that he obviously copied from somewhere that describes the Series II as a sharp focus portrait lens, then puts in a line to protect himself saying it is not the soft focus version, then has two pages of text touting soft focus lenses. Clearly he is hoping that people get caught up in the soft focus frenzy and only read the large text. Why else would he put in all that wording about soft focus? It has nothing to do with this lens. I hope that everyone who is interested in this lens (which should sell for less than $100) sees through all this and doesn't get some thing they aren't expecting.

Tracy Storer
17-Sep-2014, 08:30
I'm with Paolo on this one. He has a paragraph that he obviously copied from somewhere that describes the Series II as a sharp focus portrait lens, then puts in a line to protect himself saying it is not the soft focus version, then has two pages of text touting soft focus lenses. Clearly he is hoping that people get caught up in the soft focus frenzy and only read the large text. Why else would he put in all that wording about soft focus? It has nothing to do with this lens. I hope that everyone who is interested in this lens (which should sell for less than $100) sees through all this and doesn't get some thing they aren't expecting.

The seller SF hype is annoying, I wonder if he added the "this is not the soft focus version" after the fact. As to price? If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Cookes are highly sought lenses in any configuration, they are a well known name, and this one is very pretty. An Ilex Paragon is a tessar type, but will sell for less than a Zeiss Tessar. Pedigree makes a big difference to some buyers, he's counting on that. I think to say it should sell for "less than $100" is silly, unless you have one you're letting go for that in which case, I've got a crisp Franklin for you. : )

BrianShaw
17-Sep-2014, 08:32
... If you don't like the price, don't buy it. ...

Amen. Same if you don't like/trust the description!

jcc
17-Sep-2014, 08:48
Whenever I see pages and pages of neatly formatted text on an ebay item, I assume it's lifted from somewhere and not created for the auction. Spelling errors and poor formatting more often mean authentic seller-written text and maybe a reasonable deal.

You're saying if it's written by an idiot, it may be a reasonable deal?

Louis Pacilla
17-Sep-2014, 09:45
I hope that everyone who is interested in this lens (which should sell for less than $100) sees through all this and doesn't get some thing they aren't expecting.

I'll buy all the 7-8" Cooke Series II lenses you have to sell for under a $100 each. Bring them on. I think he is "trying" to sell for twice it's value. So $300-$350 ish seems a good asking price but 80-90-100 bucks each from you & I'll take em ALL!

Funny Tracey I had pulled my post back a little while ago but after seeing your post I'm going to make mine. Very much the same as yours.

mdarnton
17-Sep-2014, 10:07
Well, if the price is right, it will sell, right? That's the only real test of price.

DrTang
17-Sep-2014, 10:26
Just who the heck is buying all these brass lenses anyway?

certainly there is are still people out there using or wanting to use old glass in brass lenscases.. but shesh

the amount of lenses listed per day.. and sold per day - there cannot be that many users out there

seriously.. or kodak would be building new film plants instead of shuttering everything


I bet there are a lot of speculators and collectors out there and 90 percent of these lenses..portrait or not..will not end up on the business end of a working camera

Tin Can
17-Sep-2014, 10:42
Anything is worth what a buyer will pay.

I may have overpaid for a lens or 2, but if I average in my 'lenses for a steal' I know I am ahead of the game.

In any hobby, collection or bizness there will be some items obtained at higher than expected cost, but if one wants or needs it, and that's the same thing, price may be a secondary condition.

I'll give you $200 each for all those stupid Cooke lenses...

goamules
17-Sep-2014, 11:38
I see a lot of brass lenses being offered, but few actually selling. I just confirmed that by going to completed "brass lens" in ebay. 3/4 of them didn't sell. The ones that do are top quality. Just scrolling the page, I saw some amazingly low prices. A Dallmeyer 5D for $500 something, a Jamin Cone for $510, Dallmeyer small rapid rectilinear for $58! Small early Dallmeyer petzval for $455. Several other ho-hum lenses for under $300. I'd say the prices are way down from the peak of 3-4 years ago. You remember that time, when blowhards would come on the forum every day selling brass saying "YOU BETTER BUY NOW! They're getting MORE EXPENSIVE Every MONTH! Hurry!" and such. Those sellers are long gone, and I told them at the peak, nothing lasts forever.

However, key quality lenses will still go for a lot of money. A good condition, quality lens will always sell for a good price. For example, Wollensak Vitax's are doing just fine, pretty high from where they were a couple years ago. Cookes are very high.

richardman
17-Sep-2014, 11:45
The exact same model went for $240 a few weeks ago - I know before I was chasing it.

This is actually a soft focus portrait lens. This for example, is a sample from MY copy that I bought off "8x10 User" on this forum.

http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20140818-Scanned-444-Edit.jpg

Tin Can
17-Sep-2014, 11:59
I agree with Garrett that better condition sells better, I am amazed anyone buys the ones that have really bad condition described in detail.

I can only see the SF market dwindling, as we often see here users selling off their LF and moving to vaporware digital. That's not digital hatred, but a known condition of all things digital. Rapid change.

Personally, I am having difficulty getting any model to understand SF, as they are now indoctrinated into 'tactless sharpness'. (sort of a pun) And they only view images on tiny phones for a blink of one pretty eye.

Mark Sawyer
17-Sep-2014, 14:36
It's mostly a matter of terminology; there have been several interpretations of what a "portrait lens" is. Early in photography's history, it was a lens fast enough to have a reasonably short exposure time for the sitter to hold still. As newer emulsions reduced the exposure time so that wasn't a factor, a "portrait lens" was one with a usually-but-not-always slight amount of softness to make the sitter more attractive (according to the photography styles of the time), and to reduce retouching. Now that styles have changed and retouching is done digitally, pretty much any lens of an appropriate focal length is a "portrait lens".

In the case of this particular lens, it doesn't help that Cooke had two different lines of Series II lenses. One line was the portraits (the Portric, Portrellic, and Portronic), the other was the Aviars. Only some of the Aviars had the Aviar name engraved, and none of the Portrics, Portrellics, or Portronics were so engraved.

But yeah, "portrait lens" has become a pretty meaningless phrase in most circles...

jcc
17-Sep-2014, 21:56
Anything is worth what a buyer will pay.

I may have overpaid for a lens or 2, but if I average in my 'lenses for a steal' I know I am ahead of the game.

In any hobby, collection or bizness there will be some items obtained at higher than expected cost, but if one wants or needs it, and that's the same thing, price may be a secondary condition.

I'll give you $200 each for all those stupid Cooke lenses...

I have a 12" Cooke with a good shutter. You want it? :D

Tin Can
18-Sep-2014, 00:52
Call my bluff, eh?

I just put all my lens cash into something big.

So no cash for short stuff.

Thanks anyway!


I have a 12" Cooke with a good shutter. You want it? :D

SergeiR
22-Sep-2014, 09:22
I have a 12" Cooke with a good shutter. You want it? :D

do tell ;)

Jim Galli
22-Sep-2014, 09:43
Most seasoned buyers have received and paid for the hard knocks education. We expect and ignore the meaningless hyperbole. Hey, it's EBA-Y. I'm guilty of descriptive ad copy with a bit of poetic license myself, so can't get too holy on this subject. But I never lie about what something is or isn't. Better to overstate the defects and have the buyer open the box and say, this is better than expected.

When my ebay favorite searches comes in the morning I've switched how I look through the triage. I used to look for lenses that might interest me. Now I can just scan all the prices and dismiss about 97% of the stuff listed by ignorant dreamers.

Matsushime
22-Sep-2014, 10:00
Whenever I see pages and pages of neatly formatted text on an ebay item, I assume it's lifted from somewhere and not created for the auction. Spelling errors and poor formatting more often mean authentic seller-written text and maybe a reasonable deal.

Often businesses will create one good template and then copy/paste and make minor edits for the item offered. It looks professional, it's fast, and hopefully describing the item more clear and complete!


Well, if the price is right, it will sell, right? That's the only real test of price.

Unless the buyer is naive enough to buy it. In that case it would be an anomaly of the test pricing.

I only worry about this because people like me don't know much about the price of gear. I suppose it's another warning to do your research first!

Jim Galli
22-Sep-2014, 10:51
Went and looked at the sale in question.

Wow! That really is a croc of poo. I'd be embarrassed to have posted pages of data about soft focus on a sharp anastigmat sale. That's a $225 lens all day long.

Petzval Paul
26-Sep-2014, 10:24
I'm not really going to bother looking at the stupid ad....seen enough of them. But, what needs to be pointed out, is that a portrait lens is pretty much always a short telephoto. Whether it's soft or sharp isn't such an issue as the focal length. Frankly, I think that a 7" lens is not really a good candidate for a portrait lens on 4"x5." According to the classic formula - length & height - 9" is a classic formula for 4x5, maybe even a bit more if using a Petzval. Nowadays, people use whatever covers, but that's not the way it went back in the day. Check out Abel's portrait lighting book: especially with Petzvals and Struss's, rather long FL's were the norm for portraits. On that auction website it seems that any 12" lens is a "rare 8x10 portrait petzval soft focus ULF lens that SWIRLS!"

Mark Sawyer
26-Sep-2014, 13:16
...But, what needs to be pointed out, is that a portrait lens is pretty much always a short telephoto. Whether it's soft or sharp isn't such an issue as the focal length. Frankly, I think that a 7" lens is not really a good candidate for a portrait lens on 4"x5." According to the classic formula - length & height - 9" is a classic formula for 4x5, maybe even a bit more if using a Petzval...

I can't think of any telephoto portrait lenses. :confused:

Different qualifications for being designated a "portrait" lenses have been (at different times) speed, softness, and focal length. I'd always heard the ideal focal length was 50% longer than the plate diagonal, but I've also seen lens manufacturers recommend "the longest focal length your studio will accommodate". Cooke noted in its catalogs that their 12.5, 12.75, and 13 inch lenses would cover 8x10 for studio portraiture, at least suggesting shorter focal lengths might be appropriate. (Personally, I'm good with the plate diagonal or longer...)

Jim Galli
26-Sep-2014, 13:35
A portrait lens is the one that was on the camera on those rare occasions when you overcome your shyness and actually get someone to step in front of the camera.

Oh, and btw length is relative. A 7" lens can be very nice on a 4X5 camera with a splitter that makes 2 half sheet 4X5 portraits.

Did anyone notice the Graflex that just finished on E=bay with a Cooke almost identical to the one we're fussing about - for $76 bucks. Yep, I bought it.

Hugo Zhang
26-Sep-2014, 15:29
Jim,

That is a very sweet deal and I had it on my watch list. I have too many Graflex cameras already. I love my 7 inch Cooke lens with the Graflex. Had lots of fun with them in Tibet.

ghostcount
26-Sep-2014, 15:40
...
That's a $225 lens all day long.


...
Did anyone notice the Graflex that just finished on E=bay with a Cooke almost identical to the one we're fussing about - for $76 bucks. Yep, I bought it.

Congrats! :cool:

So next week we'll see it posted for sale for $225? ;)

Dan Dozer
26-Sep-2014, 17:19
Sorry, I guess that I undervalued my old Cooke lenses (2 series III's, one series IIIB, and a series VIIb). Guess I'll have to put all four up for sale in the classifieds. I don't think I'll ever use any of them. Note that I paid less than $75 a piece for them a number of years ago. May be I can sell them all and get enough money for the one in question in this thread!

Are there people out there who like the Cooke's so much that they would want all 4 of them?

(Sorry if I'm jacking this thread - not my intent)

Hugo Zhang
26-Sep-2014, 21:07
Dan,

If you have any series II, not III, I will be interested, especially if they are 14" and longer. I got a IIa 10 1/2 inch for $900 in superb conditions last week and I thought it was a good deal. I would like to see pictures of your Cooke lenses.

jnantz
27-Sep-2014, 07:46
A portrait lens is the one that was on the camera on those rare occasions when you overcome your shyness and actually get someone to step in front of the camera.

that is what i was thinking jim ..
pretty much any lens can be called "a portrait lens" ...
all you have to do is take a portrait with it ...

"portrait lens", "fine art", "fine art photography", " this glass is very special", "this was used to make so and so's prints" &c
its all marketing, hype, bs selling points ...

i have a camera that i use all the time, a portrait camera ( delmar 4x5 box camera ) sold to me by frank zappa's cousin ..
and when i sell it i am going to have THAT on my ebay description, and that "it has a fine meniscus soft focus portrait lens".

Dan Dozer
28-Sep-2014, 17:27
Hi Hugo,

Sorry - no Series II lenses. The Cooke lenses I have are not the normal "Hugo Lens Museum" type of lenses, but here they are:

#1 is 12 1/2" Series IIIB Aviar Anastigmat. Looks a little ragged on the outside of the barrel, but the glass is OK.

#2 is a 8 1/2" Series III Triplet Design mounted in a Volute Shutter. This came mounted to an original Kodak lens board that I got with my Kodak 2D 8 x 10 camera and I think it might have been original to the camera. Shutter needs cleaning - it sticks.

#3 is a 8 1/2" Series IIIB Aviar X5 copying lens. It is coated and looks in pretty good shape. I originally bought it intending to try some macro work, but have never tried it out.

#4 is a strange little 6" Series VIIB Primoplane wide angle. It's a really small lens. It actually does cover 8 x 10, but it is somewhat fuzzy on the corners.

Dan

Louis Pacilla
29-Sep-2014, 06:14
#4 is a strange little 6" Series VIIB Primoplane wide angle. It's a really small lens. It actually does cover 8 x 10, but it is somewhat fuzzy on the corners.

Dan

Hey Dan
Your Primoplane is a Series VII"a" Not a VII"b". The Series VII"b" was the newer wide angle formula by T.T.&H called the "Anglic" and the wide angle coverage was improved from around 80-85 degrees to 90-100 degrees . The 6" Primoplane VIIa was to cover whole plate and the 6 1/4 "Anglic VIIb was to cover 8x10.

Dan Dozer
29-Sep-2014, 07:27
Hi Louis,

I went back to check out the Cooke and you are indeed correct, it is a Series VII A. It does actually stretch out to cover 8 x 10 but no room for movement at this size.

Dan