PDA

View Full Version : Several Soft Focus lenses compared



Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 12:50
I have made time to shoot a control group. I chose to use a Northlight 900 watt HID light with only the supplied lens and UV filter plus a sheet of polarizer. So no milky white diffusion material. There is only a single light on the left and a white bounce card on the right. These fixtures and High Intensity Ceramic Discharge lamps provide a high actinic light source.
The capture device is a Betterlight Super 6K. Betterlight uses no sharpening and I have chosen not to either although in a real world print I would use my standard unsharp masking.

The 3 lenses are a cooked Busch Bis Telar using only the rear element as the front one was literally cooked, broken and discarded [ ending up 90-100 mm ], an Imagon 200mm barrel mount and a Wollaston Meniscus 135mm with Reinhold Schnable's provided Watterhouse stops.

My findings IMHO are that the Imagon needs more variation between no disk and the larger H:5.8-7.7 disk. This is easily accomplished in a shuttered version with an aperture. The Wollaston could use some more intermediate stops. All three have different personalities, however in the hands of a talented photographer all 3 could produce interesting results.

126570126571126572

Tin Can
14-Dec-2014, 13:20
Thanks for the posting. Very informative.

Did you refocus when changing aperture?

Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 13:28
I did refocus with the Imagon, But I did not with the other 2 lenses. I did however move the camera to fill the frame for each of the different focal lengths. I am not so interested in wider or longer but with controlling the glow.
Reinhold has informed me that he will look at making some intermediate Waterhouse stops. I am looking at making a few more disks for the Imagon.

jp
14-Dec-2014, 14:37
Reinhold was kind enough to make me two extra stops in the range of glow I was after, by special request. You could easily make them as well if you're in a hurry. Whatever the lens, do lots of shooting to get practiced with them! This is where practice makes more of a difference than talent.

Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 20:28
Thank you JP,
I think he will make me a few stops too.
I like your images.
Cheers

And I will practice...

mdarnton
14-Dec-2014, 20:32
I don't know about others, but the photos are too small for me to see the kinds of things I want to know about. Maybe that's why there's not a lot of discussion of them?

Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 21:22
Thank you for the input...
I could send them 1x1instead of in strips.

Give me amoment

Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 21:43
Okay i willUpload 1X1
Hopefully in order

Okay not in the right order but larger

These are the Bis Telar

Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 21:49
126624126625126626These Should be the Imagon

Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 21:55
And finally the Wollaston

Adamphotoman
14-Dec-2014, 21:58
The last Wollaston

Mark Sawyer
15-Dec-2014, 00:21
Just as an aside, the astigmatism in the Wollaston is sharp on the 11 to 5 o'clock axis, and at its worst at the 2 to 8 o'clock axis. Funny, with all the astigmatic lenses some of us use, we seldom mention it, or maybe even notice it...

mdarnton
15-Dec-2014, 05:11
Your photos are smaller than 35mm contacts on my screen. I wonder how they are for you.

Mark, your astigmatism comment doesn't make sense, unless you have an improperly ground lens. Explain, please.

Will S
15-Dec-2014, 06:37
My imagon has 3 disks. Does that explain why you are seeing a potential gap?

SergeiR
15-Dec-2014, 06:47
My findings IMHO are that the Imagon needs more variation between no disk and the larger H:5.8-7.7 disk.


Actually they are gradual steps, if you look at f numbers (4.5-5.6 -7.7-9.5) is almost better jump than 4-5.6-8, as it should be, not to mention that if you like radial holes look - you can vary it slightly by eye by partial rotations ;)). One of biggest problems with soft focus lenses is the learning curve on what soft ones are. I personally gave up more than once on getting stuff properly done with SF lenses, just to come back to it year or so later. And then give up again.

SergeiR
15-Dec-2014, 06:49
My imagon has 3 disks. Does that explain why you are seeing a potential gap?
Mine too. Only 250mm Fujinon has 2 , i think. But then they do come in shuttered version with iris.

djdister
15-Dec-2014, 06:51
Okay i willUpload 1X1
Hopefully in order

Okay not in the right order but larger

These are the Bis Telar

Thanks for posting larger images! Really appreciate seeing the comparisons, as well as how the soft focus effect diminishes by stopping down.

Jac@stafford.net
15-Dec-2014, 07:27
Just as an aside, the astigmatism in the Wollaston is sharp on the 11 to 5 o'clock axis, and at its worst at the 2 to 8 o'clock axis. Funny, with all the astigmatic lenses some of us use, we seldom mention it, or maybe even notice it...

Mark, could this be due to the requirement to have stronger contrast in the lighting? The light intensity is dropping in the 2-8 position. Just wondering.

Adamphotoman
15-Dec-2014, 07:37
Will,
My Imagon also has 3 disks.
For this comparison I only used the 1st Imagon disk. I do have 2 more with smaller openings, however, I am only speaking to the difference from using no disk to using the first disk with holes open.
I do realize that using the disks there is a lot of subtle variation - an almost infinite control between holes closed and open.
So without an Iris in a shutter, I would still like to have more control over that first jump in soft Glow to fairly sharp without much glow. I suspect that I will need to make a couple of even wider stops perhaps with a strainer pattern.
It is interesting how the Imagon produces a finger like wispy glow.

mdarnton
15-Dec-2014, 07:47
Ah--sorry I missed the click-through this time-----mmmuch better. Thanks. The Wollaston holds up better than I thought it would. Now I want half-stops for mine, too, to fine tune it.

djdister
15-Dec-2014, 07:54
I think I like the Wollaston the most, of the three lenses compared.

Adamphotoman
15-Dec-2014, 09:39
Arrival of my Wollaston last week started the comparison.
I agree with Dan
Good thing that these are readily available from Reinhold.

Old-N-Feeble
15-Dec-2014, 10:45
RE Imagon discs: I don't like them. I'll only use the shutter's built-in aperture. Those Imagon "strainer" discs completely destroy bokeh, IMHO. I'll never understand why the discs were made that way. Otherwise the Imagon is a beautiful portrait lens.

Mark Sawyer
15-Dec-2014, 11:55
Mark, your astigmatism comment doesn't make sense, unless you have an improperly ground lens. Explain, please.

Astigmatism is one of the seven deadly sins, I mean seven primary aberrations, in lenses. It causes lenses to be slightly sharper on one axis than on the perpendicular axis. The Zeiss Anastigmat/Protar of 1890 was the first anastigmat, so any design that pre-dates it has astigmatism to some degree. I just thought I saw a lot more than is usually noticeable, but Jac@stafford.net could be right...


Mark, could this be due to the requirement to have stronger contrast in the lighting? The light intensity is dropping in the 2-8 position. Just wondering.

That could be too... never try to analyze a lens after a couple of late night martinis! :rolleyes:

mdarnton
15-Dec-2014, 13:06
Astigmatism should be rendered concentrically, not linear in a particular line. That is, both legs of an X won't be simultaneously in focus, and both arms of a + wouldn't either, with the same lens. If the lens is made spherically, there shouldn't be a particular axis for this--it's simply relative, that any two lines perpendicular to each other can't be in focus at the same time.

Adamphotoman
15-Dec-2014, 13:49
I have to say that I am not yet a fan of the Imagon strainer, but I will give myself a chance to learn how to use it.

Mark Sawyer
15-Dec-2014, 13:51
Here's an example of the astigmatism I was referring to. One axis in focus, one not:

mdarnton
15-Dec-2014, 14:07
Now turn that target 45 degrees, so that the angle is between that example, focus on the lines going in one direction and see how the others look. Or for that matter, set up the same target and focus on the other set. No matter what the orientation, one pair should be in focus, the other not, and you should be able to choose which one to focus on.

goamules
15-Dec-2014, 15:13
I can't turn it! I CAN'T turn IT! Aaahhhh..... (too many martinis too)

Adamphotoman
15-Dec-2014, 16:01
I just read some 3 year old posts and I learned something. I can disassemble the Imagon from it's barrel and put it into an old Compur # 3 shutter. Now I have some more options.

Mark Sawyer
15-Dec-2014, 17:27
Now turn that target 45 degrees, so that the angle is between that example, focus on the lines going in one direction and see how the others look. Or for that matter, set up the same target and focus on the other set. No matter what the orientation, one pair should be in focus, the other not, and you should be able to choose which one to focus on.

I can't tell whether we're disagreeing or not. I just saw better resolution in one axis than the other, though it may just be an effect from coma or spherical aberration and the directional lighting.


I just read some 3 year old posts and I learned something. I can disassemble the Imagon from it's barrel and put it into an old Compur # 3 shutter. Now I have some more options.

I really like the Imagons with a conventional iris! Fairly similar to the Kodak Portrait Lenses.

8x10 user
15-Dec-2014, 18:30
Is this a crop from a larger image? If it is from an area away from the center of the image then it might be lateral chromatic aberration... Which would be more noticeable with lines that travel around the center then lines that travel toward into the center. See how it is red on the right and blue on the left no matter which direction the lines or letters are orientated. That is what you get with lateral chromatic aberration where as with longitudinal chromatic aberration the separation of colors is more universal and equally distributed with some colors being in focus and others not (or as much).


Here's an example of the astigmatism I was referring to. One axis in focus, one not:

The betterlight should make some nice BW conversions from all soft focus lenses including ones with chromatic aberrations. Spherical aberration is generally preferred for color (PS945, P&S IV, Hyperion, and Eidoscope). You might see color fringing at full resolution, especially in areas of high contrast. I shot chromes with an imagon once and it showed a lot of color fringing.

mdarnton
15-Dec-2014, 20:26
I can't tell whether we're disagreeing or not. .
I can't either. Honestly, in the overall view, it's not important. Let's just agree that we agree. :-)

Mark Sawyer
16-Dec-2014, 00:19
I can't either. Honestly, in the overall view, it's not important. Let's just agree that we agree. :-)

Well, when you put it like that, it isn't hard not to disagree! :)

Tim Meisburger
16-Dec-2014, 05:06
After reading that, I'm glad its martini (actually gin and tonic) time on this side of the world!

I have a Chinese Pictorial lens I made a couple years ago, following Mark's lens recommendations and shamelessly copying Reinhold's barrel design, and I like it around f/8. On the example above, I tend to lean towards the sharper end of the spectrum for most. Don't know why, but maybe its because the sharpest of these is still softer than my Universal Heliar on full soft. Anyway, interesting examples and discussion. Now, where's the gin...

Adamphotoman
16-Dec-2014, 15:05
126740126741

Tim,
We all need to go to the Bar in the Lounge for cocktails...Do we have a bar there?

I do need to find a permanent Shutter or rather Iris for the Imagon. With no disk the aperture is 44mm across and with the largest disk [holes closed] the opening is 22mm. So I am missing out on several 6-intermediate 1/3 stop selections. I want those so I am looking for an iris solution.

Yes 8X10 user,
B&W conversions from the Super6KHS--also Infared shots are easy too.

Here are 2 conversions from the colour shots. The first is the Imagon Sans Disk. The second is the 5.8-7.7 disk holes closed. See there is just too large a jump in glow from one to the other.

BTW I appreciate that some folks want to start at F:8.

cowanw
16-Dec-2014, 19:01
I think you are right in the aperture being 4.5 (200/44) with no disc.

but if the next value is 5.8 ( 200/5.8=34) it should be more like a 34 mm effective diameter. (which tells you why the lens isn't really measured in fstops.) From 5.8 to 7.7 the change is as small as you are able to turn the holes.

If you are not wanting to use the strainer holes at all then you are absolutely right about getting a shutter, but then you are really using a meniscus lens and not the imagon as such.

your f7.7 measurement of 22mm calculates out to f9, which hints that the usual way of measuring is not the best here.

I think what is confusing is that we are thinking you are going from 4.5 to 5.8 and calling it 2 stops (6x I/3 stops)

And now I am surprised that Bob Salomon hasn't popped in here, already

Reinhold Schable
17-Dec-2014, 16:43
I just made a set of 5 intermediate Waterhouse Stops for Grant's 135mm Wollaston lens.
Now he can continue on his exploration of soft focus image formation at various apertures.
I've also revised the data sheet to include the range of apertures stops available for this lens.
I'm making similar revisions for all of my Wollaston lens data sheets
That may take some time... if anyone wants specifics for any of my other lenses right away, let me know...

This is turning out to be a fun project...

Reinhold

www.re-inventedPhotoEquip.com

Tin Can
17-Dec-2014, 17:26
I am interested in anyone using the 790 mm version, in any way.

Adamphotoman
17-Dec-2014, 18:51
Thank you Reinhold,
I will make some more images when I get the extra Water house stops.
I do appreciate more Glow Control.
Grant

Adamphotoman
17-Dec-2014, 19:31
Bill,
I actually took out the front and rear elements of a 300mm Sionar Circa 1975 from a Compur #3. If I measure that 5.6 opening compared to no disks in the Imagon, then it measures 44mm as well. when compared to the strainer with holes closed that is 22mm or 5-6 1/3 stops on the compur.

All I am really saying is that I do have 5-6 intermediate stops using the compur.

Yes I know it is now a meniscus and not really Imagoned...

Reinhold Schable
19-Dec-2014, 10:20
For those of you with 335mm f:4.6 Wollaston lenses...

I've just revised the data sheet to show five intermediate aperture cards.
This grouping should give you a broad range of soft focus variables...

Reinhold

www.re-inventedPhotoEquip.com

Bob Salomon
19-Dec-2014, 12:48
126740126741

Tim,
We all need to go to the Bar in the Lounge for cocktails...Do we have a bar there?

I do need to find a permanent Shutter or rather Iris for the Imagon. With no disk the aperture is 44mm across and with the largest disk [holes closed] the opening is 22mm. So I am missing out on several 6-intermediate 1/3 stop selections. I want those so I am looking for an iris solution.

Yes 8X10 user,
B&W conversions from the Super6KHS--also Infared shots are easy too.

Here are 2 conversions from the colour shots. The first is the Imagon Sans Disk. The second is the 5.8-7.7 disk holes closed. See there is just too large a jump in glow from one to the other.

BTW I appreciate that some folks want to start at F:8.

You have options other then holes closed and holes open. You can use the small holes partly open as well. Just play and mark what you like best on the disk.

Adamphotoman
20-Dec-2014, 13:03
You have options other then holes closed and holes open. You can use the small holes partly open as well. Just play and mark what you like best on the disk.

If one does want to use the disks then I do understand that there is the option is to rotate the disk.
This allows for all the variations between disk open & disk closed.
With the 5.8-7.7 disk you could achieve many subtle variations. These would be everything in between. Disk slightly open / Disk even more open etc etc etc... These two pics are from the same disk with holes open and with holes closed. I do get that there are as many in between settings as one can manage to set.
126929126930

Adamphotoman
20-Dec-2014, 13:10
Bob i am trying to show is that there is a rather large jump between the glow - without using the tea strainer holes, in a barrel version.
What I can also say is that without an iris or shutter that there is a really big jump between no disk [ wide open aperture ] and the 5.8 setting on the largest disk with holes open.

126933126934

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 12:36
I have installed the Imagon 200 into a Compur #3 shutter with an aperture scale for a 300 Sironar Convertible. as the H disks are not exact F numbers I am calling them Wide Open - ( 1/2/3/4/5) third.
The ISO and line time match -5 thirds to the H5.8-7.7 disk with the sink strainer holes fully open.
Anyway as some of you already know the looks are quite different, but with the shutter I have a few more options. I am warming up to the Classic Imagon look. One good thing is that I am not burning through film. My 6 second fast prescans are good enough for this exercise.

The first 4 are using only the Compur Iris

127073127071

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 12:41
I urge you to try using the aperture within the shutter rather than the "sink strainer" discs. Those outside holes make your images look... "different". I don't like the sink strainer AT ALL and much prefer the variability of the shutter's built-in iris.

I may be misunderstanding your last post though because I see none of that odd sink strainer look.

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 12:41
The next three are also the Compur Iris

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 12:56
And the next are the Sink strainer.

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 13:03
It is hard to see on smaller images but I think that the Compur Iris gives sharper results than the disks with the sink strainer closed. I suspect that is because the Iris is closer to the lens element.

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 13:06
It is hard to see on smaller images but I think that the Compur Iris gives sharper results than the disks with the sink strainer closed. I suspect that is because the Iris is closer to the lens element.

No... it's just the multiple iris holes. IMHO, it's a VERY poor design... not the glass... just the multiple holes. It makes no sense what-so-ever. I LOVE Imagon glass just as I LOVE the glass of the Portrait Ektar. However those multiple iris holes of the Imagon... again IMO... DESTROY the beauty of the glass and are just plain stupid.

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 13:21
I understand that you are not a fan of the Sink Strainer look.

Here is a comparison with the smallest disk with multiple holes all closed and the Compur

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 13:27
^^^ Right... and those are both beautiful images. The open sink strainer look will completely destroy that soft subtle beauty. I'll never understand why the designer of the Imagon and Rodenstock opted for the sink strainer look. This will forever baffle me. The sink strainer discs (opened) feel like broken glass in my eyes.

Bob Salomon
23-Dec-2014, 14:09
It is hard to see on smaller images but I think that the Compur Iris gives sharper results than the disks with the sink strainer closed. I suspect that is because the Iris is closer to the lens element.

No, the outer holes control how much of the peripheral rays reach the image plane, more of them the softer the image, less of them the sharper the image. Since the halation is caused by the outer portions of the lens and, of course, the nature of the light, when you use the aperture in the lens you mask off those outer portions of the lens and lose that Imagon effect.

What Old-N-Feeble is complainging about you have controlled. Those strainer holes in spectral highlights only occur in the spectral highlights. Although a portrait artist might want to retouch them out of the catchlight in the eyes.

Lots of Master Photographers/Craftsmen (those are PPof A degrees for those who don't know) like Zucker, Cricchio, Horvath, made a ton of money with the Imagon and what it can do. And a world of clients happily paid them for that effect.

But it all comes down to each his own. If you like it and Old-N-Feeble doesn't, so what? It's your work, not his. Make what you like.

And it can't be too regional an effect, Cricchio's studio was in San Angelo, Texas!

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 16:00
Bob, I respect your knowledge. However, when it comes to Imagon lenses and the use of strainer discs I completely disagree. Those multiple holes completely DESTROY specular highlights AND the beautiful GLOW the optical design is known for. I say... THROW AWAY those strainer discs and use the nicely round aperture in the old shutters. If "strainer discs" were so great then why didn't Kodak adopt them for their Portrait Ektar?

Bob Salomon
23-Dec-2014, 16:24
Bob, I respect your knowledge. However, when it comes to Imagon lenses and the use of strainer discs I completely disagree. Those multiple holes completely DESTROY specular highlights AND the beautiful GLOW the optical design is known for. I say... THROW AWAY those strainer discs and use the nicely round aperture in the old shutters. If "strainer discs" were so great then why didn't Kodak adopt them for their Portrait Ektar?

Patents

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 16:31
^^^ So "patents" have driven use of these wonderful lenses into use of crappy strainer discs (destroying image beauty) such that we who use such lenses are fooled into believing those "patented discs" actually have merit?

Mark Sawyer
23-Dec-2014, 18:26
The Imagon is a lovely lens with either the h-discs or conventional round apertures. Either way is the photographer's choice; are we really complaining about having too many good options? :rolleyes:

A quick reminder that other lenses had similar methods for utilizing the inner and outer areas of the lens, such as these enlarging stops fro the Verito:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/veritoa.jpg (http://s55.photobucket.com/user/Owen21k/media/veritoa.jpg.html)

Personally, I'd like a sort of reverse center filter so the specular highlights don't echo the shape of an odd aperture.

jp
23-Dec-2014, 18:27
I don't buy it. Imagons are ancient compared to the Kodak and seems the patent would likely be expired. It's probably always been a modest market and Kodak wanted something a little different (yet familiar)

One thing the strainer does is increase DOF and shutter speed while still allowing some softness. I don't like the form of the glow on those; it looks sort of sharp + glowy and I prefer a smoother transition/blend. Maybe there is additional subtlety that could be employed as with learning other soft lenses. Entirely personal preference. In a studio one could control lighting contrast to manage this.

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 19:05
I don't buy it. Imagons are ancient compared to the Kodak and seems the patent would likely be expired. It's probably always been a modest market and Kodak wanted something a little different (yet familiar)

One thing the strainer does is increase DOF and shutter speed while still allowing some softness. I don't like the form of the glow on those; it looks sort of sharp + glowy and I prefer a smoother transition/blend. Maybe there is additional subtlety that could be employed as with learning other soft lenses. Entirely personal preference. In a studio one could control lighting contrast to manage this.

Right!!

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 19:07
The Imagon is a lovely lens with either the h-discs or conventional round apertures. Either way is the photographer's choice; are we really complaining about having too many good options? :rolleyes:

A quick reminder that other lenses had similar methods for utilizing the inner and outer areas of the lens, such as these enlarging stops fro the Verito:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/veritoa.jpg (http://s55.photobucket.com/user/Owen21k/media/veritoa.jpg.html)

Personally, I'd like a sort of reverse center filter so the specular highlights don't echo the shape of an odd aperture.

Right... but a very round aperture is the correct approach... along with variable controllable spherical aberrational distortion.

Mark Sawyer
23-Dec-2014, 19:28
Right... but a very round aperture is the correct approach... along with variable controllable spherical aberrational distortion.

...presuming there is only one possible "correct" approach. :rolleyes:

If you want "variable controllable spherical aberrational", I'd recommend something like an uncorked Velostigmat Series II; you can control the spherical aberration independently of the aperture. (Another option would be the Softar filters, which have a sort-of spherical aberrations from the small "lenslets" cast into the filter. They aren't affected by the aperture.)

Old-N-Feeble
23-Dec-2014, 19:44
...presuming there is only one possible "correct" approach. :rolleyes:

If you want "variable controllable spherical aberrational", I'd recommend something like an uncorked Velostigmat Series II; you can control the spherical aberration independently of the aperture. (Another option would be the Softar filters, which have a sort-of spherical aberrations from the small "lenslets" cast into the filter. They aren't affected by the aperture.)

Or... something like an Imagon or Portrait Ektar... WITHOUT the Imagon "strainer" disc.

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 21:03
I still think that I need to explore the disks a bit more. I am glad that I have the non disk option. I found a Compur shutter from a forum member and it should be on its way.
I opted for the rounder Iris of the Compur instead of the 5 blade Copal.

I still think practice and experience will rule what I can and cannot do with those disks. Sorry Old-N-Feeble. I will do both as it will not cost anything but time.

Adamphotoman
23-Dec-2014, 21:04
As someone mentioned, if you do not use the disks then you have a meniscus lens. Might as well use the Wollaston which I will use once the waterhouse stops show up.

goamules
24-Dec-2014, 05:51
I think the lens designers in the 1920s and 1930s had a lot of insight (no pun) into how they could control the soft look (with underlying sharpness was what all quality soft focus lenses wanted - not just a fuzzy blob). They were optical engineers, who talked about it with photographers we revere today. Heck, some of them WERE photographers we revere today. Yes, photography is subjective. You can do whatever you like. You can shoot an old magnifying glass in a piece of sewer pipe. Many do. But far be it for me to say the Verito and Imagon strainer designs were "stupid" and "destroy the beauty." That's like saying a modern photographer's lens "destroys the beauty" of the shot, because it's not the maker you like. Veritos and Imagons, with and without the strainers, were used for decades by professional portrait photographers. Decades, as in sometimes an entire generation. I bought a Kodak 305 and could have bought a much older Imagon from a closed studio in South Carolina that had been around since the 1800s. The son of the second owner gave me a tour and showed me the equipment, as well as stacks of extra prints that were never picked up by customers. A lot were soft. And the Imagon had the strainer in it.

goamules
24-Dec-2014, 05:54
As someone mentioned, if you do not use the disks then you have a meniscus lens. Might as well use the Wollaston which I will use once the waterhouse stops show up.

I don't believe the guy "making" the "Wollastons" is following the original curves of the design, which was concave-convex, nor making the glass. I believe he's getting any available meniscus glass (plano convex glass is commonly used in industry and in magnifying glasses, etc.) and mounting them in whatever PVC pipe fits. It's not like there is a lot of "design" going on there.

Most meniscus soft focus portrait lenses are Achromatic doublets (though we call them meniscus, they really are two pieces of glass), or Semi-Achromat in the case of Pinkham and Smiths and some others. Kodak 305/405, B&L Portrait Plastigmat, certainly all the Cookes from the earliest days....all are Achromats. A single piece of glass is not. It get's it's softness from both spherical and chromatic aberrations. So if you shoot color, you will get serious color fringing. In the classic era, they only shot black and white, and on different film types than today.

Anyway, the point is if you like the results, you are successful!

Old-N-Feeble
24-Dec-2014, 06:31
I intended no insult when I stated that strainer discs destroy the soft focus effect. It's just my opinion. I'm sorry if anyone was offended.

Mark Sawyer
24-Dec-2014, 14:04
I don't think anyone was offended, we're just talking about which effect we prefer. There are a lot of differences available in different soft lenses, or really, even from the same lens used at different settings or in different light. Vive la difference!!! :)

Adamphotoman
24-Dec-2014, 14:22
I have been looking at some of the shots made by some of the photographers that Bob mentioned. Imagon and strainer but done with style / and although there is evidence of the strainer effect , it doesn't get in the way of enjoying the image. I just think I need to learn how to use it better.

Adamphotoman
25-Dec-2014, 20:32
Please Remove this from the forum.
I did not use LF to compare.

Old-N-Feeble
26-Dec-2014, 07:32
^^^ Perhaps not but this thread is still useful, IMHO.

Adamphotoman
27-Dec-2014, 20:56
Well I had my rant.
Yes useful.
Ilike the fact that I can test without consumables.

Adamphotoman
30-Dec-2014, 13:21
For those that like using the iris in a shutter with the Imagon
Would you prefer the more rounded 10 bladed aperture of the Compur, the less rounded 7 bladed aperture with flatter sides of the Copal, or the even less round flatter almost indented [ S curve ] 7 bladed Sinar DB aperture?

Mark Sawyer
30-Dec-2014, 13:36
For the 300mm or 360mm Imagons, I prefer the Compur to the Copal, not for the aperture shape, but because the Compur opens to a wider full aperture. The smaller Copal 3 chokes it down significantly. And personally, I don't think the aperture shape affects the image much, though some will argue that.

Old-N-Feeble
30-Dec-2014, 13:56
For those that like using the iris in a shutter with the Imagon
Would you prefer the more rounded 10 bladed aperture of the Compur, the less rounded 7 bladed aperture with flatter sides of the Copal, or the even less round flatter almost indented [ S curve ] 7 bladed Sinar DB aperture?

The rounder and more uniform the aperture the better, IMO, and this is true all all lenses in many (not most) situations.

Adamphotoman
30-Dec-2014, 14:12
Which Shutter is your Imagon mounted in?

Old-N-Feeble
30-Dec-2014, 14:19
Which Shutter is your Imagon mounted in?

My Imagon lenses? The 200mm is in an old Compound, 300mm in a Copal #3 with ten blades (I wish I had the Compound version), and the 120mm is in barrel and helical focus mount that I'm trying to remove the cells and mount in an old Compur #1 with many blades.

Tin Can
30-Dec-2014, 14:20
I only use my 360 in a Packard shutter that exceeds the aperture.

Adamphotoman
30-Dec-2014, 15:07
I did not realize that Copal Shutters had more than 7 blades. Yours must be an older version.
I just purchased a Compur #3 with a Symar 240 but the threads are the wrong size in the front to accept the front half of the Imagon.

Adamphotoman
30-Dec-2014, 16:08
I think that the rounder aperture would be better with soft focus and out of focus highlights. If one were to be using a sharp lens for copying artwork it should not affect the image as much.

Old-N-Feeble
30-Dec-2014, 17:02
I did not realize that Copal Shutters had more than 7 blades. Yours must be an older version.
I just purchased a Compur #3 with a Symar 240 but the threads are the wrong size in the front to accept the front half of the Imagon.

I don't know about others but mine does have ten blades. The iris isn't "very" round but it's rounder than most newer shutters. Mine is a silver ring version.

Your Imagon is made for either a Compound or Copal 3S.

Adamphotoman
11-Jan-2015, 15:32
The 200 mm H5.8 is sitting nicely in an older Compur #3 which used to house a Convertible 300mm Sironar. I moved the 300 Convertible Sironar into a Sinar DB board [Copal style with manual red button to change apertures]. I don't need the shutter just the F stops. As I use the 300mm lens primarily for copy, I do not think the less round aperture will make a huge difference.

The 135 mm Wollaston Meniscus lens fron Reinhold now is equipped with 11 cardboard Waterhouse stops, and so the jumps from one to the next are less pronounced.

There are 12 partial or full stops. I will add 4 to a post. Hopefully they remain in order.

Adamphotoman
11-Jan-2015, 15:33
Next 4

Adamphotoman
11-Jan-2015, 15:39
Last 4

Note: I did not refocus between shots. As I shot each I first made a preview with a small wallet sized Color checker. You may notice that some of the flowers have moved, This is because they were supporting the Color checker. The background is very marked and it is interesting which f stops begin to show the marks.

Old-N-Feeble
11-Jan-2015, 15:44
Those are nicely gentle progressive steps.