On Portrait Lenses

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm in a small local photo-history club (The Western Photographic Historical Society), and had to write a little something for the newsletter, so I went with "Portrait Lenses". I just doodled it out with a minor amount of research as I went along, but I thought I'd post it here for and constructive criticism (or well-deserved insults!) before submitting it. I'm sure I've made a few mistakes or overlooked something obvious, so do your worst! :)

On Portrait Lenses

(Note: after further editing, the article got too long for a single post, so it's in two parts on page three.)

[Peter De Smidt]

Well done!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Mark, I think it is a very nice read. Not being an expert, although I love my small assortment of soft focus lenses I think you gave a good explanation. Maybe add a little more in the modern section...... but 100-150 year old stuff is way more interesting. Thanks for the article.

[Leszek Vogt]

I wasn't really looking for a typo, but did find one towards the end of the paragraph that starts with "One odd piece...."

Somehow I'd try to infuse "Dior" stocking or some other aids as being used with older and newer lenses. That's up to you.
Nice overview, Mark.

Les

[Mark Sawyer]

I wasn't really looking for a typo, but did find one towards the end of the paragraph that starts with "One odd piece...."

Somehow I'd try to infuse "Dior" stocking or some other aids as being used with older and newer lenses. That's up to you.
Nice overview, Mark.

Les

Thanks, Les! I fixed it. Hard to catch all the little things, especially when they can sneak by the spell check...

I'm still debating a paragraph on filters/stockings/Vaseline-on-the-lens...

[Steven Tribe]

Yes, very good overview. I think the "skin repair" section about dallmeyer's patent is very important - not just for females. Perhaps also saving retouching work?

Perhaps also something about Heliars with the renowned "glow" - but not the story about the Japanese court!

Resolution of the "first two series of Euryscopes" was new to me. I assume you mean series II and III? Series I Euryscope was the rehash of their first Petzval, in small sizes, and very fast (F2.3).

[Steve Goldstein]

Great article as far as the historical part goes, but the modern section is so brief that it seems like the article ends due to exhaustion. There are other (relatively) modern soft-focus lenses - I'm thinking of Rodenstock's Imagon, Fuji's soft-focus lenses, the Soft Focus Congo, and others I probably don't know about.

Maybe this should ultimately reside in the permanent "articles" section.

[Pere Casals]

Great article, I learned a lot !!! It also explains a lot of things in a short text, so it is very well condensed.

I'd like to comment next...





I don't understant this:

"This caused the focus from a wide-open lens to spread over a zone, rather than on a flat plane. Dallmeyer's aim was to increase the depth of field, which he did. But the spherical aberration also created what Dallmeyer termed a "soft focus", with a sharp core image overlaid with a softer image focused just off the focal plane."

Today we understand DOF as a direct calculation from aperture and focal length, so what I understand it was a try to change that... Still I don't understand it well, perhaps it should be clarified.





Also there are some 3 points I consider that can be interesting:


One is the Universal Heliar as a landmark, because it's technical prominence at the time, also Voigtländer activity can be traced since before 1800 (Camera obscura lenses) and one the first photographic lens maker (if not the first ) after 1840.

"The Voigtländer objectives were revolutionary because they were the first mathematically calculated precision objectives in the history of photography, developed by the German-Hungarian mathematics professor Josef Maximilian Petzval, with technical advice provided by Peter Voigtländer"

So Voigtländer created a photographic sharpness concept, but in the 1900 they developed the "Universal" variant to adjust that.

The Universal Heliar still it's unique today, because adjusted coma IMHO goes to the center of the image, so softening the face while rendering a sharp head silhouette (this is what I concluded, I can be mistaken).



The second one is Nikon DC 105 and 135. While razor sharp glasses they have a dedicated ring to control bokeh nature, an important concept for portraits, this shows that also small format had very elaborated choices for that, a bit hidden from public attention. Released in 1990 and still manufactured, today, 27 years later.



Third point is using other lenses for portrait, beyond portrait glass there are also portrait photographers that can exploit lens features fir that. Karsh used a 14" Commercial, and a lot of people used army surplus (USAF still was an army branch) 178 AeroEktars, this is reusing WWII bomber camera optics to create a powerful aesthetic subculture, with what it can be considered (some would say, in Japan:) ) a really weird bokeh, and that has links with the ancient Ptezvals: https://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/9127232097/in/faves-125592977@N05/

[xkaes]

Here is a great article from Petersen's Photography (1979) by David Brooks about the various ways to get soft-focus results, including portraits -- with gear of that time. It has examples for 35mm, medium format and large format:

www.subclub.org/fujinon/softfocuscompressed.pdf (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/softfocuscompressed.pdf)

[Steven Tribe]

................One is the Universal Heliar as a landmark, because it's technical prominence at the time, also Voigtländer activity can be traced since before 1800 (Camera obscura lenses) and one the first photographic lens maker (if not the first ) after 1840.

"The Voigtländer objectives were revolutionary because they were the first mathematically calculated precision objectives in the history of photography, developed by the German-Hungarian mathematics professor Josef Maximilian Petzval, with technical advice provided by Peter Voigtländer"

So Voigtländer created a photographic sharpness concept, but in the 1900 they developed the "Universal" variant to adjust that.

The Universal Heliar still it's unique today, because adjusted coma IMHO goes to the center of the image, so softening the face while rendering a sharp head silhouette (this is what I concluded, I can be wrong................


I don't like this one bit!

Voigtlander and Petzval had a commercial agreement - not a joint technical development - and which went quickly sour!
Petzval and his helpers did achieve a fast and sharp lens - but they failed to match the visual and chemical focus.
Whilst the Universal is great, this is basically the same design as the Cooke triplet soft lenses which predate it.

[Pere Casals]

I don't like this one bit!

Voigtlander and Petzval had a commercial agreement - not a joint technical development - and which went quickly sour!
Petzval and his helpers did achieve a fast and sharp lens - but they failed to match the visual and chemical focus.
Whilst the Universal is great, this is basically the same design as the Cooke triplet soft lenses which predate it.

Hello Steven,

About Voightländer I was qouting Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voigtl%C3%A4nder , section "Photography optics and cameras".


The (1926) Universal Heliar is the exact same lens than the plain (1902) Heliar that is a sharp lens, not a soft focus lens, of course. Then the Universal Heliar has an additional ring that displaces the inner element to add an adjustable amount of spheric aberration. So the Universal Heliar is at the same time a general purpose lens, and an amazing Portrait lens.


True, the Heliar design is a modification of the Cooke Triplet, with two additional elements and a symmetrical layout, thus replacing front and rear elements by cemented doublets.

"In 1900, Carl August Hans Harting filed a patent for what would be the first version of the now famous, Heliar lens.", while Cooke triplet was patented in 1893.


Still I'd like to consider the Universal Heliar a great Landmark for (1920 era) Portrait lenses as softness could be continously adjusted from top sharpness to great softness, with a very particular footprint, that still today is very valued. The other different Landmark I know of the 1920s was the Anachromat Kühn (designed by Franz Staeble), that later became the Rodenstock (Tiefenbildner-) Imagon, a different approach, based in "sink strainers", that wanted to create "romantic softness without sugariness", Kühn said... Two different concepts and footprints, that IMHO influenced a lot.



I don't know if pre-Universal (1926) soft focus lenses could adjust softness beyond changing aperture, with the 1926 Universal one can set DOF and softness independently, I see a Landmark in that... but perhaps I need to know more about pre-1926 glasses...



Regards

Disclaimer, I'm a learner, it is not that long ago that I realized that Cooke Triplet was not the same than Cooke Triple :)

[Steven Tribe]

In my view, Wikipedia is full of old company brochure/advertising copy which been copy pasted. Sometimes "contemporay original" material is as unreliable as some current reviews of new equipment.

The two commonest untruths about Voigtlander which continue to be repeated at present are

- Heliar was the only lens allowed at the Japanese Court.
- Voigtlander designed a Petzval with a cemented achromat at the rear. This must be a confusion in the 70's about the first Euryskops.

[Pere Casals]

untruths about Voigtlander .... - Heliar was the only lens allowed at the Japanese Court.


Well... this is an exageration, said like that. But Emperor Hirohito is "claimed" to have so admired the Heliar lens, that he would only allow his picture to be taken with a Heliar.

http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Because the pre-war "divine condition" of the emperor if he said he liked a bit the Heliar everybody could understand that only Heliar should be used with him to not offend God. That legend can come from something like that, just a guess...

Anyway Voightländer/Heliar name is strong in Japan, to the point that today this is licensed to Cosina, this is not by chance: You place a japanese in front a weird bokeh image and in 10 min he may start having seizures :). They discern an incredible amount of bokeh types, with rich concepts in the middle. I admire that.

...and today a lot of antique Universal Heliars are found in Japan, see ebay :

167004

The 360mm and 420mm are more escarce, and the 480 (discontinued after war) is really scarce.

[Mark Sawyer]

Looks like I've got some editing to do! I'm editing the version on-line here, so you'll see it evolving...


Yes, very good overview. I think the "skin repair" section about dallmeyer's patent is very important - not just for females. Perhaps also saving retouching work?

Perhaps also something about Heliars with the renowned "glow" - but not the story about the Japanese court!

Resolution of the "first two series of Euryscopes" was new to me. I assume you mean series II and III? Series I Euryscope was the rehash of their first Petzval, in small sizes, and very fast (F2.3).

Added a sentence about reducing the need for retouching. Yes, this was a big draw for the soft lenses, and most manufacturers cited it in their advertising.

Regarding the Heliar, I'm trying to stay away from individual lenses, or this will turn from an essay into an encyclopedia! But a series of short articles with examples of photos from each lens design may follow...

On the Euryscops, my info (which may be wrong) says the Series one was (yes) a Petzval of f/3.2, and 4 inches (CDV-size) was the longest made. I left it out, as they're more a rare novelty and I can't follow every side street, but you're right, for clarification I'll clean that up. As to the resolution of II and III, I'm going on a couple of sources that could be wrong, but I don't think so. But I've never used one, so if anyone has first-hand knowledge, I'm open to change. That's why this is up, here!

[Mark Sawyer]

Note: I added a generation to give the Euryscops and their kin due attention. Does anyone have a date when Voigtlander discontinued them?

The editing continues... :)

[Mark Sawyer]

Great article as far as the historical part goes, but the modern section is so brief that it seems like the article ends due to exhaustion. There are other (relatively) modern soft-focus lenses - I'm thinking of Rodenstock's Imagon, Fuji's soft-focus lenses, the Soft Focus Congo, and others I probably don't know about.

Maybe this should ultimately reside in the permanent "articles" section.

I may add a bit more on the modern lenses, and yeah, I was getting restless by then. Plus, I have only minor interest in small format soft focus, which may deserve a paragraph in itself! I don't know much about the later Japanese soft lenses, (anyone?), but the Imagon is a pretty old lens going back to the "golden years" of soft focus.

[Mark Sawyer]

I don't understant this:

"This caused the focus from a wide-open lens to spread over a zone, rather than on a flat plane. Dallmeyer's aim was to increase the depth of field, which he did. But the spherical aberration also created what Dallmeyer termed a "soft focus", with a sharp core image overlaid with a softer image focused just off the focal plane."

Today we understand DOF as a direct calculation from aperture and focal length, so what I understand it was a try to change that... Still I don't understand it well, perhaps it should be clarified.


That one could be an article in itself! I expanded on it a bit and added an illustration, but I may re-edit it again as it's a bit repetitive now. I need to take a break once in a while! Did it help? Any further suggestions are welcome!


Also there are some 3 points I consider that can be interesting:

One is the Universal Heliar as a landmark, because it's technical prominence at the time, also Voigtländer activity can be traced since before 1800 (Camera obscura lenses) and one the first photographic lens maker (if not the first ) after 1840.

"The Voigtländer objectives were revolutionary because they were the first mathematically calculated precision objectives in the history of photography, developed by the German-Hungarian mathematics professor Josef Maximilian Petzval, with technical advice provided by Peter Voigtländer"

So Voigtländer created a photographic sharpness concept, but in the 1900 they developed the "Universal" variant to adjust that.

The Universal Heliar still it's unique today, because adjusted coma IMHO goes to the center of the image, so softening the face while rendering a sharp head silhouette (this is what I concluded, I can be mistaken).

The second one is Nikon DC 105 and 135. While razor sharp glasses they have a dedicated ring to control bokeh nature, an important concept for portraits, this shows that also small format had very elaborated choices for that, a bit hidden from public attention. Released in 1990 and still manufactured, today, 27 years later.

Third point is using other lenses for portrait, beyond portrait glass there are also portrait photographers that can exploit lens features fir that. Karsh used a 14" Commercial, and a lot of people used army surplus (USAF still was an army branch) 178 AeroEktars, this is reusing WWII bomber camera optics to create a powerful aesthetic subculture, with what it can be considered (some would say, in Japan:) ) a really weird bokeh, and that has links with the ancient Ptezvals: https://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/9127232097/in/faves-125592977@N05/

On the Heliar, as I mentioned to Steven, I don't want to discuss particular lenses too much in what's supposed to be an overview. (But sometimes they're just too iconic of their generation, like the Petzval design, or the Euryscops and their imitators.)

I'll add a little more on the smaller lenses, but hey, I'm a LARGE format photographer! :rolleyes:

And while Commercial Ektars, Aero Ektars, and the like may be used for portraits, (I do that too!), they weren't made AS portrait lenses, (far from it for the Aero Ektar!) This is an article on purpose-built portrait lenses.

[Mark Sawyer]

Here is a great article from Petersen's Photography (1979) by David Brooks about the various ways to get soft-focus results, including portraits -- with gear of that time. It has examples for 35mm, medium format and large format:

www.subclub.org/fujinon/softfocuscompressed.pdf (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/softfocuscompressed.pdf)

I skimmed it, but didn't take it too seriously. Brooks wrote of "two basic types" of soft focus designs, one using optical aberrations, while the other "achieves most of its 'soft focus' effect by the use of a special supplementary aperture disk", talking about an Imagon-style disk. Such apertures don't create soft focus, they're just another way of managing it. They allow one to close down the aperture for more overall depth of field while still getting some softness from the outer edges of the lens. If the lens doesn't have spherical aberration, the disc won't create it.

[Steven Tribe]

Note: I added a generation to give the Euryscops and their kin due attention. Does anyone have a date when Voigtlander discontinued them?

The editing continues... :)

I can't find mention of the first series ( I to IX) Euryscopes after around 1905. My feeling that the Heliars were a replacement is supported by having never seen any of these with an iris. The later series 1a, IVa and VIIa, were available just before 1905 - but sold in very limited numbers.

The series 1a (f2.3) sold mostly as cine lens, but was made with efl 30, 20, 15, 10 and 8cm. Made as late as 1914.

I think the reason for their early demise is that the number of portrait studios has reached a maximum by 1900 - or even some years before. The market for new dedicated studio lenses must been small and the only growth area would have been pictorial lens.

[Mark Sawyer]

I can't find mention of the first series ( I to IX) Euryscopes after around 1905. My feeling that the Heliars were a replacement is supported by having never seen any of these with an iris. The later series 1a, IVa and VIIa, were available just before 1905 - but sold in very limited numbers.

The series 1a (f2.3) sold mostly as cine lens, but was made with efl 30, 20, 15, 10 and 8cm. Made as late as 1914.

I think the reason for their early demise is that the number of portrait studios has reached a maximum by 1900 - or even some years before. The market for new dedicated studio lenses must been small and the only growth area would have been pictorial lens.

Yup, the fashions were changing with the new century, and the Pictorial movement surely affected style in popular portraiture.

[Mark Sawyer]

I updated the modern lenses and the epilogue, but it was painful... :p

[Whir-Click]

Thank you for the extremely interesting, informative article.

You mention the post-war preference for eschewing pictorialism in favor of "fourth generation" portrait lenses, but I think that the Kodak Portrait and Wollensak Veritar lenses make an interesting footnote as the final throes of "third generation" soft focus lenses, but coated and offered in "modern" shutters.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thank you for the extremely interesting, informative article.

You mention the post-war preference for eschewing pictorialism in favor of "fourth generation" portrait lenses, but I think that the Kodak Portrait and Wollensak Veritar lenses make an interesting footnote as the final throes of "third generation" soft focus lenses, but coated and offered in "modern" shutters.

Indeed they do, with the Imagon being the last surviving in production of the classic soft lenses!

Shit, more editing... :mad:

[AtlantaTerry]

A very interesting article. But I wish more had been mentioned about medium format equipment (Hasselblad, Mamiya RB, etc.)

My comment has to do with tense, "while smaller independent companies like Tamron, Lens-Baby, Sima, Spiratone, Kenko, and Yasuhara Momo offer soft focus lenses for 35mm film cameras and DSLR's." As far as I know, Minolata, Sima and Spiratone no longer make lenses so the word offered would be more appropriate.

Since an inanimate object can not "own" anything, there should not be an apostrophe after "DSLR". To have one makes DSLR a possessive.

[Amedeus]

Indeed they do, with the Imagon being the last surviving in production of the classic soft lenses!

Shit, more editing... :mad:

Great article ... just discovered it ...

Keep in mind that the Imagon hit the market when Pictorialism was pretty much gone from the main photographic scene ... but yes, a run from 1930 to 1990 is pretty impressive. Dr Staeble made the Anachromat, the precursor to the Imagon, around 1920.

Cheers,

Rudi A.

[Mark Sawyer]

A very interesting article. But I wish more had been mentioned about medium format equipment (Hasselblad, Mamiya RB, etc.)

My comment has to do with tense, "while smaller independent companies like Tamron, Lens-Baby, Sima, Spiratone, Kenko, and Yasuhara Momo offer soft focus lenses for 35mm film cameras and DSLR's." As far as I know, Minolata, Sima and Spiratone no longer make lenses so the word offered would be more appropriate.

Since an inanimate object can not "own" anything, there should not be an apostrophe after "DSLR". To have one makes DSLR a possessive.

I'm considering medium format, although that's an area I'm not too familiar with. Other changes made as recommended, thank you!

[Mark Sawyer]

Great article ... just discovered it ...

Keep in mind that the Imagon hit the market when Pictorialism was pretty much gone from the main photographic scene ... but yes, a run from 1930 to 1990 is pretty impressive. Dr Staeble made the Anachromat, the precursor to the Imagon, around 1920.

Cheers,

Rudi A.

Hi, Rudi! I'm going by Dr. Alfons Scholz, (G. Rodenstock Optical Works Munich) who wrote in his 1979 history of the Imagon: "The first Imagon hit the market in 1928 and was called Kuhn's Anachromat. In 1930 the Staeble lens works were acquired by Rodenstock and in 1931 the Imagon was introduced." Partial translation here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20161225021519/http://harrysproshop.com/Imagon/imagon.html

But while the Photo-Seccession Pictorialists wrapped up by WWI, west coast Pictorialists, Hollywood photographers like Hurrell, many commercial portrait photographers, camera club photographers, and others kept the style fairly mainstream until WWII. Alas, it was no longer "cutting-edge fine art" enough for Beaumont Newhall and later photo-historians and curators to include it, so it's somewhat forgotten.

[Jeff T]

Hi Mark,

I really enjoy reading your article, particularly historical perspective of the large format lenses. Thank you!

Jeff

[Mark Sawyer]

It got too long for the forum guidelines, so now two posts long. It's not my fault, you all made me edit it! :rolleyes:


On Portrait Lenses

It seems these days so many different types of lenses are referred to as "portrait lenses", regardless of what they were originally meant for. I've argued with self-appointed "experts on large format lenses" who insisted Rodenstock Apo-Ronar process lenses and general-purpose Plasmats were "portrait lenses" because, well, you can make portraits with them. But by that criteria, every lens is a portrait lens (and a macro lens, a process lens, a landscape lens…), so the term becomes meaningless.

Historically, lens manufacturers have designated specific lenses as portrait lenses, and these can be divided into four basic generations going back to the earliest years of photography. Each generation had its own characteristics, and its own aesthetic. And while any lens may be used to make portraits, and breaking those rules can be a valid creative choice, knowing the rules and the reasoning behind them helps inform that choice.

As a general note, it may seem this article dwells mostly on large format lenses, and with good reason. For the first three of the four generations, large format dominated the professional photography world. Here then, is a short history of those four generations of portrait lenses.

The Petzval Portrait Lens, (First Generation)

The first lens designed specifically and successfully as a portrait lens was Joseph Petzval's Porträtlinse lens of 1840, unveiled just a year after Daguerre, Talbot, and Bayard announced the first practical photographic processes. The characteristic that made it a practical portrait lens was its speed, f/3.6, which was critical given the low sensitivity of those early processes. (By comparison, the competing lenses of the day were the Wollaston Landscape Lens (a single-element meniscus), the English Landscape Lens, and French Landscape Lens (both cemented doublet achromats), all which had to be used at f/16 to be acceptably sharp, and Charles Chevalier’s Photographe a Verres Combines, which had a maximum aperture of f/6.) The speed of Petzval's lens reduced the exposure time to a few seconds, considerably less than what the other lenses needed, making sitting times much more practical.

It should be pointed out that due to the field curvature and sagittal astigmatism inherent in the Petzval design, only the center thirty degrees of coverage were sharp. This meant using a longer focal length lens to increase the size of the sharp area. But using a longer lens also gave a more flattering perspective of the human face, and even today, most portrait photographers prefer longer lenses for that reason.

The brightness of the Petzval lens made it a popular design choice for portrait lenses well into the twentieth century. It also became the lens of choice for magic lantern projectors and even some modern movie projectors, as it threw such a bright image. Even today, photographers using old processes like wet plate or the Daguerreotype often turn to the Petzvals for their speed. And the unique effects of field curvature (which throws the corners out of focus), sagittal aberration (the "swirlies"), and the shallow depth of field from any wide aperture lens give an effect sought by some (though not all) photographers.

The Euryscops, (Second Generation)

For twenty-five years after its introduction, the Petzval lens reigned supreme for virtually all forms of photography, but especially for portraits. It began a slow decline in 1866, when Dallmeyer introduced the f/8 Rapid Rectilinear lens, but owing to the Petzval's speed, it remained popular as a portrait lens and stayed in production by major manufacturers into the 1930's.

By the late 1880's, the new "Jena glass" allowed Voigtlander to develop a series of Rapid Rectilinears as fast as f/6 (Series IV), f/4.5 (Series III), and f/4 (Series II), known as the Euryscops, but these were still slower than the Petzvals, which had been as fast as f/2.5 since the late 1860's, and the faster Series II and III Euryscops were reportedly somewhat low in resolution. (Note: the original Series I Euryscop was an f/3.2 Petzval, made only in very small sizes, the largest was only 4 inches in focus.)

Although the Euryscops were still a stop or two slower than the Petzvals, the new dry plate technology was faster than the old wet plates, so lens speed wasn't the critical factor it once was. The new Euryscops, especially Series IV, were a huge success, and were sold under a number of names by other manufacturers and re-sellers, some under license from Voigtlander, some not. You can find Euryscops/Euryscopes/Euryskops Manufactured by Clement et Gilmer, Fallowfield, Hensoldt, Kengott, Krugener, Perkin Son and Rayment, Steinheil, and of course, Voigtlander. Mason, Salex, Sharp and Hitchmough, Staley-Wheeler, and the London Stereoscopic Company also sold lenses engraved as Euryscops, but by makers unknown, while many manufacturers made obvious copies of the Euryscop under other names. Voigtlander began phasing out its production of the Euryscop in the early 1900's, but Wollensak sold its version, called the Versar, well into the 1930's.

[Mark Sawyer]

The "Artistic" Portrait Lenses, (Third Generation)

The third generation of designated "Portrait Lenses" had its roots in the original Petzval formula. In 1867, John Dallmeyer patented a new Petzval variation, the Dallmeyer Patent Portrait Lens. Dallmeyer reversed the two rear elements and tweaked the curves slightly, which made very little difference by itself. But with the new arrangement, the spacing of the rear cells could be changed to introduce a small amount of spherical aberration. This caused the focus from a wide-open lens to spread over a zone, rather than on a flat plane. Dallmeyer's aim was to increase the depth of field, which he did. But the spherical aberration also created what Dallmeyer termed a "soft focus", with a sharp core image overlaid with a softer image focused just off the focal plane.

The lens pictured below displays spherical aberration; note that the light from the outer area of the lens focuses off the focal plane. While the light from the central parts of the lens create a sharp image on the focal plane, the light from the lens edge, focused elsewhere, simultaneously creates a diffused image. This effect decreases as the aperture is closed and conventional depth of field increases. Because the lens has more area at the outer edges than in the center, that will be the dominant image wide open. If the aperture is reduced, blocking light from the outer areas, the lens must be refocused on the newly dominant focal plane to avoid "focus shift".

167021

No one was at first very impressed with the "soft focus" effect, either for the softer image or the increased depth of field, but Dallmeyer's Patent Portrait Lenses were popular because they were fast, well-made lenses that performed admirably at their sharp setting. But by twenty years later, professional photographers had noticed that a soft focus image was more flattering to the skin, especially of a female sitter, as it smoothed the skin texture, minimizing wrinkles and blemishes. The retouching of such human flaws was becoming a standard practice in photo studios of the day, and soft portrait lenses were usually sold with the promise that they would "reduce or eliminate the need for retouching".

In 1889, Peter Henry Emerson published Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art, advocating for photography as an art, and suggesting a slight softening of the image to create "a picture, not a photograph. The use of soft lenses took two directions about this time; the birth of soft-focus Pictorial Photography, arguably the first academic "fine art" movement in photography, and the fashion of softened portraits in commercial photography, and both were in full swing by the dawn of the twentieth century.

While Pictorialism went off in its own direction, creating such soft, atmospheric works in unusual alternative processes that could hardly be recognized as photography, professional photographers adopted a trend towards more "artistic" portraiture with usually a touch, or sometimes a wallop, of softness.

The popularity of soft portraits with the public could be seen in the lenses being sold to professional photographers. The Wollensak Optical Corporation of Rochester NY was growing to become the largest photographic lens manufacturer in the world, and for decades, their "Royal Portrait Lens" (1906, a soft focus Petzval later renamed the Vitax), the Verito (1911, a very-soft focus pictorialist lens) and the Velostigmat Series II (1911, with adjustable soft focus) were advertised as their "Big Three" lenses. Each had soft focus capabilities with its own signature.

Every major manufacturer offered soft focus options,: Dallmeyer continued with its Patent Portrait Lenses through the 1930's but introduced new soft designs: The Dallmeyer-Bergheim, the Dallmeyer-Banfield, the Mutac, the Dallmeyer Soft Focus, and the Dallmeyer Portrait Anastigmat. Gundlach offered the Hyperion Diffusion Portrait lens, and the Gundlach Achromatic Meniscus. Bausch and Lomb had the Portrait Plastigmat, the Portrait Unar, and a Petzval Portrait Lens with adjustable diffusion. And Taylor, Taylor & Hobson offered Cooke Portrait Lenses in Series I, IIa, IIb, IId, IIe, and VI, as well as the Cooke Portrait Anastigmat and the Cooke RV/RVP/Achromatic Portrait series. The list could go on and on…

Each model of lens had its own look or signature, according to how its particular design influenced the spherical aberration. Wollensak suggested a good studio have each of its "Big Three" lenses so the photographic artist could choose the right lens and look. Many photographers owned more than one soft portrait lens because each gave a different effect, and Alvin Langdon Coburn owned (by his own varying accounts) six to twelve different Pinkham & Smith Semi-Achromats because each had its own personality.

One odd piece of historical trivia was the re-emergence of the Landscape Lens as a dedicated Portrait lens. If you recall the beginning of this article, the original competitors to the Petzval Porträtlinse were the Landscape Lenses. Those needed to be used at very small apertures (f/16 or less) to be sharp, but now that softness was popular, the look they gave wide open was in demand. Once the opposite of the Portrait Lens, the Landscape Lens now was a Portrait Lens!

And the list of Landscape Lenses offered as portrait lenses is long: the Spencer Portland, the Pinkham & Smith Semi-Achromat, the Kershaw Soft Focus Lens, the Karl Struss Pictorial Lens, the Kunst-Portrait-Objektiv Plasticca, Hanovia Kalosat, the Oscar Simon Kronar, the Kodak Portrait Lens, the Rodenstock Imagon… well, you get the idea. And other portrait lenses, like Wollensak's Verito or Bausch and Lomb's Portrait Plastigmat, were designed to also work as Landscape Lenses when their front element was removed.

Following World War II, tastes and fashions began to change and the soft look gave way to the sharpness that people expect even today. A few of the large format soft focus lenses hung around a while; Wollensak re-worked their Verito into the Veritar, and Kodak introduced the Kodak Portrait Lens in 305mm and 405mm, for 4x5/5x7 and 8x10 respectively, but these were gone before 1960. Voigtlander discontinued its classic Universal Heliar in 1970. In Japan, Fujinon and Congo offered their own new designs of soft focus lenses through the 1980's. The last of the classic soft focus lenses, the Rodenstock Imagon of 1928, was phased out in the 1990's.

Modern Portrait Lenses, (Fourth Generation)

While the first three generations of portrait lenses were almost exclusively large format lenses, smaller formats, especially 35mm, dominated photography from the 1950's forward. And to speak of modern photography lenses, for portraits or not, is to speak of 35mm or smaller digital formats.

From around the end of World War II through today, the design parameters of portrait lenses are typical of all modern lenses, regardless of intended use: high resolution and contrast with saturated color across the whole frame, a flat field of focus, and minimal aberrations of any sort. Thus the "kit" zoom lens standard with most digital cameras is considered adequate for portraiture or almost any other style of photography. By this standard, quite a few lenses could qualify as "portrait lenses", and indeed, Nikon USA's web site lists 47 different lenses as "Portrait/Event" lenses, while Canon USA lists 42 of theirs as "Portrait" lenses. Still, the serious portrait photographer should choose a lens of roughly double the "standard" lens focal length for a more pleasing perspective, (shorter lenses make the nose appear larger and the face somewhat bulging), and a wide aperture to throw a busy background out-of-focus, to be less distracting from the subject.

As smaller format cameras and films improved, large format became an increasingly rare tool in photography. Still, it was (and remains) the pinnacle for uncompromised photographic quality for those willing to absorb the extra cost and work necessary. While the generic sharp look makes any large format lens of appropriate focal length (for the format) and speed a good portrait lens, the Kodak Commercial Ektar for 8x10 stands out as a classic lens of our time. Yousuf Karsh used a 14-inch Commercial Ektar for his iconic portraits of Winston Churchill, Ernest Hemmingway, Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, and others, and for decades, 12- and 14-inch Commercial Ektars made the Playboy Centerfolds.

Epilogue, (The Current State of Affairs)

Along with recently renewed interest in retro-photography such as film, instant "Polaroid-style" cameras, alternative processes, medium and large format, etc., there is a small but growing interest in the older style of portrait lenses. The Lomo company has released several "Petzval Portrait" lenses (though they don't follow the Petzval formula) for digital cameras, while smaller independent companies like Tamron, Lens-Baby, Sima, Spiratone, Kenko, and Yasuhara Momo still or fairly recently have offered soft focus lenses for 35mm film cameras and DSLRs.

Most major manufacturers offer soft focus portrait lenses for the 35mm format: Canon has the EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus Lens, Pentax has the 85mm f2.8, FujiFilm has the 85mm f4, and Minolta makes a 100mm f2.8 and a 85mm f2.8 Varisoft. These use a moving internal elements that can be positioned to create a sharp image or introduce spherical aberration in a varying amounts.

Also aimed at today's portrait photographers are a style of lenses specifically designed for improved "bokeh", a popular but much-misused term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas. In 1999, Minolta introduced a the 135mm f/2.8 "Smooth Transition Lens" uses an odd design, two separate iris apertures with an apodization (APD) element used to eliminate airy disks caused by diffraction. In 2014, Fujifilm introduced a similar lens, the 58mm f/1.2 Fujinon XF R APD. Nikon offers two similar lenses based on non-APD moving elements, the f/2 105mm and 135mm DC (Defocus Control) lenses.

For the large format film photographer, Cooke Optics introduced the PS945 in 2002, their first large format lens in fifty years. A modern version of the Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality soft focus lens designed as a portrait lens for the 4x5 format, only 100 of these lenses were produced, with a second production run in 2009. Demand today is such that used PS945's can sell for as much as new ones. And for those few of us who use even larger formats, well, there's always ebay! The hundred-year-old lenses have warmer souls anyways… 

[Steven Tribe]

Looking very good and I am certain it will be useful for many. Perhaps a reference to Dan's lengthy Petzval article? The Euryskop 1 and 1a description is wrong. 1 was made up to 14" and 1a up to 30cm.

I think just about all French makers produced F6 "euryskops" - certainly Derogy did. And Suter had a very succesful line in his F6 and F5 aplanats (A series and the Stella) - I find them all the time on old European Studio cameras!

[Pere Casals]

The "Artistic" Portrait Lenses,

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=167010&d=1499586714



This link does not work...


Great article !!!

[Mark Sawyer]

Looking very good and I am certain it will be useful for many. Perhaps a reference to Dan's lengthy Petzval article? The Euryskop 1 and 1a description is wrong. 1 was made up to 14" and 1a up to 30cm.

I think just about all French makers produced F6 "euryskops" - certainly Derogy did. And Suter had a very succesful line in his F6 and F5 aplanats (A series and the Stella) - I find them all the time on old European Studio cameras!

Dan has quite a few pages at http://www.antiquecameras.net that deserve a link! For an online version, I'd probably list a half-dozen or more reference pages, but this will be for a little hard-copy newsletter. If the moderators here want to put this on the reference/home page, you're right, I'd add them. I still have a bit more editing and research to do... Does anyone know when Fujinon and Congo discontinued their soft lenses?

And yes, the fast aplanats are a forgotten classic! I believe they're all descended from Voigtlander's Euryscop, (probably designed by Hans Zincke-Sommer and Friedrich Voigtlander), as that's the design that first used the then-new Jena glass to make such exceptional and fast aplanats.

[Mark Sawyer]

This link does not work...


Great article !!!

I think I fixed it! And thank you!

[Mark Sawyer]

Just re-edited in posts 29 and 30. It's done. :)

[David Karp]

Mark,

Why not talk to QT and ask if he wants it for the home page?

[John Kasaian]

Loved the article, thanks for posting it!

[Mark Sawyer]

Thank you, David and John! Not sure how to submit a reference article, but I'll flag the final version for the moderators, and see if they want it... The home page needs a few new reference articles!

[Tim Meisburger]

Great article Mark! I learned a lot, and am now looking forward to trying my verito as a landscape lens! Also, I now need to get a Commercial Ektar, so my portraits will look just like Karsh's:rolleyes:

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks, Tim! I learned a bit writing it too, reading some old histories, checking details and dates, and organizing it. But I shudder to think what I left out!

[Jim Noel]

Mark,
Thank you for the article and the revision. Try as you might, you will never please everyone. Also for many of the very old lenses there have been so many descriptions over the years it is impossible to determine which are most correct. Even some of the early catalogs contained incorrect statements about the lenses. I think you have done a superb job, and should be lauded for your efforts.
On a second theme, when I and most large format photographers, see the title "Portrait lenses" we think only of those designed to be used with our cameras. Yes there have been some attempts to make similar lenses for medium and small format cameras,but they are a different world and should not be discussed alongside those you have presented.

Jim

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks, Jim! I had reservations about including the smaller lenses, but they were mostly a footnote at the end, as that's where so much photography is today. It serves as a reminder that for the first hundred years or more of its history, most "serious" photography, especially portrait photography, was done in large format.

As a trivial aside, it occurred to me while writing that from about WWI through the 1930's, Wollensak was making lenses that fit each generation: the Petzval (Vitax and Vesta), a Euryscop clone (the Versar), a soft focus lens (the Verito, which also converted to a Landscape Lens, as did the Vitax and Versar), and a modern Anastigmat, (the Velostigmat Series II).

[Armin Seeholzer]

I really miss my favorite the Universal Heilar!
"But Emperor Hirohito is "claimed" to have so admired the Heliar lens, that he would only allow his picture to be taken with a Heliar." Because Voigtländer did a very strong PR and marketing campaign, in which they called the Universal Heilar the lens of the masters, or in german das Meisterobjektiv and of course with much more bla bla. So it came to the ears of the Emperor this must be the best!

Cheers Armin

[Mark Sawyer]

We all have our personal favorites, Armin! Mine changes day-to-day...

I've never owned or used a Universal Heliar, but I'd love to. Voigtlander modified its Heliar design a number of times, and later used Heliar as a trade name covering several other completely different designs. The Universal Heliar was based on the 1902 (second version) Heliar design. Voigtlander's Dynar, a modified Heliar, was designed in 1903, and after another modification in 1925, was renamed the Heliar. It has to be one of the most confusing lens names ever!

[Tim Meisburger]

Mark, I'll lend you mine (300mm Universal Heliar) if you ever want to give one a try. Its a favourite!

[Mark Sawyer]

So many lenses, so little time...

[Armin Seeholzer]

I have the 300&360 Universal Heliar but the 300 is very new in my hands so I have to test it!

[goamules]

Hi Mark. I didn't notice this post, been busy at work. Great article. I guess the historian in me wants to know more of the rationale. WHY did they NEED an F8 Rapid Rectilinear, when a faster Petzval had worked fine? WHO was the first that advocated inventing something new? HOW FAST did it replace the Petzval, or why was it slow?

[Mark Sawyer]

Hi Mark. I didn't notice this post, been busy at work. Great article. I guess the historian in me wants to know more of the rationale. WHY did they NEED an F8 Rapid Rectilinear, when a faster Petzval had worked fine? WHO was the first that advocated inventing something new? HOW FAST did it replace the Petzval, or why was it slow?

The Rapid Rectilinear was popular because it filled the need for a "general purpose" lens, and was sometimes referred to as a "Universal" lens. The Petzval Portrait lens was great for portraits, but had its problems in other uses: it had some distortion, so was bad for architecture, copy work, or anything with straight lines, it had a curved field and all sorts of aberrations at the outside of the image circle, so only the center was sharp, and that also meant one always had to use a fairly long focal length. All these limitations are relatively unimportant in portraiture, but undesirable in other areas of work.

The Rapid Rectilinear fixed those problems, and was also made in "Wide Angle Rectilinear" (WAR) layouts which could cover very wide angles with flat field and acceptably sharp to the corners, (I have a 5-inch WAR that covers 8x10 at infinity. Try THAT with a 5-inch Petzval!). The RR's were slow at f/8, but wet plate was faster than the earlier Daguerreotype, and for non-portrait photography, speed was usually less important. And with the even faster dry plates that came in the 1880's, lens speed grew even less important.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the Rapid Rectilinear ever replaced the Petzval Portrait Lens, but it was seen as an improvement in some pretty significant areas, as mentioned above. And the new Jena glasses of the 1880's allowed for f/6, f/4.5, an even f/4 Euryscop RR's, which were considered "portrait lenses" in their own right. But the Petzval was still being produced as a top-of-the-line professional portrait lens well into the 1930's, while the RR's were by then only rarely offered as "budget lenses", having been bettered by anastigmats like the Tessar, Dagor, Protar, etc. Even today, everyone seems to love a Petzval, while the RR's get no love... :(

[Nodda Duma]

Great article. The RR, as a symmetrical lens (lens layout symmetrical about the stop) was also significantly cheaper to manufacture for acceptable image quality and could be sold at a lower price point. In a sense, it was a stop-gap design that drove the price point down for a hobby that saw an explosion of popularity in that (pre-Brownie) time frame.

[Steven Tribe]

The Rapid Rectilinear was popular because it filled the need for a "general purpose" lens, and was sometimes referred to as a "Universal" lens.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the Rapid Rectilinear ever replaced the Petzval Portrait Lens, but it was seen as an improvement in some pretty significant areas, as mentioned above. And the new Jena glasses of the 1880's allowed for f/6, f/4.5, an even f/4 Euryscop RR's, which were considered "portrait lenses" in their own right. But the Petzval was still being produced as a top-of-the-line professional portrait lens well into the 1930's, while the RR's were by then only rarely offered as "budget lenses", having been bettered by anastigmats like the Tessar, Dagor, Protar, etc. Even today, everyone seems to love a Petzval, while the RR's get no love... :(

Production of new "ordinary" Petzval lenses seems to have "died" just before the end of the 19th Century. I am not sure whether this was the production of the new types - especialy the new glass Aplanats and the big Cooke Triplets - or the fact that the number of studio portrait establishments first stagnated, then fell. There were enough Classic Petzvals from 1860 - 1895 around to cover studios' needs. Newly started studios would have been more interested in lenses without the extreme speeds neccesary for the old emulsion types. Sales of the dedicated fast aplanat portrait types from Busch and Suter were very good in the period to WW1. Only Voigtlander got out of the of this market quite quickly, but they had the Heliar design just at the right time!

[AlexGard]

Thanks Mark.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Mark Sawyer]

Production of new "ordinary" Petzval lenses seems to have "died" just before the end of the 19th Century. I am not sure whether this was the production of the new types - especialy the new glass Aplanats and the big Cooke Triplets - or the fact that the number of studio portrait establishments first stagnated, then fell. There were enough Classic Petzvals from 1860 - 1895 around to cover studios' needs. Newly started studios would have been more interested in lenses without the extreme speeds neccesary for the old emulsion types. Sales of the dedicated fast aplanat portrait types from Busch and Suter were very good in the period to WW1. Only Voigtlander got out of the of this market quite quickly, but they had the Heliar design just at the right time!

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Petzvals "'died' just before the end of the 19th Century." Certainly the new anastigmats and fast RRs took a big chunk of the market, but Dallmeyer and Wollensak, two of the biggest manufacturers of those times, each kept two different series Petzvals in production in multiple sizes. And when Ilex began manufacturing lenses in the early 1920's, its flagship lens was an f/3.8 Petzval, (a clone of Wollensak's Vitax), along with an f/4.5 Tessar and an f/5 Petzval.

Voigtlander did drop the Petzval design a little early, considering they'd built their reputation on it for forty years, but Petzvals were still in their catalogs in 1910, and possibly later. But as you said, they had the Heliar, a whole array of Euryscops, Dynars, Collinears, and Heliostigmats to concentrate on, and Voigtlander had patents they could at least try to enforce on those designs.

[David Karp]

Thank you, David and John! Not sure how to submit a reference article, but I'll flag the final version for the moderators, and see if they want it... The home page needs a few new reference articles!

Just PM or email QT. It is his page. He will decide if he wants it. The cool thing about an article on the home page vs a forum post is that it is easier to find on Google and can be browsed as someone looks through the home page for info on LF.

[Steven Tribe]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Petzvals "'died' just before the end of the 19th Century." Certainly the new anastigmats and fast RRs took a big chunk of the market, but Dallmeyer and Wollensak, two of the biggest manufacturers of those times, each kept two different series Petzvals in production in multiple sizes. And when Ilex began manufacturing lenses in the early 1920's, its flagship lens was an f/3.8 Petzval, (a clone of Wollensak's Vitax), along with an f/4.5 Tessar and an f/5 Petzval.

Voigtlander did drop the Petzval design a little early, considering they'd built their reputation on it for forty years, but Petzvals were still in their catalogs in 1910, and possibly later. But as you said, they had the Heliar, a whole array of Euryscops, Dynars, Collinears, and Heliostigmats to concentrate on, and Voigtlander had patents they could at least try to enforce on those designs.

Yes, probably a little strong! I was thinking of European/UK makers mostly. I can't remember seeing a Ross Cabinet from after 1900. Dallmeyer still sold the defusion models and the American market had Petzvals and the pictorial series. Voigtlander had the Petzval 1a but it was mostly for the growing cine market. Busch contined to at least 1910 (see 2 nice examples at a future Westlicht or Breker). Zeiss never even tried to enter the market, I think, and Rodenstock left only traces of production. The growing middle class personal photography market was the area for expansion.

[goamules]

Now it's time to explore the proverbial attributes of Petzvals. Those are the features that the period ads talked about, but can't really be defined. Like "roundness" often mentioned, and "soft focus" (in the Dallmeyer Patent design).

I'm not going to look up examples from ads (now that Camera Eccentric is gone), but you know what I mean. And I've yet to find anyone that can refute my hypothesis on the Dallmeyer soft device. That is, if you focus a Petzval with the rear adjustment in any position, and then move that adjustment, you get an out of focus image, not a soft focus. You can prove this by next refocusing the lens, leaving the diffusion where it is. You will get a sharp image, back in focus. There is no way to make it "soft" first, then focus it, like you can a Portrait Plastigmat, Struss, Verito, or other true soft lenses. All the Dallmeyer and Vitax adjusters do is "unfocus" the lens.

[Tim Meisburger]

That is interesting Garrett, as I have a Dallmeyer 3b with a frozen soft focus, and I have always wondered what setting it is on. What you are saying it that is doesn't really matter. Its makes a lovely whole plate.

[Mark Sawyer]

Just PM or email QT. It is his page. He will decide if he wants it. The cool thing about an article on the home page vs a forum post is that it is easier to find on Google and can be browsed as someone looks through the home page for info on LF.

Done, thank you! Never heard back from the moderators, so I'm guessing the home page reference articles aren't in their field of purview.

[massimodec]

I skimmed it, but didn't take it too seriously. Brooks wrote of "two basic types" of soft focus designs, one using optical aberrations, while the other "achieves most of its 'soft focus' effect by the use of a special supplementary aperture disk", talking about an Imagon-style disk. Such apertures don't create soft focus, they're just another way of managing it. They allow one to close down the aperture for more overall depth of field while still getting some softness from the outer edges of the lens. If the lens doesn't have spherical aberration, the disc won't create it.

That is totally true!
But, one of the problems in spherical aberrations soft focus lenses are the "points of reflected light". When there are strong lights, spherical aberrations can produce big glows on metal light points, and daysies disks like Imagon's could be annoying. But in diffused light, those disks could better manage the softness instead of simple iris like Veritos or Kodak Portrait etc.

The kind of light is very important in soft focus shooting.

[Mark Sawyer]

When there are strong lights, spherical aberrations can produce big glows on metal light points, and daysies disks like Imagon's could be annoying. But in diffused light, those disks could better manage the softness instead of simple iris like Veritos or Kodak Portrait etc.


The H-stop discs can create those "Kuhn-bug" patterns around any small, strong highlight, so even in soft light, a small reflective surface can do it. In the harsher light Rodenstock recommended for the Imagon, it's even more likely. I found even the "softest" disc, the h/5.8 with the holes fully open, removed much more of the softness than most would want from a "soft" lens. Yes, it is a different effect, but I found I preferred the conventional iris gave better control and results over a much wider range of softness. Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste, as with any soft lens. That's why we love them. :)