"Portrait" lenses - a weird question

[Christopher Perez]

Kind Knowers of Many Things,

I have 180mm and 250mm Fuji Soft Focus lenses. They're kind of fun. There's just "something" about the way they play light off the highlights... It got me to thinking, so this question:

Do/Did any of the modern lens makers issue a "soft focus" lens in a shorter focal length (say, around 135mm's) that covers 4x5?

[Steve Hamley]

Chris,

I can't think of any, but I did once clean the glass on a friend's Rodenstock 150mm, and got the rear glass mis-spaced (you can do this on at least the first generation multicoated Sironars) when I replaced it, and the effect was very soft, almost Holga-ish. Fixing it wasn't hard but the effect was interesting.

E-mail me for the boring technical details if you're interested.

Steve

[S. Preston Jones]

I once borrowed an enlarging lens belonging to a friend because images printed with it were so soft and had an unusual look about them. Well I took the lens home and it was so dirty, I cleaned it. That killed the soft focus look. I then separated the front elements from the back elements and placed them with both inner element groups facing toward the ceiling on the top of a cabinet in the kitchen and left it there for a month. The oil, grease, dust and other things in the air started to coat the surface of the elements making the lens have that soft look again. DO NOT DO THIS TO A GOOD LENS. I used that lens not only to take pictures but also print some. I like this effect more that just using a SF filter or vaseline or nose oil on a filter. Others may have other ways to get these effects. I also have a Wollensak Verito of about 220mm which is a great SF lens. See the effects of this lens at
www.wfwhitaker.com

Preston

[Terence Spross]

I've done the same thing by accident. I found my self with only my 4x5 and no accessories, and my lens was filthy because its pocket on my carrying case was accidently torn and road dirt got all over it. I didn't have any lens cleaning fluid or paper with me and I didn't want to touch the lens with anything else since the abrasive dirt could damage it and so I was frustrated, but as I set up and tried to use it as is, I decided to take photos of flowers instead of my planned subject because of the washed effect it had. When home I cleaned my lens before I processed my film, but when I printed the result I wished I had taken a few more before I cleaned the lens.

I've done something deliberate with 35mm and don't know why I couldn't do the same with LF :

I lightly sprayed a skylight filter with PAM (spray cooking grease) and covered it with another skylight to protect it (via a size adapter as I didn't have two filters of the same diameter) . This put the grease as a middle layer that would not mess up my camera bag. I did this using a cardboard template to control the pattern as I wanted the outer edge to have most of the de-focusing.

[Eric Rose]

a peice of black nylon stocking stretched over the lens has always worked for me.

[Christopher Nisperos]

. . . or you might try some white gauze, as the old-timers used to do.

[Frank Petronio]

Or buy the 180 Fuji SF - 210 Cooke and shoot 5x7 to approximate a 135 on 4x5

[Oren Grad]

Interesting question. I think the vendors have in general catered to the conventional wisdom that portrait lenses are supposed to be in focal lengths that are slightly long compared to the format diagonal. The only exception to this that I know of is in 35mm, where Pentax offered a soft-focus lens not just in the usual longish 85mm but also in the 28mm focal length.

[Struan Gray]

You could always try attaching your existing 180 and 240 lenses to each other, filter ring to filter ring (try all four combinations). Stick a stop in the middle somewhere. It'll probably vignette like mad, but there again, it may not.

[medform-norm]

HI,
I just happened to see a Fuji EBC Fujinon SF 4/85mm with the Imagon-like 'shower head' inside. It was adapted to M42 or was made for M42 thread, but I suspect it can be used for large format as well. Just to prove that some shorter focal lengths do exist. Link is to the westlicht-auction of 27 nov 2005.
https://www.westlicht-auction.com/index.php?id=43184&acat=43184&offset=1&_ssl=off
LOT nr. = 765

I think it's possible to bid online with this auction house, though have never done that before myself.

Cheers, Norm

[Oren Grad]

EBC Fujinon SF 4/85mm with the Imagon-like 'shower head' inside

In general, lenses made for 35mm SLRs won't cover anywhere near 4x5.

[Ted Harris]

To expand on Oren's comment Iwould guess that this lens was made specifically for 35mm. Since it is EBC coated it doesn't date back much earlier than 1978-1980. Fuji was well into the LF lens business then as well as now and I have seen no mention of this lens or anything like it in any of their lens literature that I have seen.

As to the original general question, "Do/Did any of the modern lens makers issue a "soft focus" lens in a shorter focal length (say, around 135mm's) that covers 4x5?" The answer for modern lenses is NO. AFAIK there weren't any classic soft focus lenses in shorter focal lengths. I could easily be wrong on this but when I was doing the research on classic soft focus lenses for the "Modern Soft Focus Lenses" article in the current issue of View Camera I didn't run across any shorter lenses that come to mind. In fact, most of the classic lenses were somewhat longer.

BTW, as an addendum to Michael Alpert's comment above the 'overlay' of aberrations accomplished by the Fuji SF and Rodenstock Imagon is only one way to get there. Most of the other soft focus lenses have gotten there by intentionally designing certain aberrations into the lens that only come into play after a certain aperture is reached or when the lens is rotated in a particular way.

[Oren Grad]

Since it is EBC coated it doesn't date back much earlier than 1978-1980.

From the extreme-trivia department: Fuji was offering EBC lenses in M42 for the ST701/801/901 by the early '70s - I have an ST801 brochure dated 4/73 which makes quite a fuss about it.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled LF programming...

[Ted Harris]

Blushing, yeah yeah yeah ..... actually 1971 maybe and 73 for sure ... I just saw a picture of an 801 from 73 and the lens says EBC.

Oh yeah, Oren .... you still using the camera <grin>?

[S. Preston Jones]

Michael,

Yes I do know that treating lenses to get them dirty or any of the methods which I mentioned or was mentioned in other responses does not make a soft focus lens. Additionally, not all soft focus lenses give the same look. I was merely indicating treatments which I found that I like. I have now and have had other "true" SF lenses. While I do like the effects which I get from them, I also like the effects from other methods of acheiving the soft focus look. Further the quetion asked by Chris was about shorter focal length lenses. I had hope he could see that he might be able get a soft focus look by trying various methods with other lenses.

[paulr]

i can't remember his name, but there's a guy in providence that had work in a group show with me, who used to make his own soft focus lenses. they weren't really portrait lenses ... more like creatively messed-up lenses. he would buy old optics at flea markets and take them apart and put them back together in unique ways, mixing and matching elements from lenses from different eras. the results ranged from beautiful holga-like soft focus that increases toward the edges, to total kaleidascopic acid trips.

[ronald moravec]

I am a lover of soft focus, but I gave my Fuji 85 4.0 away. It just doesn`t cut it.

Had a Veritar 250mm that was very nice. Also a 300mm Imagon in compound that was a gem. The 150 for the RB67 is a must have for portrait people. Thinking about buying another.

Still have a 120mm Imagon for Leica that is just about the same as the 300, a favorite.

There is nothing you can put inside, infront of, or behind any decent lens that will duplicate a true soft focus lens. I have tried tule, womens hose, grease, softars, and assorted soft focus filters. Nothing works. Neither does multiple exposures and slight refocusing.

Bite the bullit and get a real one. The new Cooke 239mm is what I would buy if the #3 Copal would fit on a 4" board. Otherwise a 250 Imagon.

[Mark Woods]

If you want the effect to last longer than the Pam, use paint or clear spray varnish (or some other clear finish). I've put a blast of the aerosol into the air and moved the filter through it. One could also set it on something and put a blast above it and let it settle. The effect will last as long as the paint is on the filter. If it's glass, one can clean the filter and not remove the paint. Heating clear plexi is another way to get an interesting filter and using rippled glass, or textured glass is another.

Kind Regards,

MW

www.markwoods.com

[Mark Woods]

You can put a bit of nylon stocking on the enlarging lens. It's a pretty effect. The photo on the FleetWood Mac Rumors album cover was enlarged using that technique.

Kind Regards,
MW

[Oren Grad]

Oh yeah, Oren .... you still using the camera ?

Nah, never owned one - I grew up in a Pentax household...

[otzi]

An other idea. Try spraying (lightly) the inside of a UV filter with hair spray. It will firm up with time. This will allow the UV to be used as a lens cap as well as a last resort defuser of sorts. Will wash off with soap and water. I use this idea on rangefinder lenses where the mess up of a hurried lens change renders the occasion not all lost. And it does work.....sort of.

[Jim Galli]

Actually Chris, I think you'd come closest with an early f4.5 Zeiss Tessar. 3.5 even better. Then seperate the front 2 elements mechanically. Unscrew the rear element a turn and a half or so, then re-assemble carefully leaving the entire group spaced the same distance aout from the barrel as what you seperated. You'd end up with something similar to what Wollensak did with the Velostigmat series II that had the 1-5 defocus ring. Hey, I've got a 3.5 Xenar out in the drawer, maybe I'll tinker with that tomorrow. To answer your original quenstion though, no. Since the whole de-focus idea was for portraiture, 135 on 4X5 was ruled too wide. No one would have wanted one. 135 would just start to be considered a portrait length on 6X6.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I did the same thing to a 14" carl meyer as Steve Hamly. I inverted the inner element on the backside of the iris. Kind of a dreamy soft look. When I get a good 14" I'll turn it around and use it that way. I have used a peice of celephane lightly crumpled and a 1/4' hole in the center. I now have a softar II that works quite nice. On the list is a verito.

[jnantz]

If you want the effect to last longer than the Pam, use paint or clear spray varnish (or some other clear finish). I've put a blast of the aerosol into the air and moved the filter through it. One could also set it on something and put a blast above it and let it settle. The effect will last as long as the paint is on the filter. If it's glass, one can clean the filter and not remove the paint. Heating clear plexi is another way to get an interesting filter and using rippled glass, or textured glass is another.

i've never seen or used one, but i think the beach portrait lenses were something like that - ripply rear glass.

[Michael Graves]

In an interview, David Hamilton once said that his ethereal soft focus effects came from an old Minolta camera. I think he said it was one of the SRT series. How did he get the effect? In all the years he owned the camera, he never covered nor cleaned the lens. Each year his images got dreamier. And more perverted.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

If you move the rear element closer than factory spec, it de-focuses very quickly for a soft-focus effect. I have a 14" Heliar with a factory installed 3mm spacer. Installed it's a very nice Heliar, removed it has a gorgeous soft focus that can be adjusted with the aperture. This should work for any style lens and different spacers would be a good thing.

Just a thought.

[Phong]

> Each year his [David Hamilton's] images got dreamier. And more perverted.

I haven't seen Hamilton's work in a while, 10 years and probably more. Has his work become perverted since then ? I didn't see any perversion in the work I've seen before.

Cheers,