Is the Ilex Seminat a soft focus lens?

[Mark Sawyer]

I asked this not long ago, but didn't get a clear answer; forgive my raising it again...

Another one has popped up on ebay as a "soft focus" lens:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ILEX-OPT-SEMINAT-SOFT-FOCUS-PORTRAIT-LENS-6-INCH-F-3-5_W0QQitemZ330145369913QQihZ014QQcategoryZ30076QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I bought one a while back, but it seems to have no soft focus or pictorial qualities beyond a nice-but-not-spectacular bokeh. But this is the third one I've seen go by on ebay advertised as a "soft focus" lens.

Any enlightenment?

[seawolf66]

If you want a lens soft , and I do not care which one: get a Nylon stocking put it over the lens , either single layer or double and prick a hole in it::

[Jim Noel]

seawolf

If you have ever use a true soft focus lens like a Petzval. or Verito or others of their kind, you will know that a nylon stocking with a hole in it does not produce the same type of image. I thought it did until I started using soft focus lenses almost exclusively.

[Mark Sawyer]

If you want a lens soft , and I do not care which one: get a Nylon stocking put it over the lens , either single layer or double and prick a hole in it::

And if you want to go to bed with Audrey Hepburn, get a cheap hooker and just hold a picture of Audrey in front of her face...

[Ole Tjugen]

... If you have ever use a true soft focus lens like a Petzval. ...

A Petzval is not a soft-focus lens either.

[Mark Sawyer]

A Petzval is not a soft-focus lens either.

I think some are, though most aren't. The Verito, Veritar, and Vitax are Petzvals, aren't they? But yes, most Petzvals are just soft at the edges from field curvature, and have swirly bokeh beyond standard coverage.

I'm not sure what design the Seminat is...

[Ole Tjugen]

There are a few "Petzvals" with adjustable spacing between the two elements in the rear cell which introduces "softness".

But the vast majority of Petzvals are unbeliveably sharp in the central part, which is all that was intended to be used. Somewhere I saw scanning electron microscope pictures of a daguerreotype - the (Petzval-exposed) picture was still sharper than anything you can do with modern equipment and film!

[Mark Sawyer]

There are a few "Petzvals" with adjustable spacing between the two elements in the rear cell which introduces "softness".

But the vast majority of Petzvals are unbeliveably sharp in the central part, which is all that was intended to be used. Somewhere I saw scanning electron microscope pictures of a daguerreotype - the (Petzval-exposed) picture was still sharper than anything you can do with modern equipment and film!

Yup! And you can buy a state-of-the-art refracting telescope with a Petzval lens because that's still what's sharpest in that narrow field of view.

But no one knows what a Seminat is... :(

[Ole Tjugen]

I've been searching, and all I can find about the Seminat is "construction: Unknown"...

[Jim Galli]

Mark, you obviously don't understand Ebay. 105mm Tominon's are wide angle lenses for 4X5, and Seminat's are whatever some guy 3 years ago said they are :rolleyes:

BTW Verito's and Veritar's are NOT petzvals. Vitax and Vesta are. I don't know what a Seminat is either and I don't like Ilex lenses enough to buy one and find out. Triplet perhaps? Maybe someone will read this and tell us.

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, you obviously don't understand Ebay. 105mm Tominon's are wide angle lenses for 4X5, and Seminat's are whatever some guy 3 years ago said they are :rolleyes:

BTW Verito's and Veritar's are NOT petzvals. Vitax and Vesta are. I don't know what a Seminat is either and I don't like Ilex lenses enough to buy one and find out. Triplet perhaps? Maybe someone will read this and tell us.

Hmmm... I was going by by Ernest Purdum's <i>Soft-Focus Lenses and Techniques</i> on the groups home page, which says,:

"A still earlier Wollensak product was the Verito. Except for the two smallest sizes, this was an f4 lens, the back group of which could be used by itself. It may have been a Rapid Rectilinear type, but more likely a Petzval."

I'm amazed by how little we know, or maybe by how much disagreement there is over such things. You and Ernest both have more knowledge than me on such things. I'm just trying to figure it all out... (One of the Wollensak catalogs calls the Verito a "rectilinear" design, so it could well be a Rapid Rectilinear...)

Yes, ebay does have some pretty bad information about things at times, but the Seminat seems to always be listed as soft focus, even by some sellers who should know what they have. From Jay Tepper, on the Belgian ebay site, another "Soft Focus Seminat" listing:

http://cgi.benl.ebay.be/6-f3-5-Ilex-Seminat-Soft-Focus-Lens_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ150106267631

[Ernest Purdum]

Well, since I am a guilty party here, I'll try to clarify the bad information on the Verito. Since I wrote that article, I've learned a lot more about Wollensak lenses in general and Verito's in particular (some learned from Jim Galli). Here we are:

Verito f4, f5, and f6. Judging by the number that show up regularly on eBay (I just found six), this must have been by far the largest production item of Wollensak's named lenses. Like the Veritar, It has a single meniscus in front and a cemented pair in the rear. It is convertible, the rear cell being usable alone. It was made in nine sizes from 5" to 18" focal length and the largest size could be fitted with an "extension lens" increasing the focal length to 22 1/4". Edward Weston was amongst the users. The two smallest sizes, designated "A" and "B" rather than by number, were f6. All the others were f4, except for some of the very first examples, which were f5. It is sometimes lumped in with Petzval types, but both the design and the results are quite different.

I'm still trying to reduce my ignorance concerning Wollensak lenses, particularly their production just before they ceased business. Any help will be most gratefully received. It will eventually result in an article on Wollensak lenses. The paragraph above is a draft for that article.

[Jim Galli]

I asked Jay Tepper the same question and he said he really didn't know, but that he'd seen them advertised before on Ebay as soft focus.......

The Verito I think is a rectilinear doublet at the back with a simple diopter in the front. I tried to make one myself with a single element from a 13" beck RR and a #3 diopter. I ended up with a very nice soft 7" lens that acted somewhat similar to a Verito but not exactly. The Wolly engineers probably introduced some other aberrations for softness. I'm just guessing here. The Veritar was supposed to be a similar design but re-corrected for good color renditions as the Anscochrome age had arrived.

Maybe if we chatter on long enough some ancient pro will chime in and tell us the seminat was just a cheap lens that the school portrait photographers liked because the freckles didn't show up much?

[Mark Sawyer]

I asked Jay Tepper the same question and he said he really didn't know, but that he'd seen them advertised before on Ebay as soft focus...

This is what I'm starting to think, that someone mis-identified it, and it snowballed...


Maybe if we chatter on long enough some ancient pro will chime in and tell us the seminat was just a cheap lens that the school portrait photographers liked because the freckles didn't show up much?

I'm hoping so, though by now I think I'd be disappointed in learning that yes, it's just another cheap general-purpose lens...

Still, for all the debate over which lens is best, there's a reassurance that even the "worst" and cheapest lenses are more than sufficient to make the most wonderful photographs. Measuring the quality of a lens in line pairs per millimeter is like measuring the quality of a person by their bank account or stock portfolio...

And there, I'd be on par with my $30 Seminat... :)

[Jody_S]

But no one knows what a Seminat is... :(

Being the curious type, I bought one to find out. 5" f3.5.

Preliminary investigation consisted of shining a flashlight on it, and comparing to similar lenses. It appears to be a bog-standard Tessar, but the spacing between the front elements seems to me to be larger than even my Wolly Velo II adjustable soft focus.

There is 1 guy online who has posted some images, I think they definitely qualify as 'soft focus', or possibly just 'junk':

JOHN NANIAN: Ilex seminat (https://www.nanianphoto.com/blog/ilex-seminat/)

[jnantz]

Being the curious type, I bought one to find out. 5" f3.5.

Preliminary investigation consisted of shining a flashlight on it, and comparing to similar lenses. It appears to be a bog-standard Tessar, but the spacing between the front elements seems to me to be larger than even my Wolly Velo II adjustable soft focus.

There is 1 guy online who has posted some images, I think they definitely qualify as 'soft focus', or possibly just 'junk':

JOHN NANIAN: Ilex seminat (https://www.nanianphoto.com/blog/ilex-seminat/)

LOL

might be junk, just like the guy who wrote the article said .. that guy is clueless.

[Hugo Zhang]

Out of curiosity, I bought the same lens thinking it might be a soft focus lens a few weeks ago. It is not. John posted some soft focus images with his Seminat lens years ago, but now I think his lens is the exception rather than the norm. I paid a price to learn this lesson.

[Jody_S]

LOL

might be junk .. that guy is clueless.

I searched the forum and saw that you used one of these, that's largely why I bought it. But none of your images are showing up for me, the only pics I found taken with the lens were from the link I posted.

I'm not sure why some of the images are the way they are, I think he was just out of focus for some of them. If that was intentional, then fine. I just got my lens today, I haven't looked at anything on the ground glass yet, much less a developed photo. Not even sure if it covers 4x5.

[Jody_S]

Out of curiosity, I bought the same lens thinking it might be a soft focus lens a few weeks ago. It is not. John posted some soft focus images with his Seminat lens years ago, but now I think his lens is the exception rather than the norm. I paid a price to learn this lesson.

Well I paid $30 for mine, I wasn't risking much. I originally clicked on it for the shutter, before researching the almost unknown 'Seminat'. I think an f3.5 Tessar is going to be somewhat soft wide open no matter if the lens was intended to be or not. That's why I used to use Rolleiflexes with the 3.5 Tessar.

[Mark Sawyer]

I've learned a fair amount about lenses in the 16 years since I started this thread, but I still know pretty much nothing about the Seminat...

[jnantz]

hi jody. im the guy whose website you linked to :). I adjusted my name after I was being stalked ..
I think the 4 of us, Mark Hugo you and me might be the only people on the planet who own / use this lens, it sure is obscure!
I got mine from Dagor77 (Andrew Glover) maybe Flutot's Camera Repair adjusted it or made sure it was mounted with the right spacers ? not sure
I know sometimes it appears in a barrel ... and in a cine mount ..

sorry I have a habit of not keeping many images on-site, I've had a few issues over the years (stalking, stolen work &c ) so I sometimes delete my attachments... like when I used to goto the former analogy site, every once in a while I'd delete all my gallery images ...

regarding the images I posted, maybe I use a lens differently than most .. I fiddle around with it first, front / back focus, I use it in a variety of lighting ( bland, front / back lit blown out &c ) and a variety of exposures to figure out what it can do and then I just use it (as intended ( or un-intended ) I figure why not (expired film and paper negatives are cheep) :) I typically over expose everything by a few stops and process my film so it is nice and dense (some may say to excess) ...
sorry to hear you and Hugo and Mark aren't enjoying the lens as I have... if it wasn't twerked by flutot maybe mine was built/ assembled on a Wednesday when the Ilex workforce wasn't working off a hangover or making one? my 6" covers with a room to rent .. oh, the coffee bean photos were macro images on a 5x7 sheet ...some of the others were just with a speed graphic futzing around .. they were all developed in ansco 130 and coffee for about 12-15 mins ... or just ansco 70-72F 1:6 for about 8 1/2mins

[Jody_S]

Well that clears up a lot. To be more specific, I liked the images on your page, I just don't think the first few qualify as 'soft focus' in the traditional sense. And if that is what the lens does, or should I say if that is all the lens can do, then it would definitely fall in the 'junk' category.

I've been experimenting with 19th century landscape lenses with the front aperture/washer assembly removed, so I use my f22 Darlot landscape lens at f9, to get a more-than-soft effect, especially in a scene with strong highlights. The actual soft-focus lenses I've used (Velo II, Verito, Eidoscope) are designed for portaits, and are not nearly soft enough for what I'm trying to do. And tricks like flipping the middle element of a Cooke triplet do not give pleasing effects, IMHO, nor using magnifying glass elements or the like. So when I saw those images, I was intrigued by the Seminat.

[jnantz]

Well that clears up a lot. To be more specific, I liked the images on your page, I just don't think the first few qualify as 'soft focus' in the traditional sense. And if that is what the lens does, or should I say if that is all the lens can do, then it would definitely fall in the 'junk' category.

I've been experimenting with 19th century landscape lenses with the front aperture/washer assembly removed, so I use my f22 Darlot landscape lens at f9, to get a more-than-soft effect, especially in a scene with strong highlights. The actual soft-focus lenses I've used (Velo II, Verito, Eidoscope) are designed for portaits, and are not nearly soft enough for what I'm trying to do. And tricks like flipping the middle element of a Cooke triplet do not give pleasing effects, IMHO, nor using magnifying glass elements or the like. So when I saw those images, I was intrigued by the Seminat.

nah. not all it can do, I just didn't bother scanning the portrait and landscapey stuff I did with them that might be more straight forward, I hate to say it (but I am sure you have gathered this without me saying it outloud from the photographs I have on my website &c) but I find a lot of straight forward photography to be as boring as watching paint dry, I would have said grass grow but I don't want to jinx the grass I have growing right now so I will watch what I say :). Maybe it's junk? not sure, seemed to do something I liked ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .. YMMV

[Jody_S]

...I find a lot of straight forward photography to be as boring as watching paint dry, x

Whatever you're doing is working for you, and I'm sure you're not going to let comments from random people on the Internet change your mind anyway.

The lens doesn't make the photograph, the photographer does. That's why I bought a 'Seminat' for $30 instead of a Cooke knuckler for $4,000. If I can't make an image with it, that's my fault, not the lens'.

[jnantz]

Whatever you're doing is working for you, and I'm sure you're not going to let comments from random people on the Internet change your mind anyway.

The lens doesn't make the photograph, the photographer does. That's why I bought a 'Seminat' for $30 instead of a Cooke knuckler for $4,000. If I can't make an image with it, that's my fault, not the lens'.

yup, if it works for you don't change a thing, the lens seems to work for me, hope you find something that works for you ..
with regards to listening to a random people, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... it's hard on the internet, some random people's opinions I respect, but like anything else some people's egos get in the way of being helpful ( both person and online )... photographers are a cagey bunch ! ( you should have hung out with this guy I assisted years ago, he'd always give people bad advice just so their work wouldn't be anything like his, it's like not giving someone your grandmother's secret recipe for paklava, or emulsion scientists publishing wrong information / mistakes ) ...