...what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

[Jim Galli]

Thanks for the reply Jim ...

As one who uses modern lenses (Sironar-N, -S, Super-Symmar-XL and Grandagon-N, although my favorite is a late-model 305 G-claron) what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

And so, how can I find a nice inexpensive portrait lens for 8x10 ? Any advice (apart from buy when Jim Galli let's a lens go for sale !) ?

Thanks,
Ron

Not an un-common question these days and of course the best advice is to immediately plop down any amount Jim Galli asks for on his various and sundry sales ;)

I thought it would be fun to bring this to the forums and let all the voices get heard, pro and con, not just mine.

I absolutely love Ernest Purdum's opener on his excellent article (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/soft-focus.html) about this. I hope he won't mind if I steal it for a minute.

Critic A: "This image has a certain ethereal quality.
Critic B: "It's a fuzzy picture."

That's it in a nutshell. Some of us see ethereal glowing tonalities like falling into a box full of pillows, and others see a lot of balderdash. Very subjective and no one's right or wrong.

I can put a little tech spin (very little) on it. The older non coated lenses with up to 8 air-glass interfaces at 4% image loss for each one introduce less contrast and more non image forming light to the film than your modern lenses do. In some cases a lot more. That tends to soften all of the transitions. Now on 4X5, to me at least, that just dis-appoints. But in 8X10 and larger I see a different effect. There's still plenty of sharpness to define, but I see a LOT of added tonality and glow with the old lenses. Almost anyone that pages through some of the stuff on my web site can begin to get infected.

What say ye...? Which are the best lenses to start with? I'll vote for the Venerable Wollensak Verito. There seem to still be plenty of them and while other classic name lenses go through the roof, they still seem a good value for soft focus. Wolly Velostigmat Series II is another old favorite. And occasionally you can steal a projection petzval.

[Brian Bullen]

The verito does create a beautiful look in the right hands, Kerik Kouklis, Mark Sawyer and others have amazing work with these lenses so I would second the recommendation for this lense. Not to mention you can use the rear element for a longer focal length that is still soft and sweet. Jim is also right that the soft lenses go hand in hand with larger formats. Seeing an 8x10 or 11x14 contact print that is full of glowing tones and soft in areas but sharp in other areas is breathtaking.
That being said some of the well known softies are a little hard on the wallet. I like to look for old brass lenses that no one cares about get them on the camera and see what they can do. I have 3 brass "junkers" all for under $30 that look beautiful especially when taken apart to use one element or one group of elements. Luckily the single elements cover the larger cameras too. I've seen numerous portraits with brass projection lenses or magic lantern lenses that are wonderful.
I think you have to look at how much you want to spend. I treated myself recently to a Dallmeyer 3d on ebay it was under $200 because it wasn't in original condition. I don't care about that, I care about the image it makes and it sure looks beautiful on the ground glass. Can't wait to get to the darkroom!
I think maybe it would be good too if people posted lens they think aren't that good. I haven't seen any photos from an Imagon that tickle my toes but I'm sure someone has one.

[Ole Tjugen]

Let's see...

I wouldn't mind a Universal Heliar, but they have a stupid habit of going for way over my budget.
So I'll have to settle for my "normal" Heliars - 120, 150, 240 and 300mm. They're actually pretty sharp and not at all "soft focus", yet they have a "smoothness" that most other lenses lack.

Another weird Voigtländer is the 18cm W.Z. - which could be an abbreviation for Weichzeichner, or perhaps Walter Zilly... It's a Periskop, two facing meniscii with an aperture between. The really weird thing about it is that it was made as an enlarger lens, with softness depending on aperture!

Then there's the other Periskops. And the mis-spaced Aplanats. I have a nice casket set similar to the Busch Vade Mecum, with spacers. You remove the spacers to gain wide-angle "coverage", but far more apparent is that the corners go to mush at wide apertures. Can be really "neat".

And the one I posted just the other day - the "soft" lens in a Thompson Bros. casket set. Unlike most other "softies" this one doesn't introduce spherical aberration, but a lot of coma and a little bit of astigmatism.

For small formats I also have a pair of old Rodenstock Eurynars (dialyte-type, 4 elements in 4 groups) of about the same age. One has been coated at a later date, and is impressively sharp. The other one is uncoated, and has a big chip missing from the front lens. The two are equally sharp, but the uncoated one has lots of flare and looks softer...

I'm also well satisfied with my old Zeiss Doppel-Amatar 15cm f:6.8. Just like the Heliars it's sharp, yet smooth. I like it a lot better than the Dagors (BTW the amatar is a reverse Dagor: Dagor cells are (+-+(; the Amatar is (-+-(, - like the Angulons, only different. :))

Speaking of Dagors and the like: Any old lens called "Doppel-" somethingorother is a convertible. since Dagor is an abbreviation for "Doppel-Anastigmat GOeRz", it was intended to work as a convertible. It's just not a very good one, which of course means that half a Dagor is a good one to test for softness! :D

[Dan Fromm]

Speaking of Dagors and the like: Any old lens called "Doppel-" somethingorother is a convertible. since Dagor is an abbreviation for "Doppel-Anastigmat GOeRz", it was intended to work as a convertible. It's just not a very good one, which of course means that half a Dagor is a good one to test for softness! :DAre you sure? I ask because I don't think half of a dialyte can form an image and have a Goerz Doppel Anastigmat that is a dialyte type. I've been mistaken this time, could be again. I ask you because I'm away from my kit so can't ask the lens.

[Ole Tjugen]

According to my literature (and lenses), half-dialytes need to be stopped down to at least f:22 to give a reasonably sharp image. Half a dialyte does form an image, but so "wuzzy" that it can be difficult to focus wide open. :)

[Jim Galli]

Are you sure? I ask because I don't think half of a dialyte can form an image and have a Goerz Doppel Anastigmat that is a dialyte type. I've been mistaken this time, could be again. I ask you because I'm away from my kit so can't ask the lens.

Yep, a single group from a dialyt will form an image. That one you sent me focuses at about 36 inches. Want it back?

[Ken Lee]

...what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

Bokeh (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/gallery/dogwd.htm)

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

...what am I missing that the 'old' portrait lenses can give me ?

Speed. Sure you could use a Aero-Etkar, but the truth is (at least as I know it) that my 125 year-old 11" f3 Dallmeyer Petzval is sharper on 4x5 than all four of the 50 year-old Aero-Etkars I have tested.

[Dan Fromm]

Yep, a single group from a dialyt will form an image. That one you sent me focuses at about 36 inches. Want it back?I thought that it was half a plasmat. Live and learn.

Thanks, but when I give a gift I want it to stay given. If you want to dispose of it, I'm sure you can find a good and worthy home for it.

Thanks, Ole. Now that I'm home I'll take out one of my dialytes and see what a single cell can do.

[Dave_B]

The opportunity to induce a serious case of lens envy among your colleagues......

[Gordon Moat]

Just a week or so ago, I really did wonder about all the gushing over old lenses. Today I used some rubber bands to put a really ancient lens onto my Shen-Hao, and just placed it on a table, sort of focused, then slapped a Polaroid 405 back on it, and took a couple shots. Well, that informal and not properly done test resulted in a look that I really cannot compare to anything modern.

I have some modern f5.6 lenses that I have shot wide open and at f8.0 numerous times. I even have a 1930s era Zeiss Tessar that I have shot wide open at f4.5. While the results are unique with those, the look from the ancient lens is very different. Now I have not used any modern soft focus lenses, but it still seems different to example images I have seen from those.

Words escape me on this, though if I were to attempt a description: the object in focus is very well defined and in focus. Immediately in front or behind the object is a smoothness that still contains the texture of the scene. I am reminded of that often stated 3-D look, but this is really that effect. It almost seems like laser cut objects emerging from fog.

So what to do . . . I will be getting a lens board to make a better mounting for this Holmes, Booth & Haydens. Just by chance I showed the rough Polaroid shots to a musician friend of mine, and he has already asked about doing shots for the cover of his next CD.

Normally I am not one to state gear preferences, nor suggest one choice over another, but I think anyone involved in shooting modern large format lenses near wide open would really enjoy trying a lens from the dawn of photography. I don't imagine the original makers of these lenses ever imagined they might still be in use, though I think they would be pleased.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
(http://www.gordonmoat.com)A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Brian Ellis]

What's the difference between using an old lens to get the effect you describe and using a good soft focus filter such as the Nikon #1 or #2 or the Hasselblad Softar on a modern lens?

[Jim Galli]

After seeing Don Hutton's image of his daughter with a kodak 305 Portrait I will add it to my short list. They still seem reasonable enough in price. I haven't owned that lens but I have it's big brother the 16" and it truly has a fine look. Also Ron, it's the same design as the lens you asked me about in the first place.

[Shen45]

When I was in America on my last, and possibly final visit, I spend a great day with Jim at Tonopah. Jim sold me a pair of excellent lenses. A 9" Verito and a 12 straight Veliostigmat - both in studio shutters.

Jim very genorously offered me a second set of unmarked and possible Petzval barrels that screwed onto the studio shutter that housed the Verito giving me another old lens.

The really interesting thing is that all the barrels can be swapped with each other. And even fitted in reverse in many combinations. By reverse I mean the front element can be fitted directly into the studio shutter without spacing. All give a variety of images ranging in focal length from 6 - 9"

My chosen format is 5x4 so the effect is to my eyes is different to the images I have seen Jim produce with similar lenses but on 10x8.

I would certainly recommend the Verito, but make a further recomendation for a studio shutter.

I have been very fortunate lately to have a friend loan me quite a few older lenses so now I have to find a Jim Galli type still life and produce some images of the various lenses to compare their qualities.

There is a certain joy of discovery attached to using a lens that was in many cased hand made and possibly unique because of that.

One tip I would offer using a Verito is to consider increasing your development time by about 10 - 15% if you are enlarging the image.

[Brian Bullen]

Actually upon further reflection I think old lenses are terrible and anyone reading this post should not waste the time to try these. Leave those old lenses alone and buy a nice new Schneider or Nikkor. Those photos you see are mushy and without character. By the way I recycle these lenses so don't throw them away, send them here and I'll make sure they are properly disposed of.;)

[Shen45]

Question on notice to Jim or Ole or anyone else of course :)

I have a 13" Taylor Hobson Cooke Series V f8 - 64 lens sitting on my desk and know little about it. #168243.

I removed the front group and the rear element focuses at approximately the same distance as the complete lens only soft and fuzzy. Closing it down about 2 stops gives a very pleasant image indeed.

Curious as to the construction and age. I will make a lensboard soon and take a shot with it as the glass is very good.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Steve,

"I removed the front group and the rear element focuses at approximately the same distance as the complete lens only soft and fuzzy. Closing it down about 2 stops gives a very pleasant image indeed."

Don't know a thing about Taylor-Hobson-Cooke but I have done the same thing with a Zeiss Unar with the same results, same focal length and a really nice soft focus. It will hold the soft focus look down to f/22 - 32 which can be useful. It does get a focus shift with plain or ortho fim but no problem with panchro film.

Now watch a run on Unars, too bad they're rare now after being thrown out for a century.

[Shen45]

Thanks Paul,

You have no idea how many lensboards I have to make over the next few days. I've given myself about a month to do a series of images with each of the old lenses to see what each is capable of.

I have posted these before but one is a Cooke Aviar and the other is the unknown [Petzval] elements I got from Jim that fit my studio shutter.

[Jim Galli]

Steve those images are lovely. I love shooting glass objects when I test old lenses. The Cooke V is a triplet intended for photo-reproduction cameras. I've got one around here somewhere. Now I'll have to take the front off and see what it does :D

So many lenses....so little time :(

I love Aviar's.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I got an interesting lens the other day. It was included in a grab bag of "junque". A Conley Anastigmat Series V, 4X5. Six inch equivalent focus, f/6.8, with unmarked rotating Waterhouse stops. The rear element had bad separation. I have it apart and awaiting the arrival of a new supply of UV cure cement. Looking at the ground glass, this one may be very interesting using front or rear groups by themselves. A little time will tell.

[Shen45]

Time seems to be the main element [pardon the pun :)] in the whole old lens thing.

I have already marked out in my diary Wednesday and Thursday of next week to start my lens eveluations.

By the way any comments on a 210 Xenar in a compound shutter. Glass is very nice but certainly doesn't appear to be coated.

So many lens [not as many as Jim] and so little time. :)

[Ole Tjugen]

I have a 13" Taylor Hobson Cooke Series V f8 - 64 lens sitting on my desk and know little about it. #168243.
...
Curious as to the construction and age. I will make a lensboard soon and take a shot with it as the glass is very good.

Cooke lenses are Triplets, which explains the "odd" behaviour when the front cell is missing. You can see the same thing happen with related designs - some Tessar derivatives (my 150mm f:3.5 Xenar Typ D is a "reverse tessar", the rear cell is uncemented and had negative focal length) and heliar / dynar / apo-lanthar.

The Zeiss Unar is another fully asymmetrical anastigmat, and like many others removing one cell removes all the focussing power; removing the other removes all the corrections.

The Xenar 210mm f:4.5 is a tessar-type lens, and it's really good IMO. Not quite as sharp as the later 210/6.1 which was made until recently, but definitely no soft-focus lens! :)

[athanasius80]

FYI The Conley Anastigmat V is a triple convertible. I'm pretty sure they were bought from Wollensak.

Part of what I like about the "old" lenses is the romance of using something old and being part of a continuum of photographic existence--if that makes any sense.

On a less subjective view, "old" lenses tend to have lovely bokeh and often less clinically sharp highlights so the transition from focus to out of focus can be downright velvety. Like many things, it is wonderful when used right.

[Ken Lee]

"What's the difference between using an old lens to get the effect you describe and using a good soft focus filter such as the Nikon #1 or #2 or the Hasselblad Softar on a modern lens?"

A filter will apply its effects uniformly. Most lenses will apply their effects according to distance. There are some cases where distance doesn't matter - and the effects will be similar. In most cases, the depth-related effects give rich visual content - and filters just won't deliver.

Different classic portrait lenses produce a variety of optical aberrations, and it appears that some of them provide more than one at the same time. Some of the lenses allow you to control or set the degree of aberrations.

In general, modern lenses have been designed to give critically sharp results and wide coverage. Their diaphragms have a low number of blades, like 5 or 6. As a result, they render out of focus areas less gracefully than their ancestors - especially when stopped down only a bit. I was stunned when I compared my 150 Sironar-S to an old uncoated 150 Heliar from the 1930's.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Words escape me on this, though if I were to attempt a description: the object in focus is very well defined and in focus. Immediately in front or behind the object is a smoothness that still contains the texture of the scene. I am reminded of that often stated 3-D look, but this is really that effect. It almost seems like laser cut objects emerging from fog.
Gordon Moat
(http://www.gordonmoat.com)A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

This is it, exactly. What the classic lenses (at least the ones that I like--Heliar, Petzval, Verito) can do that's really interesting is to layer diffuse on sharp and with the Heliar, make the sharp subject stand out more from the smooth background.

Diffusion attachments tend to diffuse everything, but a Softar #1 is not too bad as far as soft effects attachments go (they're not really "filters"). The Duto attachment (and similar attachments with concentric etched rings) is designed to keep the center more or less sharp, but then it tends to force the subject to the center of the composition, or at least to the lens axis, which of course can be moved with rise/fall and shift, if the lens has the coverage.

[Brian Ellis]

"What's the difference between using an old lens to get the effect you describe and using a good soft focus filter such as the Nikon #1 or #2 or the Hasselblad Softar on a modern lens?"

A filter will apply its effects uniformly. Most lenses will apply their effects according to distance. There are some cases where distance doesn't matter - and the effects will be similar. In most cases, the depth-related effects give rich visual content - and filters just won't deliver.

Different classic portrait lenses produce a variety of optical aberrations, and it appears that some of them provide more than one at the same time. Some of the lenses allow you to control or set the degree of aberrations.

In general, modern lenses have been designed to give critically sharp results and wide coverage. Their diaphragms have a low number of blades, like 5 or 6. As a result, they render out of focus areas less gracefully than their ancestors - especially when stopped down only a bit. I was stunned when I compared my 150 Sironar-S to an old uncoated 150 Heliar from the 1930's.

Got it. Thanks.