7 Antique Soft Focus Portrait Lenses Compared

[Jim Galli]

You know the drill... (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/JapaneseLanterns/The_Japanese_Lanterns_7_Portrait_Lenses.html)

Some pretty exotic lenses on this one.

Pinkham & Smith Series VI Synthetic 10"
Pinkham & Smith Series IV Visual Quality 14"
Hermagis Eidoscop #2 14.5"
Hermagis Eidoscop #1 19"
Gundlach Achromatic Meniscus 18"
Puligny Anachromatique 15"
Voigtlander Portrait Euryscop Series II #6

My idea was to just use a single set up in order to try to see nuances of differences. I've imbedded high res images behind the ones that come up quickly. Click on the images to get a higher res version. That's where you can see some differences. The Voigtlander lens is not a true soft focus lens. It is a Rapid Rect. and is sharper than the others.

I hope some will enjoy this. I know most of you prefer sharp pictures, but there are a few of us interested in the fuzzy pictures too.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/JapaneseLanterns/The_Japanese_Lanterns_7_Portrait_Lenses.html

[Michael Graves]

You know, if you clean all the crap out of those boots, they'll be a lot more comfortable to wear.

That being said, I love the effect of that 19" Eido-whatever. That one is my favorite.

[domenico Foschi]

It is a Rapid Rect?:confused:

[Jim Galli]

It is a Rapid Rect?:confused:


PS Series IV, Eidoscop, and Voigtlander are all iterations of Rapid Rectilinear but the first 2 have the softness designed in on purpose through non-corrections. The Voigtlander is just a sharp RR but with a nice big aperture. I think it's about an f4.

[Jan Pedersen]

Thanks for posting these Jim.
Fuzzy is good when we can choose as an option ;)

That Hermagis Eidoscop #1 19" is sweet.

[Hugo Zhang]

Jim,

That Hermagis Endoscop 19" should be No. 2, while the 14.5" should be No.1.

I like the Endoscop 19" too and I also like the P$S 14".

Thanks.

Hugo

[Jim Galli]

Jim,

That Hermagis Endoscop 19" should be No. 2, while the 14.5" should be No.1.

I like the Endoscop 19" too and I also like the P$S 14".

Thanks.

Hugo

Hugo, an endoscop is what the doctor shoves up.......oh never mind. Trust me, you don't want to go there with the 19" Eidoscop. :D:D

[panchro-press]

Jim,
You don't mention what format size was used in your tests. Won't that make a difference?

Dave

[Toyon]

There seems to be a ghost of the front of a boot behind the primary boot. Is that a second shoe or something else?

[Jim Galli]

There seems to be a ghost of the front of a boot behind the primary boot. Is that a second shoe or something else?


Jim,
You don't mention what format size was used in your tests. Won't that make a difference? Dave

Thanks. There is a second boot back there, and the format on all is 8X10. Yes, that would make a huge difference. Jim

[Patrik Roseen]

Thanks Jim for another great thread,
My favorites are the two Pinkham & Smith lenses.

Anything more you can add about these lenses, e.g. what does the series IV and VI stand for,lens design ??

[Brian Bullen]

Thanks Jim for another great thread,
My favorites are the two Pinkham & Smith lenses.

I'm with Patrik on this one. The glow is outstanding! The 19" Eidoscop wide open is pretty nice too.

[Jim Galli]

Thanks Jim for another great thread,
My favorites are the two Pinkham & Smith lenses.

Anything more you can add about these lenses, e.g. what does the series IV and VI stand for,lens design ??

Good expensive taste ;)

Someone will know more than me and hopefully chime in. P&S had at least 4 different series of their soft lenses. Series 1 is just a modified portrait petzval and isn't very desireable. Any petzval would act the same and you'd pay 3 times as much because it says Pinkham. Series III is a non achromatic doublet. What you see is not what you will be getting. They are difficult to learn to use but they are considered the most valuable and rare of the bunch. I'd love to have one!! Anyone??? Next is Series IV which is the Visual Quality. It was a modified RR design that purposely leaves aberation in. Stop it down and it is sharp and contrasty enough for any use. This is the one Cooke copied for their now infamous PS 945. PS was for Pinkham Smith, 9 (inch) and 45 (4X5 use). Series VI is the Synthetic. Kind of a mystery lens. I just got this lens and what you see is the first and only picture made with it. Shows very interesting promise. It is some kind of an achromatic meniscus but designed to P&S specs. Of all of the above the only ones I've seen from time to time on EvilBay is the Series IV.

[Scott Schroeder]

Thanks for posting these Jim. Lovely lenses.
The only that I'm upset about is i thought this was in the for sale forum....
shucks!

[seawolf66]

Jim I like them all in their presentation , But this I like best [19" Hermagis Eidoscop #1 @ f6] nice work jim:

[Nathan Potter]

Jim, real nice series of pics, very instructive. I like the softness of the 15 inch Puligny Anachromatique. If you're going to do soft - do really soft I say. Besides, the Anachromatique reminds me it's time for a great bottle of Puligny Montrachet white burgundy from Michel Niellon. I'll be thinking of your work while I sip.

Nate Potter

[DanJones]

Jim
Any chance these will be for sale in the near future?

[Steven Barall]

Thanks for the photos Jim. Another great addition to the wealth of knowledge here and also great to look at just because they're beautiful photos. Thanks again.

[Toyon]

Good expensive taste ;)

This is the one Cooke copied for their now infamous PS 945. PS was for Pinkham Smith, 9 (inch) and 45 (4X5 use). .

Hey Jim, what about the 945 is infamous?

By the way, I have old, bad RR's that are wonderfully diffuse wide open.

[Jim Galli]

Jim
Any chance these will be for sale in the near future?

Thanks all. Toyon, infamous was used incorrectly as it would connote negative. The only thing infamous is the price they fetch now. None of these lenses will appear for sale unless my wife finds out what they're worth and you read about my demise in the newspaper. However I would trade for a Pinkham & Smith Series III if I had to.

[John Z.]

I would be curious to see the same photo with each lens stop down a bit, say to f16 or f22.

[Mark Sawyer]

Ah, the little winks and nudges the old glass gives to those photons that are just passing through... I'm caught between the 10" P&S Synthetic and the 19" Eidoscope wide open myself, at least for this set. But I imagine for you, Jim, it would be like trying to choose a favorite child...

Was the bi-quality yet another P&S line?

[Jim Galli]

Ah, the little winks and nudges the old glass gives to those photons that are just passing through... I'm caught between the 10" P&S Synthetic and the 19" Eidoscope wide open myself, at least for this set. But I imagine for you, Jim, it would be like trying to choose a favorite child...

Was the bi-quality yet another P&S line?

My fear is I won't do them justice. So many nice old lenses, so little time. Bi-Quality was a later run of the Visual Quality Series IV. Identical but for some lost reason they couldn't use the old name on the last run? The 14" in this test is in fact the late "Bi-Quality" version.


I would be curious to see the same photo with each lens stop down a bit, say to f16 or f22.

Actually, the shows over about f8. F16 and f22 are no more remarkable than any other lens of the era. Some of these are sharper than the run of the mill anastigmats at f16.

[Shen45]

Thanks. There is a second boot back there, and the format on all is 8X10. Yes, that would make a huge difference. Jim

Hi Jim,

as always a great education.

Would it be possible to do a shoot with the same lens on 5x4 and 10x8 to see the real differences that the format makes.

I remember seeing the wonderful glow of the tail stock on your 2D with the 12 Velostigmat and while the lens is still truly remarkable the format is a big influence on the "fuzzies"

If you could possibly compare 2 classic SF lenses at 5x4 and 10x8 [ :) it is coming into winter in your part of the planet I believe so nothing to do upstairs on those cold nights!!] I would be much obliged.

Steve

[Jim Galli]

Hi Jim,

as always a great education.

Would it be possible to do a shoot with the same lens on 5x4 and 10x8 to see the real differences that the format makes.

I remember seeing the wonderful glow of the tail stock on your 2D with the 12 Velostigmat and while the lens is still truly remarkable the format is a big influence on the "fuzzies"

If you could possibly compare 2 classic SF lenses at 5x4 and 10x8 [ :) it is coming into winter in your part of the planet I believe so nothing to do upstairs on those cold nights!!] I would be much obliged.

Steve

Hmmmmm...... Possibly a good project. Let me think how to approach this.

[Asher Kelman]

Good expensive taste ;)

Someone will know more than me and hopefully chime in. P&S had at least 4 different series of their soft lenses. Series 1 is just a modified portrait petzval and isn't very desireable. Any petzval would act the same and you'd pay 3 times as much because it says Pinkham. Series III is a non achromatic doublet. What you see is not what you will be getting. They are difficult to learn to use but they are considered the most valuable and rare of the bunch. I'd love to have one!! Anyone??? Next is Series IV which is the Visual Quality. It was a modified RR design that purposely leaves aberation in. Stop it down and it is sharp and contrasty enough for any use. This is the one Cooke copied for their now infamous PS 945. PS was for Pinkham Smith, 9 (inch) and 45 (4X5 use). Series VI is the Synthetic. Kind of a mystery lens. I just got this lens and what you see is the first and only picture made with it. Shows very interesting promise. It is some kind of an achromatic meniscus but designed to P&S specs. Of all of the above the only ones I've seen from time to time on EvilBay is the Series IV.

So Jim,

Where do the Cooke Series IIb and IIe fit in?

Asher

[Jim Galli]

So Jim,

Where do the Cooke Series IIb and IIe fit in?

Asher

I class the Cooke series II with both the Heliar and the Wolly Velostigmat. They are anastigmats, sharp corner to corner. I use these when I want a smooooth / sharp look. I don't care much for the fuzz-u-lator effect of any of them. They're best for the velvetty smooth look. Different tools, different jobs.

[goamules]

Jim, these are wonderful and instructional. The Wolly comments above fall right into what I was going to ask: Could you one day compare all the Wollensak "soft" types? I mean, it would be educational to see the diff between Verito fuzz and Velo fuzz, and vesta and ? Maybe it's just the novice in me, and I would understand these things as I learn. I'm learning though, I know what a petzval does, anyway....

[Petzval Paul]

Hey everyone,

New to this forum, but wanted to chime in on this one...

I recently got a P&S Synthetic Series VI as well and haven't had a chance to do much with it yet but it shows great promise. I shot a whole-plate ambrotype yesterday with it as a test and the lens far exceeded my expectations. I still have to learn its nuances to make the most of it, of course. I can't figure out how to attach the image here so if anyone wants to see it, just contact me offline and I will email you the jpeg.

It seems as if the Visual Quality series has received undue attention since Cooke based its PS945 on that model. I have even seen comments online such as "Steichen and Coburn used the visual quality..." although I have no idea where people are getting such information, which is probably pure speculation and hype. We know that Coburn used "about a dozen semi-achromats" and even is credited with suggesting the designs of the II and III series (from P&S's 1920 catalog). Steichen mentions in the book "A Life in Photography" that he first encountered the P&S lens through Holland F. Day around 1902 (it's not specifically stated, but close enough). Day suggested the Series I about 1901. Since the Visual Quality is the fourth series and it wasn't introduced until sometime later, it stands to reason that most of the pictorial photographers with whom we are familiar used the Semi-Achromats since that was all that was available at the beginning of the century. Steichen was already making sharper images by WW I, so I doubt one could dig up much reference to his using the Series IV lens.

Yet, "Visual Quality" has become almost synonymous with "Pinkham and Smith". From what I have seen the Synthetic is really the undiscovered gem of the P&S line-up. I'd love to hear more from Jim about his experiences with his. I paid too much for mine, but I still feel as if I won the lottery! The ground glass image is just glorious and, although it is listed as 9", it illuminates my 8"x10" GG at infinity, which really surprised me.

- Paul

[Mark Sawyer]

Hi, Paul! Welcome to the forum, and congratulations on your "new" P&S. I've always wanted one, though I'm really quite fond of my Veritos, Imagon, and home-brewed lenses...


I recently got a P&S Synthetic Series VI as well and haven't had a chance to do much with it yet but it shows great promise. I shot a whole-plate ambrotype yesterday with it as a test and the lens far exceeded my expectations.

Something I've noticed over the past year or two is an increasing tendency to mix different historic lenses, processes, etc. in a single image. The ambrotypes were long gone by the advent of the pictorial lenses, so you might be doing the first ones! Similarly, Kerik Kouklis has been using a Verito with wet-plate collodian (on aluminum plates, no less!), although those three items never came together before. And the fellow who did the "Texas Tintypes" used fuzzy old lenses (petzvals pushed past their intended coverage, I think) to get an effect the original tintype photographers would have probably deplored...

Not a complaint at all, just an observation. Perhaps it's something peculiar to large format photography that we can enjoy mixing our history. Can you imagine the fuss if you showed up at a civil war re-enactment with a civil war uniform, a Thompson sub-machine gun, and an ipod?

[Petzval Paul]

Mark,

Thanks for the warm welcome!

I've thought about this topic a lot. It's true that many LF photographers seem to mix and match their equipment and techniques. Adds to the fun, doesn't it? We are foirtunate to have such a rich history as well as a variety of techniques to employ that it would seem constraining not to make use of them.

I know that Robb Kendrick uses a Holmes, Booth & Haydens portrait lens for most of his work (probably one which is "pushed" to it's limits as you have noted) which is certainly period-correct. For me, like Kerik, that's not what is important. We are not reenactors, so who cares? We both have some period lenses, but don't limit ourselves to using them. They have their purposes, but so do modern lenses. FWIW, Dallmeyer did start introducing portrait lenses with a soft focus feature just after the Civil War. Pretty much the same idea as a Wollensak Vitax (and somewhat similar to the Gundlach Series B, Wolly Vesta, and a few other portrait lenses offered well into the 20th century). Essentially it was a variation of a Petzval with the ability to move the distance between the rear elements. It's not at all the soft focus a Verito would give, however.

Petzvals do work well with ambrotypes due to shorter exposure times (my Dallmeyer 3B has a FL of 11 and 1/2" and a maximum aperture of f/3, which is pretty impressive) and also because of the great sharpness in the plane of focus, which makes the best use of the ambro's capability to record detail.

The tendency for a Petzval lens to isolate the subject from the background has its artistic uses and makes it the direct opposite of a soft focus lens, which has a much finer gradation - probably the finest - between the plane of focus (or lack thereof) and the OOF areas. Both have their uses, but it's definately a new way of seeing for me.

One thing is note-worthy: ambros have a tendency to block-up highlights and SF lenses can obscure details so one has to be careful combining their use if he wishes to preserve any highlight detail. Next time around I'd like to make a negative to see how a print differs.

BTW, a lot of wetplaters use trophy aluminum nowadays. It's so much cheaper and easier than baking tins that one can hardly blame them. Of course, tintype plates were commercially available during their heyday, so I doubt many photographers were producing their own. I still find them somewhat out of place in Civil War reenactments, though!

- Paul

[russyoung]

Petzval Paul is dead on here:
"seems as if the Visual Quality series has received undue attention since Cooke based its PS945 on that model. I have even seen comments online such as "Steichen and Coburn used the visual quality..." although I have no idea where people are getting such information, which is probably pure speculation and hype. We know that Coburn used "about a dozen semi-achromats" and even is credited with suggesting the designs of the II and III series (from P&S's 1920 catalog). Steichen mentions in the book "A Life in Photography" that he first encountered the P&S lens through Holland F. Day around 1902 (it's not specifically stated, but close enough). Day suggested the Series I about 1901. Since the Visual Quality is the fourth series and it wasn't introduced until sometime later, it stands to reason that most of the pictorial photographers with whom we are familiar used the Semi-Achromats since that was all that was available at the beginning of the century."

NO famous photographer used any P&S lens except the first two models and overwhelmingly they used the SEMI-ACHROMATIC. My 92,000 word dissertation was on soft focus lenses and Pictorialism and I must have skimmed at least half a million pages of English and American photographic journals (beginning in the 1850 when the first soft focus lens was proposed) through the 1920s. Also skimmed Alvin Langdon Coburn's manuscripts and archives at the George Eastman House and the Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas. Coburn's lenses, nearly all that he ever used, are at the GEH. Nothing there or in his letters suggests that he used anything but P&S SEMI-ACHROMATICS (Series I and II). Images formed by the Visual Quality are nothing like the Semi-Achromatic Series I (yes, I own both, as well as a Bi-Quality and have tested all three as well as having been a beta tester for the new Cooke PS945).

I will publish and analyze two F. Holland Day letters (1908, 1921) in the journal HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY (in 2009) discussing what role was played by Day, Coburn and Lee in the American adoption of soft focus lenses. Stay tuned.

Russ

[Petzval Paul]

Thanks for the contribution, Russ. I am sure some well-known photographers used the later model P&S's but not the ones we normally associate with such lenses: Day, Stieglitz, Coburn, etc. Clearly they were using SA's at the time. The Visual Qualities were more likely used in Hollywood portraiture than pictorialism!

BTW, I would love to see a side by side comparision of the various series. Certainly there are many differences as they are completely different designs.

- Paul

[Jim Galli]

Petzval Paul is dead on here:
"seems as if the Visual Quality series has received undue attention since Cooke based its PS945 on that model. I have even seen comments online such as "Steichen and Coburn used the visual quality..." although I have no idea where people are getting such information, which is probably pure speculation and hype. We know that Coburn used "about a dozen semi-achromats" and even is credited with suggesting the designs of the II and III series (from P&S's 1920 catalog). Steichen mentions in the book "A Life in Photography" that he first encountered the P&S lens through Holland F. Day around 1902 (it's not specifically stated, but close enough). Day suggested the Series I about 1901. Since the Visual Quality is the fourth series and it wasn't introduced until sometime later, it stands to reason that most of the pictorial photographers with whom we are familiar used the Semi-Achromats since that was all that was available at the beginning of the century."

NO famous photographer used any P&S lens except the first two models and overwhelmingly they used the SEMI-ACHROMATIC. My 92,000 word dissertation was on soft focus lenses and Pictorialism and I must have skimmed at least half a million pages of English and American photographic journals (beginning in the 1850 when the first soft focus lens was proposed) through the 1920s. Also skimmed Alvin Langdon Coburn's manuscripts and archives at the George Eastman House and the Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas. Coburn's lenses, nearly all that he ever used, are at the GEH. Nothing there or in his letters suggests that he used anything but P&S SEMI-ACHROMATICS (Series I and II). Images formed by the Visual Quality are nothing like the Semi-Achromatic Series I (yes, I own both, as well as a Bi-Quality and have tested all three as well as having been a beta tester for the new Cooke PS945).

I will publish and analyze two F. Holland Day letters (1908, 1921) in the journal HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY (in 2009) discussing what role was played by Day, Coburn and Lee in the American adoption of soft focus lenses. Stay tuned.

Russ

Russ, there is a lot of confusion about the P&S lenses simply from lack of any published data. From pictures I assumed that the Series I was a modified (or not) B&L Petzval, and that series II and III were the Semi Achromat's. Dagor 77 sold a Series I back in August of 2007 and the pics of it were identical to my B&L and other generic Petzval's like Hyatt and SeRoCo that were produced by Bausch & Lomb. Particularly the aperture ring which is rather unique to these 1905-ish series of lenses. If anyone has good pictures of Series I, II, III, Pinkham & Smith lenses please e-mail me. It would be nice to get some of the confusion sorted out.

As to what the lenses produce, certainly Coburn's pictures which I have books of, are very different from what I am getting from the 2 later series. Personal preference with romance of famous names aside I think I would choose the IV and V series. While soft, the softness comes from highlight blur and the detail of the photo is mostly intact inside the glow. The Semi Achromat's seem to lose almost all of the detail in softness. Of course I don't have the benefit of shooting all of them side by side. Someday perhaps. I'll leave the jury open until I get a Semi Achromat to work with.

[Petzval Paul]

Jim, did you get my jpeg of the ambro? I mailed it yesterday.

[Jim Galli]

Jim, did you get my jpeg of the ambro? I mailed it yesterday.

No. Must have gotten caught in my IP's filter. I only had 2 emails this AM so fear I'm losing lots of stuff I probably need to see.

[Petzval Paul]

Jim,

Sent you an email. I'll resend the attachment a bit later-on. Maybe tell your ip/email account to give me access. Presumably it thought my attachment was spam.

Interesting about the Seies 1 lenses. I've never seen one and I am surprised that it would be a modified Petzval design. Then again, we know that Day came from England with a Dallmeyer that he showed to Smith. So it makes that it would be more-or-less a copy. The SeRoCo was another I thought of after my post last night that is in the same category.

Also, I just remembered this morning that Petzvals have another trait that distinguishes them from SF lenses: they are equaly sharp wide open as they are closed down. Virtually every other lens with which I am familiar is most soft wide open - especially SF lenses. As I mentioned above, it's a whole new breed o' cat.....

- Paul

[Shen45]

This thread has taken a very interesting track.

How popular or not was the Verito for Pictorialist look photography?

Can anyone post any images from that period shot with a Verito?

Also very specifically what other lenses were used?

[Petzval Paul]

I believe the Verito was first produced just before WWI, maybe around 1910-1912. Since the last issue of "Camera Work" (which featured a collection of Paul Strand's images and which is sometimes considered to represent the swan song of Pictorialism) was published in 1917, it stands to reason that someone had to be using the Verito around that time, considering how it lends itself to such imagery. I certainly can't think of any names associated with it, however.

Of course, the ghost of pictorialsm still walks the earth and I definately can name a few artists who use the Verito...in fact, some are on this forum!

[Mark Sawyer]

Though somewhat after the Photo-Secession era, two well-known photographers who used the Verito in the 1920's were Edward Weston, during his early pictorialist phase and George Edward Hurrell for his portraits of early movie stars. Ansel Adams is known to have used a Spencer Port Land lens, but I've heard rumors he had a Verito for a short time. Jesse Banfield was fairly well known in the pictorialist era, and used a Verito, possibly for this image:

[Jim Galli]

Trying to define pictorialism and it's era is like trying to stack water balloons. There was excellent work aimed at large salons well into the 1950's, and very likely a traceable continuum from then until now. Limiting your tools to their era and trying to only do a picture that might have been done in the period the lens was made is a thought that never occurred once to me. Rather like restoring a 1910 car and insisting the tools used were limited to what was available in 1910. On the other hand I get very upset looking at a 1910 car with phillips head screws holding it together. I guess we all have our quirks we bring to the table.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/TrainsPlainsAutomobiles/39HeadOnProtarVIIf6s.jpg (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/TrainsPlainsAutomobiles/39HeadOnProtarVIIf6.jpg)

The above is something I worked on just this weekend. I modified a 23 7/8" Protar VII. I de-cemented and removed the front 2 of 4 lenses and wound up with an 8" f4 soft focus lens. Quite useable on 5X7. The above was at f6. Click on it for a larger version.

[Jim Galli]

Same lens wide open f4;


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/TrainsPlainsAutomobiles/39HeadOnProtarVIIf4s.jpg (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/TrainsPlainsAutomobiles/39HeadOnProtarVIIf4.jpg)

[Petzval Paul]

Very cool, Jim! I really like the second one a lot.

BTW, I just noticed this on Cooke's PS945 webpage, "The original design of this lens is from the vintage Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality Series IV Soft Focus Lens used by early 20th century master impressionist photographers." In light of Russ's above-mentioned research, I have to wonder how true that statement really is.

- Paul

[Jim Galli]

Very cool, Jim! I really like the second one a lot.

BTW, I just noticed this on Cooke's PS945 webpage, "The original design of this lens is from the vintage Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality Series IV Soft Focus Lens used by early 20th century master impressionist photographers." In light of Russ's above-mentioned research, I have to wonder how true that statement really is.

- Paul

I WISH there was something definitive to refer to. The 1920 catalog lists series II III IV and the new series V. I'd love to see a time line. I wouldn't pic nits with Cooke or who-ever wrote that statement. Even 1920 is still early 20th century to most folk.

[Petzval Paul]

Well, it wasn't so much the time period factor but the "master impressionist photographers". I think the SA was the fave of those guys and perhaps the VQ was more appreciated by portrait photographers. Pure speculation, of course. I wonder if Charles Abel's Professional Portrait Lighting book has any examples of VQ's being used in that context?

[cowanw]

Well, it wasn't so much the time period factor but the "master impressionist photographers". I think the SA was the fave of those guys and perhaps the VQ was more appreciated by portrait photographers. Pure speculation, of course. I wonder if Charles Abel's Professional Portrait Lighting book has any examples of VQ's being used in that context?

For them that don't know this is a 1947 book presenting 100 professional portrait photographers, presumably members of the Photographer's Association of America, and portraits and lighting diagrams of their work.
Goerz Dagor x2
Goerz Ceclor x2
Goerz Dogmar x2
Voightlander Heliar x15
Vitax x5
Velostigmat x9
Verito x13
Varium x2
Beach Multifocal x3
Cooke Anastigmat x2
series 11 Cooke x3
Cooke x1
Cooke Portrait x3
Cooke series Vl x2
Cooke Telephoto 1
Graf Variable x2
B&L Tessar x7
B&L Sigmar x
Struss Pictorial Lens x1
Ilex Paragon x3
Ross x2
Pinkham & Smith x2
Dallmeyer x4
Darlot x3
Zeiss Tessar x3
Contax Sonnar x1
Gundlach Radar x1
Hermagis x1
Steinheil Cassar x1
Eastman x1
Kodak x1
Then parse by aperture and Format size!
A very informative book.
This partly answers Steve Nichols' question too.
Regards
Bill

[Petzval Paul]

Thanks for that, Bill! Very interesting, indeed. I've been hoping to pick up a copy of that book but have yet to find a one.

Let me just amend my above comment...

I think that if anyone dumped $3,000 on a Cooke PS945 expecting to get Steichen-esque diffusion, he would be disappointed. This is not Cooke's fault, but simply based on the fact that the Series IV lenses were not designed with such a heavy degree of diffusion. I believe that P&S's own catalogs describe the VQ as being "between the Semi-Achromat and an Anastigmat" [paraphrased].

The Synthetic, I feel, is really the best of the lot as it is a full-on SF lens but a bit more advanced in its design than the SA models. Certainly other photographers of the era felt the same, as their testimonies in the P&S catalogs state.

Let me see about getting this jpeg posted up here...

[Petzval Paul]

http://bp3.blogger.com/_1pRIL0nQHk0/R5U5AaFXngI/AAAAAAAAAYM/3Im6SLF1kio/s1600-h/Ganesh+ambro.jpg

[Petzval Paul]

Didn't work....

http://sacredbluephoto.blogspot.com/

Hopefully that'll do the trick. I just added the "Synthetic" image so it'll be on top. This week I should be taking some more shots with it. My exposure time was three minutes, wide open (f/5), so portraits are out. BTW, on the very first page of my blog there is a cyanotype of exactly the same image done with a Petzval lens, in case you'd like to compare the different effects.

- Paul

[cowanw]

That's a great comparison, and they fit the Pinkham and Smith images in the Abel book. From the book portraits, it looks to me that the bleeding of the highlights into the darks makes it possible to loose the highlight detail, to loose specular highlights and to create flatter lighter tones and smoother skin in portraiture.
Sounds like there is room for a book here.
I would be very interested in Russ Young's dissertation. Is it available in a library collection? Please
Regards
Bill

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi all,

"Goerz Dagor x2
Goerz Ceclor x2
Goerz Dogmar x2
Voightlander Heliar x15
Vitax x5
Velostigmat x9
Verito x13
Varium x2
Beach Multifocal x3
Cooke Anastigmat x2
series 11 Cooke x3
Cooke x1
Cooke Portrait x3
Cooke series Vl x2
Cooke Telephoto 1
Graf Variable x2
B&L Tessar x7
B&L Sigmar x
Struss Pictorial Lens x1
Ilex Paragon x3
Ross x2
Pinkham & Smith x2
Dallmeyer x4
Darlot x3
Zeiss Tessar x3
Contax Sonnar x1
Gundlach Radar x1
Hermagis x1
Steinheil Cassar x1
Eastman x1
Kodak x1"

Doesn't look like too much has changed since 1947. Noticed there are no Unars listed. Is there a reprint of Able's book in the works?

[Shen45]

Thanks for the list Bill. The Heliar and the Verito seemed very popular lenses. The Smith's much less so. Expense?

Interesting to see the Velostigmat was also very popular.

I have to admit that on the 5x4 the 12" Velostigmat is super creamy at about f8 - f11.

I think the Verito at f5.6 - 8 would give the "pictorial look" still fuzzy but starting to get some reasonable definition.

Most of my old lenses are "too" sharp when stopped down :)

[cowanw]

The book is expensive, but I am glad I bought it. I expect a reprint would be difficult since the whole point is the pictures and a copy reprint would be a poor image. Would the old printing plates still be around? Who knows?
I suspect that this is very much an American selection of photographers, with a Canadian or two thrown in.
As such it would be no surprise to find a preponderance of American lenses. Clearly Wollensak did well in it's time.
I am surprised there were not more Eastman Kodak lenses. Karsh did not participate.
Regards
Bill

[ljsegil]

There appear to be copies of the book (or what at least sounds like the book) available at reasonable prices through Abebooks.com
LJS

[goamules]

Limiting your tools to their era and trying to only do a picture that might have been done in the period the lens was made is a thought that never occurred once to me.

I agree to the extent I have been using quite old processes (wet plate collodion) with not so old lenses (wollensaks). Even if they are a generation apart, they both produce an effect and feel from the previous century. But I don't think I'd use a modern lens for collodion....

Recently Paul and I spoke on another board about the Verito I just got. I've only shot 3-4 plates with it, but this one is my favorite wetplate look so far.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2081/2177137722_6b2c6c5bf3_o.png

Garrett

[cowanw]

Garret, I love that photo, especially the under support placement and tactile look contrasting with the glow of the tankard.
Regards
Bill