soft focus lens recommendation

[luis a de santos]

I will like to have a recommendation for a soft focus inexpensive lens for a view camera I will like if I somebody will give some advice as to what and where to buy these lenses for 4x5 and also 8x10 formats. I would like to stay under 500 or less each.

Thanks Luis

[Ernest Purdum]

Soft=focus lenses are sort of trendy today so their cost tends to be high. Selecting one is a very personal matter, since they have very individual characteristics. You can't really say one is better than another, just different. Have you read the article on soft-focus lenses amongst those listed at the bottom of the home page? This might help. You may also get some ideas from amongst the sample immages that jim Galli and others have put onto the Forum. Keep in mind, though, that soft-focus images in particular lose a lot of their character when translated into digital. You can find many of these samples by searching "soft-focus" and "Petzval". (Petzval is actually rather different, but is often considered las related.)

[Ralph Barker]

You might also try diffusion filters of various sorts. Filters produce a much different effect, of course, but can range in price from free to relatively inexpensive compared to Petzvals and other recently re-popularized lenses. It all depends on what look you want.

[Ole Tjugen]

Among new lenses, the Congo soft focus ones look pretty interesting at a reasonable price...

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Luis,

"I will like if I somebody will give some advice as to what and where to buy these lenses for 4x5 and also 8x10 formats."

Not to rain on the parade BUT soft focus lenses do not enlarge well, better to stay with 8x10 which most were designed for.

Have fun with the hunt.

[Armin Seeholzer]

My favorits are Imagons, Wollensak Velostigmat II, Universal Heliar and you find them on ebay and also some camera shops.
Armin Seeholzer

[Mark Sawyer]

You might also want to consider building your own. It's one of the few optical engineering challenges where a little ignorance helps!

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=35482&highlight=pinkham+binoculars

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=35097&highlight=chinese+pictorial

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/ShitPipeLens/The_ShitPipe_Lens.html

[Brian Ellis]

I used a Nikon soft focus filter on a 35mm camera and also under the enlarger. It was great, a very nice combination of "sharpness" and "unsharpness" (and when used under the enlarger has the advantage of allowing you to vary the degrees of soft focus). Mine was 62mm, I don't know what other sizes they come in but they're inexpensive compared to a lens, around $100 I think.

[anchored]

Another option to spending multi-hundreds on a lens, or making your own lens, or for that matter of putting on soft focus filters which restricts the effects to what the factory wants:

Since we/you are using "old technology," consider a custom-made soft focus that may cost you nothing (and was used in the "old days"). Simply apply a touch of vaseline to a UV or Skylight filter. Add more vaseline for more effect... reduce amount of vaseline for less effect... keep the center clear for variable effect, etc. Soft focus effects can also be done by shooting through lace, or shooting through nylon stockings.

[seawolf66]

try igorcamera.com he has a list of soft lens and barrel lens you should be able to find something you like seem to be fair prices:

[jnantz]

you might also find some at places like equinoxphotographic.com
and jay-tepper.com ...

[Mark Sawyer]

Another option to spending multi-hundreds on a lens, or making your own lens, or for that matter of putting on soft focus filters which restricts the effects to what the factory wants:

Since we/you are using "old technology," consider a custom-made soft focus that may cost you nothing (and was used in the "old days"). Simply apply a touch of vaseline to a UV or Skylight filter. Add more vaseline for more effect... reduce amount of vaseline for less effect... keep the center clear for variable effect, etc. Soft focus effects can also be done by shooting through lace, or shooting through nylon stockings.

Soft focus filters give a different effect from soft focus lenses. The filters diffuse the light with a scattering layer of "optical interference" (for lack of a better term), so you get a fuzzy image overlaid on a sharp image, and the effect stays the same through all f/stops..

True soft focus lenses use aberrations built into the lens (usually spherical abberation) to spread the focus out over a deeper focal plane. Besides the soft effect, which is different-but-similar to the diffusion filters (I think you get more of the "glowing highlights" effect with some of the soft focus lenses), the spherical aberration does some subtle but wonderful things with the depth of field, which is spread more thinly but over a deeper field.

Some of the soft focus lenses also have other built-in artifacts, such as the "swirlies", or in the case of a Petzval (some of which are sf, but most are not), a curved field of focus.

There's no "right answer", and either filters or sf lenses may give you the effect you want. But there are differences...

BTW, if you want to play with making your own diffusion filter, you might consider using polyurethane lightly sprayed or brushed over the uv filter. The problem with vaseline is that when you get it "just right", it can still be easily smeared and you may never get it "just right" again. (Though I suppose you could put a second uv filter over it to protect it...)

[Toyon]

The cheapest soft-focus lenses are poorly made rectilinear lenses, or you can deliberately unscrew one of the elements. Look for a plain old brass non-anastigmat brass lens. Don't try a name brand like Voigtlander or Darlot, they are just too sharp.

[Maris Rusis]

My best soft focus 8x10 lens is a 2.5 Dioptre standard spectacle meniscus lens I got from my local optician for $20. It is 75mm in diameter and fits exactly into a 77mm filter holder after you take out original glass.

The lens is mounted belly forward on a spare Copal#3 shutter and has a maximum working aperture of f8.5. The forward curve of the meniscus takes out most of the field curvature and a light yellow filter (alias minus-violet) takes away most of the hurtful chromatic aberration if that's a problem.

At f8.5 everything is delightfully fuzzy with a core of sharpness. By f11 things are much sharper and by f64 the image is amazingly sharp across the field.

One day I might buy a fancy soft focus lens for $$$ but for now I want to practice the focussing and visualising skills for cheap.

[Mark Sawyer]

One day I might buy a fancy soft focus lens for $$$ but for now I want to practice the focussing and visualising skills for cheap.

But a genuine Pinkham & Smith will make your chest puff out! (At least until a beautiful woman says "You should get a really nice digital camera, like my boyfriend has. It's built right into his cell-phone!")

[Brian Ellis]

"Soft focus filters give a different effect from soft focus lenses. The filters diffuse the light with a scattering layer of "optical interference" (for lack of a better term), so you get a fuzzy image overlaid on a sharp image, and the effect stays the same through all f/stops."

I'm sure you're right about the effects being different. But just as a matter of interest, either the Nikon soft focus filters that I've owned or the soft focus filter made for the Pentax 67 lenses that I've also owned, I forget which, changed effects as you stopped down (the more you stopped down the less the effect). At least that's my recollection though there's an inverse relationship between the accuracy of my recollections and my age - as one goes up the other goes down.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm sure you're right about the effects being different. But just as a matter of interest, either the Nikon soft focus filters that I've owned or the soft focus filter made for the Pentax 67 lenses that I've also owned, I forget which, changed effects as you stopped down (the more you stopped down the less the effect). At least that's my recollection though there's an inverse relationship between the accuracy of my recollections and my age - as one goes up the other goes down.

Interesting... I've never heard of a filter that loses its effect as you stop down the aperture. Wonder what's going on there, perhaps it introduces an aberration instead of diffussion?

The Zeiss Softar filters supposedly give the closest approximation of a true soft focus lens, although all soft focus lenses sem to have their own look, so take that with a grain of salt. Those have small "lenslets" ground or cast into the surface of the filter, but still don't change their effect as you stop down.

[Jim Galli]

But a genuine Pinkham & Smith will make your chest puff out! (At least until a beautiful woman says "You should get a really nice digital camera, like my boyfriend has. It's built right into his cell-phone!")

Now I know a guy who gets a spread on (and in!) View Camera mag doesn't really have Pinkham Envy :D Congrats on a great piece Mark. Also an excellent place for the OP to begin.

[c.d.ewen]

Here's one that the seller implies has been deliberately damaged to produce soft focus:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=270238995179&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=017

Charley

[Kerik Kouklis]

Here's one that the seller implies has been deliberately damaged to produce soft focus:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=270238995179&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=017

Charley
Right. I think he's also auctioning off the Brooklyn Bridge. Pitting of the glass like that will only result in crazy flare and no contrast, not soft focus. Hope noone falls for that story...

[Darryl Baird]

haha, I know that guy. He's a legend in these parts, but I'll count to see if I have all my fingers after shaking his hand. :p

[c.d.ewen]

haha, I know that guy. He's a legend in these parts, but I'll count to see if I have all my fingers after shaking his hand. :p

I actually bought a lens from him (on eBay) a several years ago. No emails, and it took forever to get the lens. He claimed he had had a heart attack.

Charley

[Mark Sawyer]

Now I know a guy who gets a spread on (and in!) View Camera mag doesn't really have Pinkham Envy :D Congrats on a great piece Mark. Also an excellent place for the OP to begin.

Thanks, Jim! But I do confess to a touch of "Pinkham Envy". I hear they're the best solution for "Pictorial Disfunction"... :rolleyes:

[Jim Noel]

You might also try diffusion filters of various sorts. Filters produce a much different effect, of course, but can range in price from free to relatively inexpensive compared to Petzvals and other recently re-popularized lenses. It all depends on what look you want.

Diffusion filters come nowhere near the type of image made with true soft focus lenses. If you choose to go that route, just focus your regular lens and then unscrew the front element until is is a soft as you want it.

You can also pick up some of the larger sized box cameras, remove the lens and shutter and mount them on a lens board. Most were single meniscus lenses, and although not advertised as "soft focus", many were when compared to modern lenses. NOw that I think about it, I have one such lens/shutter combo which I simply cut from the camera and sized it as the lens board. Not as nice as my Petzvals, Darlots,Veritos and Veritars but a cheap way to get started and see if you really like soft focus before you invest a lot of money.

I hope this doesn't cause a run on box cameras. I like to alter them for other uses.

[Chauncey Walden]

I think the distinction has to be made between "portrait" lenses with a sharp to moderately sharp center and fading edges (and possibly on to "swirly" corners) and the classic "pictorial" lens with overall sharp softness such as the early series Smith's (of P&S), such as the series I of F. Holland Day and the series II and III of Alvin Langdon Coburn. It seems to me that the later P&S series (Visual Quality etc.) fall more into the "portrait" category. Anyone else share that thought? Through the years, I went through a lot of old brass lenses looking for that pictorial effect. Most were just sharp, some had the swirly corners, but only one had the near pinhole pictorial effect. Unfortunately, it is unmarked and, for all I know, one of a kind. It is definitely on my schedule to give it a good workout whenever an opportunity presents itself.

[Jim Galli]

I think the distinction has to be made between "portrait" lenses with a sharp to moderately sharp center and fading edges (and possibly on to "swirly" corners) and the classic "pictorial" lens with overall sharp softness such as the early series Smith's (of P&S), such as the series I of F. Holland Day and the series II and III of Alvin Langdon Coburn. It seems to me that the later P&S series (Visual Quality etc.) fall more into the "portrait" category. Anyone else share that thought? Through the years, I went through a lot of old brass lenses looking for that pictorial effect. Most were just sharp, some had the swirly corners, but only one had the near pinhole pictorial effect. Unfortunately, it is unmarked and, for all I know, one of a kind. It is definitely on my schedule to give it a good workout whenever an opportunity presents itself.


"Pictorial" is not quite so easily defined and can bring something completely different from your interpretation to mind for someone else. This is near blesphemy but Coburns images leave me pretty cold. I do like Karl Struss' work from the same era. Pictorial work is an acquired taste. I lean towards the semi-sharp core with pronounced diffusion that the Visual Quality exemplifies. This might be a fun horse to beat for a while, perhaps I'll move this over to a new thread.

[Chauncey Walden]

It is probably a timing thing. When "pictorial", which we can consider an even overall softness for this discussion, went out of favor early in the century, there was still a demand for "portrait", which works well with increasing diffusion to the edges. Thus the shift of the P&S lenses to the series 4, 5, and 6 types. Has anyone ever shot with a Dallmeyer-Bergheim lens? This was the inspiration for the early P&S lenses, apparently. Here are a couple of Coburn's comments on the P&S: "There will be seem to be a belt of focus, more than an actual plane of definite sharpness.., for (it) has a great depth of apparent focus, but none actual." and "It gives to the distance in landscapes the shimmering quality of sunlight seen through a summer mist."

[John Kasaian]

Don't forget to read the articles on soft focus lenses on the LF Home Page! There are some fine examples and good info worth checking out.
Or just smear some vaseline around the edges of whatever lens you've got and go have some fun :D

[Chauncey Walden]

I just came into possession of a copy of a P&S brochure from about 1911. The cover engraving shows a lens marked P. & S., Semi-Achromatic, 13 in with a button actuated diaphragm in an enlarged cylinder near the front of the lens. Henry Smith (Vice-President) writes that his original primary object was "to give an image as near as possible to that obtained by a small pin-hole". Printed in it is a letter from Coburn which says in part that "F. Holland Day, Baron de Meyer, Stieglitz, White, Steichen, Kuehn, Seeley, Mrs. Kasebier are only a few of the workers who use it". Smith goes on to say that due to the glass itself being quite heavy, henceforth the lenses will be in aluminum mounts. The highlights of the lens list are: Size 4x5, 9 inch focus, 1.5 inch diameter, weight 6 ounces, $15; size 5x7, 11, 12, or 13 inch focus, 2.25 inch diameter, weight 8 ounces, $18; size 6.5x8.5, 14 or 15 inch focus, 2.5 inch diameter, weight 22 ounces, $25; size 8x10, 15, 16, 17, or 18 inch focus, 3 inch diameter, weight 24 ounces, $28; size 11x14, 20, 21, or 22 inch focus, 3.5 inch diameter, weight 32 ounces, $40. He says that they will make any length or size desired including small ones to go on hand cameras that won't be as fast, working at f/8.
This time period would be the height of the pictorial/impressionist photographic period and the emphasis would soon change. Jim, Mr. Struss ended up making his on lenses but he doesn't seem to have evened out the effect in some of his images. As for comparing his work with Coburn, Coburn seems more abstract, which he eventually referred to as Symbolism. Coburn essentially ended his prolific photography in this period going on into mysticism with other free thinkers like Davison whereas Struss carried on into cinematography. Does anyone on the list have one of the aluminum mounted Semi-Achromats?

[Chauncey Walden]

Oh, one more quote from Coburn: "If you compare the Semi_Achromatic Quality with out of focus results, you will at once see the difference. With the S.A. lens you get modeling, roundness, suggestive of sculpture, atmosphere and texture. With the out of focus objective, you get - well, if you are a photographer, you are probably sadly aware of what you get..."

[LFstudent]

Try smearing some Vaseline on a filter for this effect. You could be impressed by the results. Craig

[Mark Sawyer]

Try smearing some Vaseline on a filter for this effect. You could be impressed by the results. Craig


You will get the effect of Vaseline smeared on a filter. Sorry...

[seawolf66]

I have always likes the two layer of nylon stocking or one layer depending on the effect one wants;

For those of us that are remembering those others [Listen to the kningston Trio doing "where have all the flowers gone]

Have A Safe Holiday

[Chauncey Walden]

Since I was halfway able to scan a neg for the Dallmeyer thread, I thought that I might do one for this thread of a neg taken with the unmarked 190mm f/11 lens. It was difficult for me to scan it, then resize it for this thread and get it looking like the neg, but perhaps it will give you the idea that the image is uniformly soft but yet in focus and with fairly small details resolved.

[goamules]

I had the chance to see the Tucson's Center for Creative Photography pictorialism versus F64 exibit last month. Many works by the masters of both genre were there, in glowing or crisp (respectively) glory. My takeaway was that the pictoralists wanted to replicate paintings, i.e. art, and used props, costumes on their subjects, and strange, dreamlike settings and adjustments. They used more than just the lens type to create their effect, and create is the operative word. F64 with Adams, et al, strove to capture sharp, modern, realism but still in an artistic way. Wonderful exibit.

[wfwhitaker]

It was difficult for me to... get it looking like the neg...

This looks almost like a charcoal drawing. Has this image been manipulated in Photoshop? Or is the effect the result of the lens alone?

[Chauncey Walden]

Just the lens. The downsizing lost the detail and I applied just enough sharpening to bring the image back to match the neg. No other manipulation.

[russyoung]

I had the chance to see the Tucson's Center for Creative Photography pictorialism versus F64 exibit last month... My takeaway was that the pictoralists wanted to replicate paintings, i.e. art, and used props, costumes on their subjects, and strange, dreamlike settings and adjustments. They used more than just the lens type to create their effect, and create is the operative word.

I'd like to correct the title, it was " Debating Modern Photography: The Triumph of group f/64. The curator's thesis, obviously, is that f/64 won the 'contest' and from GOAMULES' comment, perhaps she also slanted her selection of Pictorial images in order to prove how inferior Pictorialism was when compared to f/64. When I consider the images made by Alvin Langdon Coburn, George Davison, Gertrude Kasebier, Heinrich Kuhn, Robert Demachy, Craig Annan, Hugo Henneberg, Hoffmeister brothers and other masters of Pictorialism, no images of play-costumes, odd props, or strange dreamlike settings come to mind. My suspicion is that she chose images that, to the modern taste, are stilted and fantasy-inspired, in order to teach us how inferior Pictorialism really is.

Mark Sawyer- did you see this show? if so, please chime in!!!!

Russ

[Mark Sawyer]

I went back to the show several times, and caught a lecture and a gallery talk on it. It was one of the best shows I've seen in a while, but I think it was the work itself more than any curatorial insights, that pulled it off. One of the best indicators is how much it's made me think...

One thought is that while the f/64 style eventually became prevalent in the fine arts world, and a lot of great work came out of it, a very large branch of it, (probably even the main trunk!), didn't evolve much beyond the original intent and aesthetics. We could name a lot of photographers currently very high up in the collectors' world who's work hasn't progressed much beyond what the original f/64 group was doing in the 1930's.

Pictorialism seemed to go through a lot more permutations. A big part was originally that fantasy role-playing (think F. Holland Day on the cross!), but it went in a lot of very diverse directions. Photographers cast as "Pictorialist" today seem very far removed from the original Pictorialists, be they the "gallery scene" people like Linda Connor and Sally Mann, or the soft-focus lens users on this forum.

Then there are random thoughts that creep in, like "should Cindy Sherman be considered a Pictorialist, since she did role-playing scenes in imitation of another media?" (Really, how close is her concept to that of Day's crucifixion-as-Christ series?)

The show at the center did largely portray Pictorialism as either overtly theatrical or pastoral impressionism. A few works like Frederick Evans large platinum studies of architecture, or a selection of Emerson's prints from "Life and Landscapes on the Norfolk Broads" would have shown a different face of pictorialism. I agree with you, Russ; much of the Pictorialist work was weak and the attitude towards it rather condescending. But there were some really beautiful works there too.

I don't know if anybody caught it, but there was a very concious effort to have a large number of female photographers representing both Straight and Pictorialist photography, and in the lecture and gallery talk I went to, there was a very feminist slant to it.

And yes, in the end, seeing one art style as triumphant over another seems odd, though the arguement for it is certainly there. I'm happy flopping back and forth between the two styles, and wouldn't hesitate to intermix the two in the same show or publication. Style is, after all, just style. And maybe we're no better than high school girls arguing whether to dress preppy or goth...

Just thoughts...