PDA

View Full Version : All those beautiful vintage soft focus lenses...Expensive?



mohan
14-Jan-2009, 12:03
I am so moved by all the cool soft focus images, experiments and comparisions at http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com. Then when I look up the lenses used to take the photos, on Google...it is very soon clear that I need to "visit" the nearest bank to get anywhere close to most of the lenses :)

So...I wonder...Is the realm of the soft-focus photography only for the very large formats (bigger than 8x10) and the super expensive lenses? Why are these lenses so expensive?

Thank you Mr. Jim Galli for sharing your experiences with these very cool Soft focus lenses.

cheers

David A. Goldfarb
14-Jan-2009, 12:09
There are some cult lenses (Nicola Perscheid, Pinkham-Smith, and such), and prices go up and down with the fashions and internet chatter, but there are lots of interesting lenses to be had, like all the miscellaneous Petzval types made in the 19th century, that aren't so expensive.

Glenn Thoreson
14-Jan-2009, 12:35
Well, a few years ago, with the exception of the high end stuff, you could pick things like that up for next to nothing. "Petzvals? Pish, who wants those things?" Now there seems to be a much renewed interest in large format gear and especially lenses. Lenses that I could routinely buy for ten bucks a pop, a few years ago, are now going for 100.00+. Right now, the fad is out of focus and swirly bamooka or whatever. People will tire of it in a few years but I don't foresee prices dropping as much as when the digital fad first struck. It's probably Jim's fault anyway. :D

Walter Calahan
14-Jan-2009, 12:46
Blame it on Jim.

Next everyone will be using ultra-sharp copy lenses as the new fashion rage. HA!

Toyon
14-Jan-2009, 12:48
There are some cult lenses (Nicola Perscheid, Pinkham-Smith, and such), and prices go up and down with the fashions and internet chatter, but there are lots of interesting lenses to be had, like all the miscellaneous Petzval types made in the 19th century, that aren't so expensive.

A Petzval is not a soft focus lens.

David A. Goldfarb
14-Jan-2009, 13:00
A Petzval is not a soft focus lens.

True, but I think the current interest in historic lenses includes some lenses that aren't soft focus lenses like Petzvals and Heliars (as opposed to the Universal Heliar, which is a variable soft focus lens). Petzvals certainly get funky when used for formats larger than intended, as they often are today.

BarryS
14-Jan-2009, 14:24
Jim has everything on his site from junk box lenses to some of the rarest soft focus lenses. So, it's more a matter of hunting for the obscure and unappreciated lenses that give you a look you want. There are still bargains out there, but you have to work harder to get them. There are interesting soft focus lenses for most large formats, so you don't have to go big, but the selection for 8x10 seems bigger, probably because it was such a popular portrait format in the soft focus era.

Ken Lee
14-Jan-2009, 14:34
It depends on what you mean by "soft focus", because if there is one thing which Jim's work demonstrates, it's that "soft focus" appears in a wide variety.

There have been many portrait lenses designed for smaller formats, and not all of them are antiques. If you search the web for "portrait lens (http://images.google.com/images?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USUS294US302&sourceid=chrome&q=portrait%20lens&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)" you will find them.

If you don't need extreme soft focus, then there are even more lenses available, which give nice blur when shot at wide apertures. Search the web for for "bokeh (http://images.google.com/images?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USUS294US302&sourceid=chrome&q=bokeh&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)".

goamules
14-Jan-2009, 18:11
On soft petzvals, while it's true they were designed and known for central sharpness and contrast, there are are few we should recall that have soft focus features; The Wollensak Vitax and the later Dallmeyer portrait lenses.

But as to your question of expense, there are many ways got get beautiful soft focus (sometimes pretty extreme). Some use filters, some use only parts of existing lenses or modify them. And some buy simple meniscus lenses and make mounts. These are the cheap routes. The next step up would be trying to win or find a soft focus for a good price. Finally, you can sell the car and get a "prime" SF lens.

Good luck, it can be done.

Toyon
14-Jan-2009, 20:21
You need to decide whether you want classic soft focus, caused by deliberately induced lens aberrations - an effect that is relatively uniform across the field, or a lens that is sharp in the center - but subject to strange effects outside of the core area. The latter type is less expensive. In fact on almost any older lens, all you need to do is find a lens that is designed for a smaller format than you are using. The outer area of the image may exhibit some very strange effects. In addition, you can try removing one element from a lens, and/or unscrewing and element part way. You may like the effect you discover. Classical soft-focus lenses are being bought up by detestable "collectors", who generally never use them. They are consequently being priced out of reach of decent people who will actually use them.

seawolf66
14-Jan-2009, 20:28
Here is thread at photo.net on bokeh

http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00S2yV
enjoy reading

Jim Graves
14-Jan-2009, 20:39
If you can find it, take a look at the May/June 2008 View Camera magazine. The cover article is about Mark Sawyer's high school class in Tucson that used 50 cent magnifying glass lenses to do soft focus portrait shots ... they are absolutely gorgeous.

I just finished a term at the local college in which I did my portfolio with one of those lens on a Speed Graphic. Grade was an A+. I chose scenes that emphasized the effect of softness ... some river/pond/park scenes in the fog ... some ethereal portraits (like Mark's class) ... some phantasmagorical shots [a weird African-looking warrior sculpture in a garden, the entrance to a kiddy park at night, an angel and lamb in the cemetery] ... and some portals/entrances beyond which you were made to wonder what was behind them ... all of them sharp in the very center but quickly blurring on the extremes.

As you can tell from the comments, they are not for everybody ... I'm fine with that ... but, I'm not sure why some people react SO negatively to them because the effect can definitely set a mood or feeling that you can't get with sharp focus. And ... if you think about it, it is really more how we see ... if you look at something, you focus on the middle and the rest of your view is blurred.

Have fun with it ... and try the really cheap lenses first.

goamules
16-Jan-2009, 09:21
I find this interesting agreement with Jim and Mark's ideas for cheap soft focus:

The Pulligny and other uncorrected lenses have been designed for pictorial work but it is doubtful whether some of these ... have any appreciable advantages for such purposes over cheap magnifying glasses which can often be obtained for a tenth or a twentieth of the price. Far more in all such cases depends upon the user than the tool and in capable hands a simple set of spectacle lenses with a mount to hold any selected one such as is put on the market by several makers seems to do all that is wanted. 1906 - The Complete Photographer - By Roger Child Bayley

jnantz
16-Jan-2009, 09:41
you can buy a cheap junker folder
and take the lens off of it.
i have done that, it works great and costs pennies ...

John Kasaian
16-Jan-2009, 10:14
The more famous lenses like the verito and vitax used to be cheap but now they go for a premium. The solution? Look for "infamous" lenses such as the Cooke anastigmat or the Wolly velostigmat series II, or take a chance on an old brassie. I've got a MacIntosh off a magic lantern, it cost all of $20 :)

I don't think of vintage glass to be only useful on 8x10---look at the articles on the large format homepage and you'll see one about the verito on a 4x5.

In fact, I don't use the big brassies on my 8x10---I doubt if the front standards could take the wieght(most of these lenses are quite large and heavy!) I think I'd need something along the lines of a studio camera for that, BUT the Cooke and the Mac do fit nicely on the Agfa Ansco 5x7/4x5. If your 4x5 has a large enough lensboard, why not use a softy?

Jim Galli
27-Jan-2009, 21:02
I am so moved by all the cool soft focus images, experiments and comparisions at http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com. Then when I look up the lenses used to take the photos, on Google...it is very soon clear that I need to "visit" the nearest bank to get anywhere close to most of the lenses :)

So...I wonder...Is the realm of the soft-focus photography only for the very large formats (bigger than 8x10) and the super expensive lenses? Why are these lenses so expensive?

Thank you Mr. Jim Galli for sharing your experiences with these very cool Soft focus lenses.

cheers

Somehow I missed this thread. Thank you Mohan! It could have been that I was busy becoming a new grandpa. ;) Yes, many avenues besides robbing a bank. Some of the early landscape meniscus lenses are just superb. Most are throttled to f12 or worse. You have to open the throat and let them sing. Mark Sawyers 1f99 and 2f99 lenses have produced remarkable work. Or, go ahead and knock over the bank and buy the pretty Verito I listed this week :cool:

Nathan Potter
27-Jan-2009, 21:21
You can buy achromats and single meniscus lenses from Edmund Scientific in a variety of diameters and use them wide open (no iris or shutter). For simulated peripheral swirl etc. you can use a thin coat of vaseline on the glass.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

amoebahyda
30-Jan-2009, 09:54
I use Rodenstock Imagon 120 and 250mm lenses which use variable size disks to control the degree of softness...

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Imagon250mm-2.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Imagon120mm.jpg

Toyon
30-Jan-2009, 10:57
Just curious, what effect do the Imagon soup strainers have on the final print?

jnantz
30-Jan-2009, 11:34
you can also use a meniscus lens on your enlarger to print through.
the soft focus effect can be gotten in the printing stage as well ...
(box camera lenses work well as enlarger lenses).

Ole Tjugen
30-Jan-2009, 11:42
Voigtländer made a soft-focus enlarger lens - the 180mm W.Z.

I still haven't tried mine on the enlarger, but it's really nice as a taking lens. ;)

Mark Sawyer
30-Jan-2009, 12:17
Used in the enlarging stage, a soft focus lens will spread the shadows, rather than give the glowing highlights as when used in the taking stage. It can be a nice effect, but is quite different...

amoebahyda
30-Jan-2009, 12:29
Just curious, what effect do the Imagon soup strainers have on the final print?


Variable degree, IMHO the best soft effect is turning the variable aperture until the white halo just unobservable. Besides, there will be interesting bokeh with the variable aperture.

Mark Sawyer
30-Jan-2009, 14:03
Just curious, what effect do the Imagon soup strainers have on the final print?

You can also get soup-strainer-shaped lens flares from bright highlights. Rather unattractive in my opinion. But My 300mm Imagon is in a Compound shutter with a normal diaphragm, and despite Rodenstock's recommendation not to use it, I've found it works quite nicely with the Imagon. It controls the spherical aberration just as the aperture does on any other soft focus lens. Mind you, the Imagon has a bit of a look of its own that some don't care for...