Choice of Soft Focus Lenses

[Richard K.]

If you didn't have any (pretend!) of the following lenses but were going to be given your choice of 2, which 2 would you pick and why?

Verito
Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality IV
Cooke IIa Portric Knuckler
Nicola Perscheid
Spencer Port-Land
B&L Sigmar
Darlot or Hermagis Petzval

Which 2 would you pick over and above those listed?

[eddie]

Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality IV

Nicola Perscheid

i already have:

Cooke IIa Portrait Knuckler

Hermagis Petzval

[Hugo Zhang]

I only need one:

Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality IV

:)

[Richard K.]

I only need one:

Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality IV

:)

GRRRR He mocks us! :p :D

[Mark Sawyer]

The P&S, (I don't have one), for it's historic aura, and because it's flat-out waaaaaaaay soft.

The Cooke Portric, (I do have one, and a couple of Portrellics!), because it's so darned pretty. And because it's a good counterpoint to the P&S, having just a touch of softness, (and that's adjustable to razor-sharp). And somehow, the tonal scale from a Cooke just seems a little richer...

And I'd still go down to the 99-cent store to buy a cheap magnifying glass, just to show it can produce images as beautiful as anything on that list! :)

[goamules]

They're all great soft focus I'm sure (except the last two, which aren't SF). I think I'd like a Cooke, for the quality build and gentle treatment of "soft".

[Richard K.]

......except the last two, which aren't SF.....

In my soft head I confused soft focus with Portrait but I'm probably still wrong...:rolleyes:

[SR95RACER]

Straight answer :


Verito

Struss

[ederphoto]

I agree 100% with racer . Verito is my first choice and Struss in second but i have to ad a Synthetic P&S as well .

[Jim Galli]

I didn't see Struss in the list. From your list I'd pick the P&S Viz and the Cooke. That covers 2 very different styles of soft focus, the Cooke is very smooth, very classy, and the P&S is just about the best soft lens ever contrived. It is very different from the Cooke. The other important look is Petzval, but in spite of the current flurry of interest on petzvals, they are easier to come by than the other 2.

[Steven Tribe]

I can't answer the question. We all have very different and have changing preferences to "effect" objectives. We can see results of some combinations of types and specific motives posted here ( A big thanks to those who do it ) - but I am sure there are many unexplored compositions which would be suited to other "soft" lenses than those we would select on the basis of posted images with specific motives.

I think the only way is try out everything - or at least those that are available and match own financial resources. Give the lens a year or so, with the range of motives that are interesting to oneself and, perhaps, others . The capabilities of the lens will also suggest motives. Then decide to keep it or pass on to other bitten by the pictorial bug. Certainly this applies to me. I won't even think about other "soft" lenses until I have finished trying out a Port-land, Graf variable, Plasticca and a number of landscape meniscus/aplanatic. Then I'll dispose of the lenses which don't suit me (or my camera set-ups) and try some others.

By the way, I think "knuckler" is an unfortunate addition to the description of Cooke series II as many (most?) were produced without this feature.

But OK, I think the Nicola Perscheid and the Heliar Universal - with the original Heliar design - sound like fun items!

[CCHarrison]

Hi Steven,

If you check the Cooke section of my Soft Focus Lens Article part 2, http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses2.html

you'll note that about 1924, the "knuckles" were added to the SF lens line ( II & VI ).

While an original P&S lens is unique, historical and damn cool, I'll settle for the Bi-Quality Lens that is in the mail to me for delivery on Monday !!!!!

Thanks
Dan

[Richard K.]

Hi Steven,

If you check the Cooke section of my Soft Focus Lens Article part 2, http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses2.html

you'll note that about 1924, the "knuckles" were added to the SF lens line ( II & VI ).

While an original P&S lens is unique, historical and damn cool, I'll settle for the Bi-Quality Lens that is in the mail to me for delivery on Monday !!!!!

Thanks
Dan

Dan, um...where do you live? So I can intercept Monday's mail...:D
BTW, when is Part 3 coming out? ABSOLUTELY AMAZING ARTICLES, thank you. I SERIOUSLY think that you should publish a *book with those illustrations etc. What a fantastic resource to have on one's shelf!! Regardless, thank you for your effort and scholarship. Much appreciated!

*And then another one on the (landscape and portrait) lenses of the 40s through 90s...18 40s through 90s, that is!

[russyoung]

I own all of those except the Perscheid; have zero experience with it.

The effects are very different with various SF lenses and I can only speak to the 'form' that I prefer. There is also a secondary question- how much experience is required to master a various lens? This is the primary issue with the P&S Semiachromatic - very rewarding images but as Coburn said, it takes 100+ exposures to become familiar with it (and most likely, not many of us have his talent...

My favorite is the Kodak Portrait (305 and 420 mm). It is very easy to learn and yields IMHO wonderful glowing images. The Spencer Port-Land is another that is not difficult to learn and yet produces lovely images (Ansel Adams used it).

The Dallmeyer-Bergheim may be a winner but it extraordinarily difficult to learn and use. Little wonder that only Frederick Evans and F. Holland Day found it of use. Have only made a dozen or so exposures and not a one is yet worthwhile but it seems to show great possibilities. It was developed for orthochromatic (green-blue) film and none exists today (so called ortho films today are simply deficient in red sensitivity) and this cannot be mimicked with a filter. This is crucial, perhaps, because this lens (unlike most post-1910 lenses) has tons of chromatic aberration.

Your mileage may vary.

Russ

[Jim Galli]

I own all of those except the Perscheid; have zero experience with it.

The effects are very different with various SF lenses and I can only speak to the 'form' that I prefer. There is also a secondary question- how much experience is required to master a various lens? This is the primary issue with the P&S Semiachromatic - very rewarding images but as Coburn said, it takes 100+ exposures to become familiar with it (and most likely, not many of us have his talent...

My favorite is the Kodak Portrait (305 and 420 mm). It is very easy to learn and yields IMHO wonderful glowing images. The Spencer Port-Land is another that is not difficult to learn and yet produces lovely images (Ansel Adams used it).

The Dallmeyer-Bergheim may be a winner but it extraordinarily difficult to learn and use. Little wonder that only Frederick Evans and F. Holland Day found it of use. Have only made a dozen or so exposures and not a one is yet worthwhile but it seems to show great possibilities. It was developed for orthochromatic (green-blue) film and none exists today (so called ortho films today are simply deficient in red sensitivity) and this cannot be mimicked with a filter. This is crucial, perhaps, because this lens (unlike most post-1910 lenses) has tons of chromatic aberration.

Your mileage may vary.

Russ

I wonder if our modern x-ray film approximates the blue green of the old ortho.

If you'd like to have a go with a Perscheid we could swap lenses for 6 months. I have no plan to purchase a Bergheim but would love to use one once. The Perscheid is a 305 and has the yellow filter with it.

JG

[Toyon]

They're all great soft focus I'm sure (except the last two, which aren't SF). I think I'd like a Cooke, for the quality build and gentle treatment of "soft".

Actually, Bausch and Lomb described the Sigmar lens in its literature as "moderately soft."

[Scott Davis]

I only have a Wolly Vesta right now, actually, and I LOVE it for portraits. It has beautiful creamy-smooth transitions from sharp to soft. On that list, I'd love to get my hands on one of the Cooke knucklers.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have a handful of SF lenses, some "collectible" and others not, but I keep coming back to one lens which no one ever mentions; A Wolly Varium. This is a triplet, similar in design to the Sigmar or the Cooke lenses without the knucker. Open wide at f3.5 (!) it is soft with gentle halation, kind of like the Verito at f5.6 or so, and then it slowly gets sharper as you stop down. It also has nice coverage, and works well on 11x14. Unfortunately it is a huge piece of glass.

[Jim Galli]

I have a 19" f3.5 Sigmar I've never made a picture with. Bad Jim.

[Hugo Zhang]

I have a 19" f3.5 Sigmar I've never made a picture with. Bad Jim.

Bad Jim, show us some pictures. :) I have never seen pictures of 19" f3.5. I only have a 12" f3.5.

[Jim Galli]

Bad Jim, show us some pictures. :) I have never seen pictures of 19" f3.5. I only have a 12" f3.5.


It'll hold 3 lbs of ground coffee. The street car museum keeps trying to buy it because one of the street cars is missing a headlight.

[Richard K.]

I have a 19" f3.5 Sigmar I've never made a picture with. Bad Jim.

SIGH....OK, how much? Do you have a pitcher of it? :) :D

[BarryS]

I have a handful of SF lenses, some "collectible" and others not, but I keep coming back to one lens which no one ever mentions; A Wolly Varium. This is a triplet, similar in design to the Sigmar or the Cooke lenses without the knucker. Open wide at f3.5 (!) it is soft with gentle halation, kind of like the Verito at f5.6 or so, and then it slowly gets sharper as you stop down. It also has nice coverage, and works well on 11x14. Unfortunately it is a huge piece of glass.

I recently got a 15.5" f/5 Ilex Portrait lens which is a soft focus triplet. Anyone familiar with this lens or the design?

[GSX4]

a sleeper lens that got left off the list is a Wollensak 12" f4.5 series II velostigmat with variable soft focus.

[Jim Galli]

I recently got a 15.5" f/5 Ilex Portrait lens which is a soft focus triplet. Anyone familiar with this lens or the design?

You sure about that? I thought those were petzvals.


a sleeper lens that got left off the list is a Wollensak 12" f4.5 series II velostigmat with variable soft focus.

Leave it asleep. We don't want the prices to go any higher.

[CCHarrison]

lens which no one ever mentions; A Wolly Varium.

Technically, although it may produce soft images, it wasnt sold as a "Soft Focus" Lens.
Wollensak advertised it was compromise b/t extremely sharp portraits and a soft focus lens....

Pretty much the same with the B&L Sigmar...."The Sigmar cannot be classed as a soft focus lens..." stated the Sigmar Catalog.....

These lenses are probably great bargains for those looking for soft effects....their lack of popularity as one of the "big name" SF lenses keeps their prices low....

Dan

[Daniel_Buck]

Vaseline :-D

[BarryS]

You sure about that? I thought those were petzvals.

I thought it was a Petval too, until it came. Three elements with a negative in the center. Soft wide open and for a few more stops. I'm trying it this weekend for the first time, so we'll see what it looks like. This particular lens was reworked by Burke and James.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1104/ilexportrait4083.jpg
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9884/ilexportrait4085.jpg
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/3802/ilexportrait4084.jpg

[Jim Galli]

Wow, a beauty, and one I had not seen before. Nice.


I thought it was a Petval too, until it came. Three elements with a negative in the center. Soft wide open and for a few more stops. I'm trying it this weekend for the first time, so we'll see what it looks like. This particular lens was reworked by Burke and James.

[Jon Wilson]

I have a handful of SF lenses, some "collectible" and others not, but I keep coming back to one lens which no one ever mentions; A Wolly Varium. This is a triplet, similar in design to the Sigmar or the Cooke lenses without the knucker. Open wide at f3.5 (!) it is soft with gentle halation, kind of like the Verito at f5.6 or so, and then it slowly gets sharper as you stop down. It also has nice coverage, and works well on 11x14. Unfortunately it is a huge piece of glass.

Jason, your praise of the Varium has me excited....for I picked up an 11x14 Varium and recently put it on my Studio DD 11x14's 8x8 board. I hope to use it soon.

BTW, if you are in Boise next month like you had planned, call me so we can get together and if you have time we can also try out my new darkroom with its 8x10 Durst CLS-2000.

Jon

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

That makes two Varium lenses on S11 cameras in the Northwest! I will be in Boise next month at the University, and will PM you with details.

[Diane Maher]

That makes two Varium lenses on S11 cameras in the Northwest! I will be in Boise next month at the University, and will PM you with details.

I have a 19 in. f/4 Varium on a 9 in. board which is usable on my Century No.7 8x10 in my living room.

[Louis Pacilla]

You sure about that? I thought those were petzvals.

Hey Barry, Your lens may be a Petzval unless B&J did some mojo. I think if anything the spacing of the rear air space is REALLY increased. This would explain the SOFT wide open

I have a 10" the same lens. w/ exception that mine is a Petzval formula for sure. However,this lens is put together different from classic brass type. The front element is a glued pair the next element is set w/ the front glued pair. the rear has the back element for the rear group. In other words they split the rear group physically so when put together the rear group spacing is right for the Petzval formula .

Here's some photos of a 10 1/2 " 5x7 f5 Ilex Portrait lens. the front houses both the glued pair & one of the two rear air spaced lenses. then when put together the front housing screws in so that the rear two w/ air space together to form the rear combination.

If you check out the last two photos. Ilex left a shit load of thread on the last most element of the rear air spaced group. Funny how Ilex never sold the Idea as soft focus by displacement. I'll tell you the truth. This has two or three the amount of displacement of any of my older vintage (rear soft focus) Dallmeyers I have.


Leave it asleep. We don't want the prices to go any higher.

[BarryS]

Louis-- When I bought the lens I looked in some Ilex catalogs and found what I thought were two Petzval lens lines similar to the Wollensak Vitax and Vesta lines. A fast f/4 Petzval portrait lens and a less expensive f/5 Petzval(?) portrait. I expected to receive something similar to Vesta lens suitable for field work with an 8x10. I was surprised to find it was a soft focus lens, derivative of a Cooke Triplet. The design is similar to the illustration below.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7752/cooketriplet.jpg

I'm beginning to think there were two different f/5 Ilex portrait lenses. Either that or B&J somehow mislabeled the lens when it was reworked.

[panchro-press]

Gee...am I the only Graf Variable lover? I have two. One for my 4X5 Graflex and one for my Century portrait.

[Steven Tribe]

By no means - but I think there are quite a lot of them around so it is taken for granted. Is your bigger one a 16/18"?

[8x10 user]

I'd like to see an example from one of the Wollensak Varium's.

[panchro-press]

Yes, Steven, my Graf is the 16-18".

David

[Steven Tribe]

Like mine. What do the lenses in your exterior rear cell lens look like? Mine has dozens of tiny air bubbles - rather than the usual couple. Good thing it's a soft lens!

[Ernest Purdum]

Steven, air bubbles block a little light but don't cause softness. Just one more factor involved in exposure.

[Dan Fromm]

For those who read French or can use Google Translate: http://www.galerie-photo.com/soft-focus-objectif-portrait-flou.html