I Just Now "Fully" Realized That I Do NOT Like...

[Old-N-Feeble]

... soft focus and "swirly" lenses. I've nothing against them but I do NOT like them.

I've been seeking nice... dare I say "bokeh"? Nahh... I'll say pretty (smooth) out-of-focus areas... and I've learned that bokeh and "sharpest" lens design are, more often than not, mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean I'll give up pretty out-of-focus areas for sharpness and I think there is SURELY A MIDDLE GROUND to be had. For instance, really well made so-called "soft-focus" lenses such as the Kodak Portrait lenses, Rodenstock Imagons, Fujinon-SF, etc. Those are intentionally designed with chromatic aberrations but, when stopped down, are pretty darned sharp... but still retain very nice out-of-focus quality... "IF" the aperture is very round.

Arguments listened to...

[goamules]

... soft focus and "swirly" lenses. I've nothing against them but I do NOT like them.

I've been seeking nice... dare I say "bokeh"? Nahh... I'll say pretty (smooth) out-of-focus areas... and I've learned that bokeh and "sharpest" lens design are, more often than not, mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean I'll give up pretty out-of-focus areas for sharpness and I think there is SURELY A MIDDLE GROUND to be had. For instance, really well made so-called "soft-focus" lenses such as the Kodak Portrait lenses, Rodenstock Imagons, Fujinon-SF, etc. Those are intentionally designed with chromatic aberrations but, when stopped down, are pretty darned sharp... but still retain very nice out-of-focus quality... "IF" the aperture is very round.

Arguments listened to...

Why would anyone want to argue with what YOUR preference is? So get a medium sharp lens like a Heliar or Tessar and be happy.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Tessars are really nice but I like center-to-corner sharpness. I'm interested in landscape lenses, not portrait. :)

And... as originally stated... all arguments are welcome. I'm about to stop posting tonight as I'm recognizing how tired I am and don't want to post stupidly. I'll just "listen". ;)

[BrianShaw]

It is always good to know what you like, and what you don't like... Isn't it.

[BrianShaw]

P.s. The smoothest lens I own and enjoy using is a Kodak Commercial Ektar.

[Vaughn]

To hell with the lenses -- let the images sing to you and for you.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm open to all opinions... and I'm listening. Per my original post... I'm not judging... not at all. I just "personally" don't like soft-focus swirly lenses. Please don't be offended. I'm just searching for photographic "nirvana".

[Old-N-Feeble]

P.s. The smoothest lens I own and enjoy using is a Kodak Commercial Ektar.

I believe that. Kodak was/is damned good... from all I've read.

[Two23]

A Heliar is very special, and might be what you're after. Sharper than the usual soft lenses, slightly less sharp than Tessars/Velostigmat (but in a pleasant way.)



Kent in SD

[Old-N-Feeble]

Is there such a thing as razor sharp with pretty bokeh?

[Mark Sawyer]

Is there such a thing as razor sharp with pretty bokeh?

A Cooke Portrait Lens set to sharp is wonderful; razor-sharp, beautiful out-of-focus rendering, and a rich, rich tonal scale, (I wish I knew how they did that...). A Petzval not pushed past its limits (and into the swirlies) is lovely. The humble Rapid Rectilinear is very underappreciated. Process Dialytes like the Artar and Ronar have an attractive look to the out of focus areas, though at f/9 that aspect is somewhat restricted. And the older Tessars, like the Series II Velostigmats are very nice too.

[BrianShaw]

Is there such a thing as razor sharp with pretty bokeh?

That is why I mentioned the Kodak CE. I'm wondering if anyone would agree with me that it meets those two criteria.

[cdholden]

That is why I mentioned the Kodak CE. I'm wondering if anyone would agree with me that it meets those two criteria.

Yep. I regret selling mine.
When I can find another at a decent price, I intend to replace it. Prices have gone up, making this task harder to accomplish.
I'd even be happy with a barrel mount. No need for a shutter here!

[Old-N-Feeble]

I opted for dialyte type lenses for everything above normal focal length... 203 Ektar and Fujinon-C's. But it seems that for normal and wide angle needs plasmats are better, for my purposes, than anything else... maybe a 135 WF Ektar which, I think, is a double gauss. I've yet to test my lenses but I'm going to experiment with using older shutters on modern lenses to see how the rounder apertures affects out-of-focus areas.

I'd really like to try a Cooke but it's just too pricey for my budget. I might try a couple of older Tessars, Rapid Rectilinears, Heliars and Velostigmats.

[E. von Hoegh]

Is there such a thing as razor sharp with pretty bokeh?

Goerz Dagor.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have no doubt that Commercial Ektars can accomplish this. Those of you who have experience with them; Do you think their nice out-of-focus rendering is due largely to their rounder apertures?

I don't think I can afford later model coated Dagors.

[E. von Hoegh]

That is why I mentioned the Kodak CE. I'm wondering if anyone would agree with me that it meets those two criteria.

It does. The CE series of lenses were as good as it ever got for the Tessar design.
But a good Dagor in the hands of someone who knows how to make it work has more coverage and a smoother character.

[Emil Schildt]

the sharpest lens I have ever own was the first I got for LF:
Boyer "Saphir" 300 4,5.

And beautiful out of focus areas.

But just to be clear: as Mark said, the swirley and the Petzval is not a sure thing. For me it is actually easier to make Petzval shots without the swirleyness than with it... It matters how you use it.

and he is (also) right about the "underrated" RR's...

[cdholden]

I have no doubt that Commercial Ektars can accomplish this. Those of you who have experience with them; Do you think their nice out-of-focus rendering is due largely to their rounder apertures?

I don't think that's all it is, but it do think it plays a significant part. That's one reason I prefer barrel lenses over shutter mount. In most cases, barrels have more iris blades than the equivalent sized shutter option offers.

[BrianShaw]

Do you think their nice out-of-focus rendering is due largely to their rounder apertures?

I don't really know why but also don't really care too much for an explanation. I'm happy that it performs as such and just use it.

[cdholden]

It does. The CE series of lenses were as good as it ever got for the Tessar design.
But a good Dagor in the hands of someone who knows how to make it work has more coverage and a smoother character.

I think I would have a problem making this statement. I don't disagree that Dagors work well in competent hands. The Commercial Ektar was one design made by one company, and one known for quality control.
The Dagor design was manufactured and modified by several companies over many decades. I think it's hard to compare one to many when comparisons should be one to one.

[E. von Hoegh]

I think I would have a problem making this statement. I don't disagree that Dagors work well in competent hands. The Commercial Ektar was one design made by one company, and one known for quality control.
The Dagor design was manufactured and modified by several companies over many decades. I think it's hard to compare one to many when comparisons should be one to one.

That's why I said "a good Dagor".

[BrianShaw]

Rapid Rectilinears

Interestingly, I plucked a B+L RR in Kodak TBI shutter off of a 19-ought-whoknowswhen folding camera (122 film size) and was astounded at how nice that RR is. I spent about 1 hour overhauling the shutter and refreshing my memory about US stop conversion. It covered 4x5 just fine and was WAY better than I ever imagined. I ended up repatriating it with the camera which is now in storage awaiting some free-time when I plan on converting it to 120.

[Jay DeFehr]

Goerz Dagor.

E. von Hoegh recommends a Dagor? Who'd a thunk?

[BrianShaw]

The Dagor design was manufactured and modified by several companies over many decades. I think it's hard to compare one to many when comparisons should be one to one.

That is a clear statement of what I think every time I read about people buying "a design" versus buying a specific lens.

[cdholden]

Me? A clear statement? I haven't even had my morning dose of caffeine yet.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then.

[E. von Hoegh]

That is a clear statement of what I think every time I read about people buying "a design" versus buying a specific lens.

Me too. What CDH said about Dagors is correct. One of the nicest I've ever used was made by Schneider and called a Symmar. Perhaps the worst I've ever used was made by Goerz in New York.
But it is true that certain designs have a certain character.

[BrianShaw]

But it is true that certain designs have a certain character.

No doubt!

[Greg Y]

I'm fond of both Dagors & CE's.....Since I've given up my 8x10 in favor of 5x7 I sold off my 12" & 14" Commercial Ektars...I'd like to get a hold of an 8 1/2" CE to go along with the Dagors

[Dan Fromm]

I have no doubt that Commercial Ektars can accomplish this. Those of you who have experience with them; Do you think their nice out-of-focus rendering is due largely to their rounder apertures?

I don't think I can afford later model coated Dagors.

As has been said here many times, the diaphragm's shape affects rendition of out-of-focus highlights, has nothing to do with the transition from sharp to unsharp.

Then look for Boyer Beryls (s/n > 250 k) or Berthiot Perigraphes and Eurygraphes (s/n > 900k or prefixed with a letter). And, by the way, with just four air-glass surfaces Dagors and clones don't benefit much from coating.

[rdenney]

I've seen lenses with round apertures that had horrible bright edges on out-of-focus highlights. And lenses with pentagonal apertures that provide a lovely smooth rendering. And tessars that were at both extremes.

One thing that I believe is true: smooth rendering of out-of-focus details behind the focus plane require slightly undercorrected spherical aberration. The spherical aberration is what fades the edges of the disks that are points when in focus. Most older designs did not fully correct primary aberrations such as spherical aberration when used at wide apertures, so that explains why they show a rendering that to me has a vintage look. But most become quite sharp when stopped down. The trick for a lens with good bokeh is that as one stops down, the sharpening up of those disks (due to reducing the spherical aberration) is matched by those disks becoming smaller (due to increased depth of field). Those are the lenses that seem to render beautifully at all apertures. I have an old Ilex Paragon (an inexpensive but good coated tessar design from the 50's and 60's) that comes closest to that ideal among my large-format lenses. But I usually am trying to make everything sharp, or I'm not that concerned about the rendering of unsharp bits, when using large format. When it matters, that's the lens I usually use, recognizing that I will be giving up a bit of critical sharpness. On the other hand, the very worst lens I own for smooth rendering is a Bausch and Lomb Ic Tessar, from the 40's (though it made a decent enough enlarging lens). That reinforces the point that while design archetypes may have tendencies, they can be and often were tailored to optimize for different qualities.

In medium format, nothing in my collection comes close to the Zeiss Jena Sonnar, 180/2.8 or 300/4, which is a vintage design even in the newer multicoated versions (it was made until about 1990). But in an MTF test, lenses of more modern design (particularly using computer methods) will score better at wider than about f/8.

For a lens to be critically sharp in the focus plane, it usually has to ruthlessly correct every bit of (at least) the primary aberrations. That means those out-of-focus disks will have a well-defined edge and an even brightness across their width. That's a lot better than the bright edges found on some lenses, if smooth rendering is your goal. But smoother than that may require giving up a bit on sharpness.

Here's the final point, however: Whiile bokeh is real, the evaluation of its effects is subjective. Thus, you are generally stuck with having to just try things until you find the lenses that make the images you like. It is not a two-dimensional effect, with only out-of-focus highlight rendering and aperture as the dimensions. There is also the shape of those disks (affected by aperture shape, and of no real issue if the disk fades at the edge but of primary interest when the edges are well-defined), and the relationship of that rendering to the size of the disk as controlled by depth of field or distance from the focus plane. And there are other, more subtle effects. Most photographers for whom this matters buy lenses until they find the ones that make the images they like and sell the rest.

Rick "suspecting that a purpose-built lens like a modern Cooke might be designed around these objectives directly, but bring your checkbook" Denney

[Scott Davis]

Another vote for the Commercial Ektar, or if you need more speed, they also made a 'just plain' 12" Ektar f4.5 if the f6.3 of the Commercial Ektar isn't fast enough. Both came in #4/#5 Ilex shutters which had multi-bladed irises. A friend of mine once did a comparison test between the 14" CE, a 355mm Calumet (a Commercial Ektar clone) and a 14" Kern Gold Dot Dagor. The Kern Dagor had the harshest, most unpleasant Bokeh of the three, with the Calumet and the Commercial Ektar being closely tied - the original Commercial Ektar was nominally better than the Calumet (it is my understanding that the Calumet is slightly reformulated from the original Ektar design), but my friend opted to get the Calumet because it was an order of magnitude cheaper than the Ektar.

All that praise of the Ektar aside (and I do LOVE my Ektars), I think the Heliar is even better. I only have a 240mm in shutter, but I think it has the creamiest, smoothest, most beautiful out of focus areas of any lens I've ever had. At least of anything that I can mount on a field camera. If I could find a 360mm Heliar in a shutter, I'd be in hog heaven.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Wow... thank you for all the replies so far. This a lot to digest.

I guess I'm obsessed with lens "perfection" or at least my uninformed/unpracticed ideas of it. It helps to read your comments and ideas. Researching, studying, deciphering, filtering and distilling information can be very difficult and time-consuming especially when the subject is multifaceted with both objective and subjective information. My head hurts. :)

[BrianShaw]

... they also made a 'just plain' 12" Ektar f4.5 ...

I like the old uncoated Kodak Anastigmat (Nr 32, 33, and 34 are the one's I use) almost as much. The only "problem" is that mine are either barrel or in dial-set Compur shutters and preclude use with flash.

[Mark Sawyer]

I opted for dialyte type lenses for everything above normal focal length... 203 Ektar and Fujinon-C's. But it seems that for normal and wide angle needs plasmats are better, for my purposes, than anything else... maybe a 135 WF Ektar which, I think, is a double gauss.

For a nice wide angle, you might consider an old WAR (Wide Angle Rectilinear). Rather dark at usually an f/16 maximum aperture, but they often use wheel-stops with perfectly round apertures. The Protar Series V would be another nice option, though again it only opens to f/18. The Wollensak EWA is also a Double-Gauss, but I've been underwhelmed by its out-of-focus rendition.

Personally, I think the aperture shape is not that important, unless you have echoes of the shape in flares in the image, or the shape is radically different as with an Imagon's discs. The look from a Verito in a Studio Shutter (with a saw-tooth-ragged aperture) is as nice as from a Verito in a barrel with a very round aperture. But some very knowledgeable folks disagree...

[Michael Graves]

Hear, hear! I've gone through about five different ~10" lenses and the only one that has stayed with me for many years is a 10" Commercial Ektar. Last year when I had one stolen, I immediately went on the search for (and found) an even nicer copy. Thank you, Liberty Mutual!

[Dan Fromm]

<snip> I guess I'm obsessed with lens "perfection" or at least my uninformed/unpracticed ideas of it. <snip>

Its time to send your head to the shop for an overhaul.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Its time to send your head to the shop for an overhaul.

Doc says it's hopeless!! :D

[E. von Hoegh]

Wow... thank you for all the replies so far. This a lot to digest.

I guess I'm obsessed with lens "perfection" or at least my uninformed/unpracticed ideas of it. It helps to read your comments and ideas. Researching, studying, deciphering, filtering and distilling information can be very difficult and time-consuming especially when the subject is multifaceted with both objective and subjective information. My head hurts. :)

Stop looking at lens specs and make some photographs. Any decent lens - and that is just about all of them - has more potential locked up in it than any photographer will fully utilise. There is no "perfect" lens, every single lens ever made is an assembly of compromises.

[cdholden]

every single lens ever made is an assembly of compromises.

Do you mean... *dramatic pause*... even the dagor? :eek:

[E. von Hoegh]

Do you mean... *dramatic pause*... even the dagor? :eek:


Sssshhhhh. Someone might be reading....

[Emil Schildt]

:rolleyes:

Personally, I think the aperture shape is not that important, unless you have echoes of the shape in flares in the image, or the shape is radically different as with an Imagon's discs. The look from a Verito in a Studio Shutter (with a saw-tooth-ragged aperture) is as nice as from a Verito in a barrel with a very round aperture. But some very knowledgeable folks disagree...

:rolleyes:

look at this aperture: guaranteed to get you real ugly background!! (Unless you make christmas cards...)

[Old-N-Feeble]

gandolphi... Any example pics from that lens with razor blade aperture? What the heck is it anyway?

[Mark Sawyer]

That's the old Penrose Hilite lens. People argue over whether it's a soft focus lens or a process lens. I don't know if it was ever resolved... What does that thing do, Emil?

The Verito came with some really wild stops too:

[dap]

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

look at this aperture: guaranteed to get you real ugly background!! (Unless you make christmas cards...)

That reminds me of the sliding cross type blades on the 35mm "dreamagon" lens

[Emil Schildt]

That's the old Penrose Hilite lens. People argue over whether it's a soft focus lens or a process lens. I don't know if it was ever resolved... What does that thing do, Emil?

The Verito came with some really wild stops too:

Mark: yes - I bought it as a soft focus lens, but I am now rather sure it isn't anything like that....
Looking at the GG outside makes me think of Christmas - background full of little stars...

The lens have a normal working aperture as well - I think it might be a dual purpose lens, and the torture like aperture was for enlarging.

Only a guess, but...

It looks cool though..

[John Kasaian]

I have no doubt that Commercial Ektars can accomplish this. Those of you who have experience with them; Do you think their nice out-of-focus rendering is due largely to their rounder apertures?

I don't think I can afford later model coated Dagors.

You don't really need a coated Dagor, IMHO, the older uncoated the better.
Commercial Ektars rock, IMO, whatever Kingslake did to them, he done good.
Also Wollensak Velostigmat series 2 are very nice in the sharp/bokeh dept.
My opinion---and worth every dime, LOL!

[Louis Pacilla]

That's the old Penrose Hilite lens. People argue over whether it's a soft focus lens or a process lens. I don't know if it was ever resolved... What does that thing do, Emil?


The Penrose was a Special Process lens.

[Mark Sawyer]

The Penrose was a Special Process lens.

Thank you, Louis! Were those blades for rendering a particular effect in the half-tones?

[David R Munson]

Is there such a thing as razor sharp with pretty bokeh?

Noctilux :D

[Two23]

All that praise of the Ektar aside (and I do LOVE my Ektars), I think the Heliar is even better. I only have a 240mm in shutter, but I think it has the creamiest, smoothest, most beautiful out of focus areas of any lens I've ever had. At least of anything that I can mount on a field camera. If I could find a 360mm Heliar in a shutter, I'd be in hog heaven.


Looks like I'm not the only Heliar fan here. Now I have a question. I've never had a CE, but do own a 12 in. Velostigmat II. I really like the classic look given by that lens, too. So, both Kodak CE and Velostigmat II are Tessar types? I also have a Zeiss 165mm Tessar, but it gives a different look than the Velostigmat. But then, I haven't had enough experience yet with the latter.



Kent in SD

[Corran]

I'm just waiting for the day you actually post a photo Feeble. Or have you, and I've missed it?

[John Kasaian]

Looks like I'm not the only Heliar fan here. Now I have a question. I've never had a CE, but do own a 12 in. Velostigmat II. I really like the classic look given by that lens, too. So, both Kodak CE and Velostigmat II are Tessar types? I also have a Zeiss 165mm Tessar, but it gives a different look than the Velostigmat. But then, I haven't had enough experience yet with the latter.



Kent in SD
There are tessars and then there are tessars.

[Mark Sawyer]

There are tessars and then there are tessars.

The trick is telling which is which...

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm just waiting for the day you actually post a photo Feeble. Or have you, and I've missed it?

No... no LF photos in a very long time. I don't get around very well these days. Also, I learned in my youth to conserve materials. I moved from 135 to 6x4.5 to 6x7 to 4x5 and shot less as I switched to larger formats. I can't travel far and I just haven't seen much here worthy of using film to document... an old bridge and a couple of dilapidated buildings, maybe. I'll shoot something soon.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Even after I sell several things it'll be awhile before I have any spare cash. I have a few more pressing things to take care of. However, after reading all the comments here, I'm tempted to buy a 12 inch Commercial Ektar to compare with a 300mm Fujinon-C. I do want coated lenses... even the simple 4 air-spaced designs. I doubt I can afford a set of coated quality Dagors.

Yes, Corran... I will eventually take LF photos. :D