On Portrait Lenses

[Steven Tribe]

The Rapid Rectilinear was popular because it filled the need for a "general purpose" lens, and was sometimes referred to as a "Universal" lens.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the Rapid Rectilinear ever replaced the Petzval Portrait Lens, but it was seen as an improvement in some pretty significant areas, as mentioned above. And the new Jena glasses of the 1880's allowed for f/6, f/4.5, an even f/4 Euryscop RR's, which were considered "portrait lenses" in their own right. But the Petzval was still being produced as a top-of-the-line professional portrait lens well into the 1930's, while the RR's were by then only rarely offered as "budget lenses", having been bettered by anastigmats like the Tessar, Dagor, Protar, etc. Even today, everyone seems to love a Petzval, while the RR's get no love...

Production of new "ordinary" Petzval lenses seems to have "died" just before the end of the 19th Century. I am not sure whether this was the production of the new types - especialy the new glass Aplanats and the big Cooke Triplets - or the fact that the number of studio portrait establishments first stagnated, then fell. There were enough Classic Petzvals from 1860 - 1895 around to cover studios' needs. Newly started studios would have been more interested in lenses without the extreme speeds neccesary for the old emulsion types. Sales of the dedicated fast aplanat portrait types from Busch and Suter were very good in the period to WW1. Only Voigtlander got out of the of this market quite quickly, but they had the Heliar design just at the right time!

[AlexGard]

Thanks Mark.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Mark Sawyer]

Production of new "ordinary" Petzval lenses seems to have "died" just before the end of the 19th Century. I am not sure whether this was the production of the new types - especialy the new glass Aplanats and the big Cooke Triplets - or the fact that the number of studio portrait establishments first stagnated, then fell. There were enough Classic Petzvals from 1860 - 1895 around to cover studios' needs. Newly started studios would have been more interested in lenses without the extreme speeds neccesary for the old emulsion types. Sales of the dedicated fast aplanat portrait types from Busch and Suter were very good in the period to WW1. Only Voigtlander got out of the of this market quite quickly, but they had the Heliar design just at the right time!

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Petzvals "'died' just before the end of the 19th Century." Certainly the new anastigmats and fast RRs took a big chunk of the market, but Dallmeyer and Wollensak, two of the biggest manufacturers of those times, each kept two different series Petzvals in production in multiple sizes. And when Ilex began manufacturing lenses in the early 1920's, its flagship lens was an f/3.8 Petzval, (a clone of Wollensak's Vitax), along with an f/4.5 Tessar and an f/5 Petzval.

Voigtlander did drop the Petzval design a little early, considering they'd built their reputation on it for forty years, but Petzvals were still in their catalogs in 1910, and possibly later. But as you said, they had the Heliar, a whole array of Euryscops, Dynars, Collinears, and Heliostigmats to concentrate on, and Voigtlander had patents they could at least try to enforce on those designs.

[David Karp]

Thank you, David and John! Not sure how to submit a reference article, but I'll flag the final version for the moderators, and see if they want it... The home page needs a few new reference articles!

Just PM or email QT. It is his page. He will decide if he wants it. The cool thing about an article on the home page vs a forum post is that it is easier to find on Google and can be browsed as someone looks through the home page for info on LF.

[Steven Tribe]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Petzvals "'died' just before the end of the 19th Century." Certainly the new anastigmats and fast RRs took a big chunk of the market, but Dallmeyer and Wollensak, two of the biggest manufacturers of those times, each kept two different series Petzvals in production in multiple sizes. And when Ilex began manufacturing lenses in the early 1920's, its flagship lens was an f/3.8 Petzval, (a clone of Wollensak's Vitax), along with an f/4.5 Tessar and an f/5 Petzval.

Voigtlander did drop the Petzval design a little early, considering they'd built their reputation on it for forty years, but Petzvals were still in their catalogs in 1910, and possibly later. But as you said, they had the Heliar, a whole array of Euryscops, Dynars, Collinears, and Heliostigmats to concentrate on, and Voigtlander had patents they could at least try to enforce on those designs.

Yes, probably a little strong! I was thinking of European/UK makers mostly. I can't remember seeing a Ross Cabinet from after 1900. Dallmeyer still sold the defusion models and the American market had Petzvals and the pictorial series. Voigtlander had the Petzval 1a but it was mostly for the growing cine market. Busch contined to at least 1910 (see 2 nice examples at a future Westlicht or Breker). Zeiss never even tried to enter the market, I think, and Rodenstock left only traces of production. The growing middle class personal photography market was the area for expansion.

[goamules]

Now it's time to explore the proverbial attributes of Petzvals. Those are the features that the period ads talked about, but can't really be defined. Like "roundness" often mentioned, and "soft focus" (in the Dallmeyer Patent design).

I'm not going to look up examples from ads (now that Camera Eccentric is gone), but you know what I mean. And I've yet to find anyone that can refute my hypothesis on the Dallmeyer soft device. That is, if you focus a Petzval with the rear adjustment in any position, and then move that adjustment, you get an out of focus image, not a soft focus. You can prove this by next refocusing the lens, leaving the diffusion where it is. You will get a sharp image, back in focus. There is no way to make it "soft" first, then focus it, like you can a Portrait Plastigmat, Struss, Verito, or other true soft lenses. All the Dallmeyer and Vitax adjusters do is "unfocus" the lens.

[Tim Meisburger]

That is interesting Garrett, as I have a Dallmeyer 3b with a frozen soft focus, and I have always wondered what setting it is on. What you are saying it that is doesn't really matter. Its makes a lovely whole plate.

[Mark Sawyer]

Just PM or email QT. It is his page. He will decide if he wants it. The cool thing about an article on the home page vs a forum post is that it is easier to find on Google and can be browsed as someone looks through the home page for info on LF.

Done, thank you! Never heard back from the moderators, so I'm guessing the home page reference articles aren't in their field of purview.

[massimodec]

I skimmed it, but didn't take it too seriously. Brooks wrote of "two basic types" of soft focus designs, one using optical aberrations, while the other "achieves most of its 'soft focus' effect by the use of a special supplementary aperture disk", talking about an Imagon-style disk. Such apertures don't create soft focus, they're just another way of managing it. They allow one to close down the aperture for more overall depth of field while still getting some softness from the outer edges of the lens. If the lens doesn't have spherical aberration, the disc won't create it.

That is totally true!
But, one of the problems in spherical aberrations soft focus lenses are the "points of reflected light". When there are strong lights, spherical aberrations can produce big glows on metal light points, and daysies disks like Imagon's could be annoying. But in diffused light, those disks could better manage the softness instead of simple iris like Veritos or Kodak Portrait etc.

The kind of light is very important in soft focus shooting.

[Mark Sawyer]

When there are strong lights, spherical aberrations can produce big glows on metal light points, and daysies disks like Imagon's could be annoying. But in diffused light, those disks could better manage the softness instead of simple iris like Veritos or Kodak Portrait etc.

The H-stop discs can create those "Kuhn-bug" patterns around any small, strong highlight, so even in soft light, a small reflective surface can do it. In the harsher light Rodenstock recommended for the Imagon, it's even more likely. I found even the "softest" disc, the h/5.8 with the holes fully open, removed much more of the softness than most would want from a "soft" lens. Yes, it is a different effect, but I found I preferred the conventional iris gave better control and results over a much wider range of softness. Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste, as with any soft lens. That's why we love them.