Portraits: Fujinon SFS lenses vs. Fujinon 240 A + Soft Focus filter

[Peter De Smidt]

Could you point to an area where you see this harsh softness please ? Are you talking about the lack of halos ?

Well, that's Bernice's description.....It might not be all that evident from these web-sized photos, but with the Imagon there's a sharp image inside of a glowing image. With the Fuji that is only apparent along the very top of her hat. When it comes to Sophia's eyes, they do not have the sharp in soft effect. They're just not sharp. So I guess I interpreted what Bernice meant as there wasn't the soft/sharp dichotomy throughout the picture, as there is with an Imagon. There's not really enough completely out of of focus to judge bokeh, unlike with your terrific examples.

[Bob Salomon]

A true soft focus lens diffuses the highlights into the shadows while an add on soft focus filter or diffusion filter diffuse the shadows into the highlights. It’s just not the same thing. Even with the Softar or a Kodak type diffusion disk.

Another big difference is that an Imagon has two different focal lengths. One in the center and one at the periphery. The disks let you control how much of each you are using by the size of the center hole size and how open or closed the surrounding holes are.
In addition the Imagon has more depth of field at any given stop then regular lenses at the equivalent aperture.
To get the true Imagon effect you need a strong lighting ratio, 5:1, and a strong main light from an elliptical reflector rather then a soft box or an umbrella.
Then you get that feeling of sharpness with that softness and haloing that sets a lens that is true softfocus apart.

Bear in mind that the Imagon shifts focus with every disk setting and becomes very sharp with the disk with the smallest center hole with the periphery holes closed. And with each disk there is a common T stop between one and the next but different softfocus.
So an Imagon with no disk is 5.8 as it is with the disk with the largest center hole and with the periphery holes open. Close those periphery holes and it is 7.7. The next disk with all the holes open is also 7.7 but slightly sharper, and so on.

[Greg]

In the past have had and used a 250mm FUJINON-SF and was very pleased with the image that it projected. If I remember correctly, it actually projected an image that covered the 11x14 format though wasn't really useable for the 11x14, edge Bokeh was terrible. Then acquired a 300mm Rodenstock Imagon. Used it without any discs and only at its maximum aperture. Very subjective opinion here since I never owned both lenses at the same time to compare but preferred the Imagon. Soft Focus filters never liked very much except for the Hasselblad Softars. But even they, again in my opinion, never came close to my 120mm f/3.3 SMC PENTAX SOFT lens adapted to a 2000FC.

[Bob Salomon]

In the past have had and used a 250mm FUJINON-SF and was very pleased with the image that it projected. If I remember correctly, it actually projected an image that covered the 11x14 format though wasn't really useable for the 11x14, edge Bokeh was terrible. Then acquired a 300mm Rodenstock Imagon. Used it without any discs and only at its maximum aperture. Very subjective opinion here since I never owned both lenses at the same time to compare but preferred the Imagon. Soft Focus filters never liked very much except for the Hasselblad Softars. But even they, again in my opinion, never came close to my 120mm f/3.3 SMC PENTAX SOFT lens adapted to a 2000FC.

Hasselblad Softars? Rollei Softars? Zeiss Softars? Heliopan Softars? B+W Softars?

They are all the same, the filter was made by Zeiss who mounted the disks into the rims supplied by Hasselblad, Rollei, Heliopan and B+W.

[Greg]

Hasselblad Softars? Rollei Softars? Zeiss Softars? Heliopan Softars? B+W Softars?

They are all the same, the filter was made by Zeiss who mounted the disks into the rims supplied by Hasselblad, Rollei, Heliopan and B+W.

Too bad that Zeiss didn't market larger Softar filter sizes... I would have been one definite purchaser of them.

[Bob Salomon]

Too bad that Zeiss didn't market larger Softar filter sizes... I would have been one definite purchaser of them.

Heliopan had them up to 105mm but that was awhile ago.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I once special ordered through B&H a Contax 86mm Softar II. Still have it. I used to use it for wedding "beauty shots" on hot-rodded Exakta 66's. Used the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar which is a proven winner.

I've acquired over time all the complete collection of Imagons from the 120mm and 150mm Schmactenburg up to the barrel 420mm and they are quite different from the glass Zeiss etc softars. Completely different. Hot spot "pincer lighting" is generally required.

I've got quite a collection of the original Rodenstock literature from many different eras. Important reading as a starting point if you own one of these.

[Bob Salomon]

I once special ordered through B&H a Contax 86mm Softar II. Still have it. I used to use it for wedding "beauty shots" on hot-rodded Exakta 66's. Used the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar which is a proven winner.

I've acquired over time all the complete collection of Imagons from the 150mm Schmactenburg to the barrel 420mm and they are quite different from the glass Zeiss etc softars. Completely different.

I've got quite a collection of the original Rodenstock literature from different eras. Important reading if you own one of these.

Almost the complete collection. There was a 120 as well,as a 150 that Burghard sold. Actually the 120 and the 150 that he sold had been long discontinued when he convinced Rodenstock to put them back into production for himself and he had to buy the entire production run. He also tried to get an exclusive on the 200 but they would not give that to him.
In the US Frank Crichiho sold Burghard’s system but he left Frank and we became the distributor until he went out of business. Since we also sold Zorkendorfer as well as Rodenstock we had small format Imagons from 120 to 200mm and Some custom focus tubes for the 250 on special order plus the 200 to 300 for larger formats.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Oops Yes I have the 120 as well. I had Glenn Evans make a set of "prolongation tubes" for the 120 &150 which he collimated to the Exakta 66

We used the Schmachtenburg Helical for both lenses

A lot of thought went into this construction.

[Bob Salomon]

Oops Yes I have the 120 as well. I had Glenn Evans make a set of "prolongation tubes" for the 120 &150 which he collimated to the Exakta 66

Quite a collection,
Actually Hervig and Burghard, as well as Rodenstock called them the focus tubes. Do you have that neat Prontor Professional shutter that Burghard sold, primarily for the Hasselblad C series?