Soft focus lens suggestions requested

[xkaes]

I've got TOKO (not Toyo) 4x5 cameras and the shutter I've dedicated to this is a $20 #1 Polaroid Prontor -- very similar to my Copal #1 shutters. I use 55mm supplementary lenses and the combination easily covers the 4x5 film.

There are limitations, of course, and I haven't mapped all of them out. One is the shutter and lens vignetting the image. My bellows limit is 65mm, so there is another limit. And, of course, these simple lens designs have a narrow angle of coverage. And the image get softer toward the edge. And higher quality lenses will produce higher quality results. Mine are all high quality, but not very expensive. All of these are expected -- and some are desirable. That's why many like the "Wollaston Landscape" and "Verito Portrait" lenses. These are just home-made, poor-man versions.

These lenses can be fast -- and even faster if a wider shutter is used. I could fit a #3 on my TOKOs, but I'm not going out of my way. My home-made 95mm f4.3 should work well with my NOT home-made 90mm f8 and 105mm f5.6 lenses.

Longer lenses would benefit from a wider shutter, of course, but this approach is available for anyone with the interest -- with little of no additional equipment needed.

[nolindan]

Well, what the heck, I will blaspheme.

Soft focus filters can work awfully well. The Zeiss Softars are reputed to be the best, ebay only I believe. I find the Nikons to be perfectly adequate, available in three strengths.

So, for $20-30 you have yourself a soft focus lens in all the focal lengths you already have.

[ridax]

Reinhold’s lenses can be used to enlarge too (that way you don't have a negative that is only good for "contact printing" (it's rumored that soft focus negatives are only good for contact printing).

Yes this method has its valuе but definitely not as a replacement for soft-socus taking lens usage. In camera, a soft lens makes the bright highlights irradiate onto the dark areas which looks rather natural. Printing with a soft lens from a negative does the opposite, throwing dark halos onto the highlights. That's a very special effect usually not desirable at all. But soft printing from a positive works similar to the in-camera effect.

[xkaes]

I have used soft-focus filters -- including the SOFTARS. They work in different ways, but are not the same thing as "soft-focus lenses". The SOFTARS are limited to certain focal lengths and f-stops. The other SF filters basically just scatter the image in one way or another. True soft-focus lenses achieve their results through spherical aberration -- and the results are very different.

Pick your poison. The only soft-focus filters I use now are the Minolta Portrayer ones -- and they are completely different.

[jp]

I finally found some time to put together some home-made "Wollaston Landscape" and "Verito Portrait" lenses made from supplementary lenses -- AKA, close-up filters.

I'm pleased with the results, and created a couple of tables that I can use to simplify their use -- and I thought to pass them along. They are only useful to me because they largely apply to my lenses & shutter.

The first table estimates the focal lengths that can be created with combinations of supplementary lenses -- on the front or rear of a shutter (on any film format). Whether the lens will cover the format is a separate issue.

The second table estimates the f-stop for each focal length at using the maximum diameter of my shutter. My Polaroid shutter does have an adjustable diaphragm, but I'll probably only use it wide open.

At this point, a #0.5 lens on the front and a #10 on the rear -- producing a 95mm f4.3 lens -- looks like a winner. It easily covers 4x5 and I'm quite surprised at the quality.

www.subclub.org/cufocallength.jpg

Attachment 236344


www.subclub.org/cumaxfstop.jpg

Attachment 236345

Sounds exciting! I hope you can post some photos sometime.

[ridax]

soft-focus filters <...> are not the same thing as "soft-focus lenses". <...> True soft-focus lenses achieve their results through spherical aberration -- and the results are very different.

And one the most prominent among the differences is that the soft lenses' spherical aberration increases the depth of field (that is not too important in small formats but vital in LF) while soft filters do not.

soft printing from a positive works similar to the in-camera effect.

But still there is no depth of field increase either.

[xkaes]

Funny thing is people spend all sorts of bank on lenses and make images that look like they were made with a holga .. similar look...

With home-made "Wollaston Landscape" and "Verito Portrait" lenses you have the option of going both ways. If you want the "Lomo/Holga"-look, just use as few, uncoated, inexpensive, single element, supplementary lenses as needed. You can easily get used sets of these for about the cost of postage. But if you prefer better results, just get better supplementary lenses. They are a little harder to find, and cost more. Here's a website that has put together a rather complete list of the good ones. For some reason the Spiratone MACROSTIGMAT +20 didn't make the cut:

http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html