Some Soft Focus Lens Sales Information

[Amedeus]

Very nice looking Kodak Portrait Lens, 405mm f/4.5 for $810 (200891022466)

[lucaas]

Wollensak Velostigmat Series II 12” sold for $1027.99，310589469108. I think the price is too high for a 12” velostigmat series II.

Kodak Portrait lens 405mm sold for $810，200891022466

[goamules]

Wollensak Velostigmat Series II 12” sold for $1027.99，310589469108. I think the price is too high for a 12” velostigmat series II...

Ha! Yep, only a few reasons for one to sell that high: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-a-Bidding-War

[cyberjunkie]

14" Veritar, in working shutter, with flange, lensboard and case.
Chrome finish in very good shape (not peeling, like mine!)
Only 405 USD.
Ebay # 200891470896

This one was a true bargain, but most Veritars sell for affordable prices.
Why on earth a Verito in barrel of the same FL sells for much more (sometimes almost twice)?
I must admit it goes beyond my intelligence.
The Veritar seems to be the ugly duck, while there are no other common SF lenses which are both coated and shuttered.

[cyberjunkie]

The Eidoscop is the same formula as the Pinkham Smith Series IV at about a quarter to half the cost. IMESHO it is every bit as nice.

Yes!
Fortunately it is far too common to attain cult status

BTW, there seems to be no consensus about market value of No.3 Eidoscopes (which is the most common version).
One poster complains about the price (999 USD) of a SOM Berthiot f/4.5.
Next post, we see that a f/5 Hermagis, in almost new condition, sold for $1725.
I payed my black Hermagis (pre Berthiot acquisition, but almost identical), without flange and sunshade, just 270 pounds.
You see that the prices are all over the place.
IF there is a rule (but i don't think so), probably Hermagis-branded lenses are selling for more, and black ones are cheaper.
It goes without saying that collector-grade items sell for premium prices, but a "user" lens can be had for much less.
I am with Jim: this lens belongs to the aristocracy of SF lenses, though can be had for far more popular prices than its peers.

[Mark Sawyer]

Why on earth a Verito in barrel of the same FL sells for much more (sometimes almost twice)?
I must admit it goes beyond my intelligence.
The Veritar seems to be the ugly duck, while there are no other common SF lenses which are both coated and shuttered.

The Verito and the Veritar have different "looks" to them; I prefer the Verito, although some might prefer the Veritar. The Veritar is shuttered, coated, and corrected for color, and is an "improved, updated" version of the Verito, but the Verito has history behind it. I'd rather have a '67 Mustang than a later "improved, updated" version, even if the newer model is "better"...

But yeah, that was a very good buy on the Veritar. There are a few other SF lenses that are shuttered and coated. The Kodak Portrait Lens, Imagon, and Fujinon SF lenses come to mind...

[Mark Sawyer]

The Eidoscop is the same formula as the Pinkham Smith Series IV at about a quarter to half the cost. IMESHO it is every bit as nice.

I'm pretty ignorant about both the Pinkham and Smith lenses and the Eidoscopes. The Pinkham and Smith were touted as being "hand aspherized" to achieve its effect. Cooke based their PS945 on the P&S Series IV, and noted on their website:

"The original Pinkham & Smith lenses achieve their distinctive soft focus in a manner different from other lenses. Using the traditional glass available at the time, craftsmen hand-corrected multiple surfaces of the lenses to achieve their unique soft focus look. The introduction of aspherical surfaces gave Pinkham & Smith lenses a higher-order spherical aberration that results (when the lens was used fully open) in an image with both very high resolution and a self-luminescent quality. Cooke has reproduced the unique performance of these hand aspherized lenses using modern design techniques that duplicate this unique soft yet high-resolution performance exactly."

(from http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf...rgeformat.html )

Was the Eidoscope also hand-aspherized? And for that matter, was the Cooke PS945?

[Jim Galli]

I wish there was a more definitive answer. If you read the old catalogs from Pinkham, I get the feeling the original Series I II and III were done this way but not the Series IV and later. Anyone know? I'm guessing. One guess is enough. The Cooke is a copy of Series IV but their advertising dept. had "poetic license" like ALL advertising depts have.

I'm pretty ignorant about both the Pinkham and Smith lenses and the Eidoscopes. The Pinkham and Smith were touted as being "hand aspherized" to achieve its effect. Cooke based their PS945 on the P&S Series IV, and noted on their website:

"The original Pinkham & Smith lenses achieve their distinctive soft focus in a manner different from other lenses. Using the traditional glass available at the time, craftsmen hand-corrected multiple surfaces of the lenses to achieve their unique soft focus look. The introduction of aspherical surfaces gave Pinkham & Smith lenses a higher-order spherical aberration that results (when the lens was used fully open) in an image with both very high resolution and a self-luminescent quality. Cooke has reproduced the unique performance of these hand aspherized lenses using modern design techniques that duplicate this unique soft yet high-resolution performance exactly."

(from http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf...rgeformat.html )

Was the Eidoscope also hand-aspherized? And for that matter, was the Cooke PS945?

[Steven Tribe]

There are a few other SF lenses that are shuttered and coated. The Kodak Portrait Lens, Imagon, and Fujinon SF lenses come to mind...

And there are post-war Cooke 2E's (well not shuttered originally!) and Universal Heliars - as well as the lenses that passed through B & J.

[Jim Galli]

Something else I'm very curious about now that the thread is temporarily hi-jacked. I've often wondered if the Perscheid formula was found by accident mathematically trying to make the aplanat a flat field lens. You notice the Eidoscop's have a lovely flat field unlike ordinary f8 aplanat's but the aberations aren't corrected then until well past f8. So did someone re-invent the aplanat to be a flat field lens, but with the drawback that you have to use it at f16. Rather like many of the earliest anastigmat wide angles. Just thinking out loud. Sadly the folks who knew are all dead.