Comparison of two legendary portrait soft focus lenses

[Richard Man]

See the blog post for full descriptions: https://richardman.photo/2020/04/ps-visual-quality-vs-ps945/

How does the Cooke Portrait PS945 lens compare to the Pinkham and Smith Visual Quality Series IV lens, from which its design originated?

Check out these two images, can you tell which is which?

Mmmmm... Buttery smooth....

 

[Ian Grant]

The two images don't appear to be directly comparable, and are they both shot on the same format ? The second image is sharper and has less of a soft focus lens feel and is I suspect the Cooke lens as it has the feel of a 210 lens on 5x4 while the other is softer and reminds me of Jim Galli's images made with a similar lens, it's a comparatively shorter FL lens on a 10x8 camera, more like a 165mm or 180mm on a 5x4 camera.

I prefer the quality of the second image in terms of sharpness

Ian

 

[cowanw]

While it is true that the Cooke was "based on" the Pinkham, specifically Clive Russ's copy, I think you (and many others) are repeating Cooke's advertising shtick that they represent both an updating and a continuity of the heritage of the pictorialist tradition.
The Cooke is much sharper, stop for stop compared to the Pinkham, with a much more abrupt (modern) change to out of focus, and fewer spherical aberrations and colour aberrations. Look at the back of the hats or the hair about the ears, comparing the transition towards out of focus. You have, no doubt by design, the same background and the branch and leaf highlights and shadows in the upper left illustrate the differences in Bokeh (as well as focal length differences)
The brightness of your second print takes away from the plasticity of your image anyway, but I have always felt the Pinkhams have a more 3D effect, related to the shallower apparent depth of field (which in the advertising of the day was always characterized as an apparent increase in depth of field!) and to the sharpness within softness of the in focus areas.
I should emphasize that there is nothing the matter with the rendition of either lens and both the Cooke and the Pinkham are worth the money, in my opinion.
Perhaps I am just too biased to see the commonality of the lenses.
And yes I prefer the Pinkham for it's other than sharpness.

 

[Ian Grant]

Richard, have you compared either lens to a Cooke Triplet portrait lens ? I have a few Series II but not with the soft focus adjustment, that was only offered on longer FL version, my longest is I think 8" on a 5x4 Marion Soho Reflex which needs repair, I could use it on a speed Graphic though. There's also the 210mm (and 150mm) Geronar a modern Cooke Triplet sold as a budget and portrait LF lens.

Ian

 

[Richard Man]

Hi Ian and Cowan, thank you for commenting. First: I only shot about 6-7 sheets on 8x10 with the PSVQ IV so far, but generally, I agree with the opinion that it's softer, in a very nice way, than the Cooke's PS945 rendering. I think if one were to look at a set of prints from each, they should be able to pick up their differences. As for Cooke's referencing the PSVQ IV, "it's close enough for government work", as one might say. Certainly, it's nice to have such choices.

The Cooke PS945 is definitely sharper. By F8, the soft focus is already very subtle, whereas the PSVQ IV still glows. Format matters of course but regardless, it just means that I will need to find the sweet spots for my preferences for each lens. Also, the Cooke excels with colors. Not sure about the PSVQ IV. Unlikely I can afford color 8x10 films, ha ha.

Ian - the Cooke PS945 images were on 4x5, so yes, the format size is different, as is the DoF based on distance, apertures, etc., so for sure, this is just a "hey they look pretty good" "comparison" rather than a detailed report. The PS945 actually does cover 8x10, at least around 6 feet or so, and probably around other distances as well, but currently I do not have an 8x10 that can take the Cooke, as the Kodak 2D uses its own size lensboard and not the Sinar size one. When I have my own 8x10, which hopefully would be within 4-6 weeks, I would do another comparison but on 8x10 films. That would be interesting as well.

As for comparing with other Cooke's. I have 3 small brass Cookes, 6 1/2" series II, 7" series II and 8" series VI. I have them mounted on Copal 3 and use them on the 4x5 some times. The 7" supposedly has some soft focus adjustment by unscrewing the back cells a few turns. Generally, they are very pleasing lens. The contrast is quite a bit lower than the modern Cooke PSp45.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks Robert, my intial thoughts were the first image was the Cooke because it has slightly more contrast than the second, however I thought there were other dufferences due most likely to exposure etc. The second image is that touch lighter.

It's nearly 45 years since I was shooting portraits professionally (on 35mm) and I'd no notion of these LF soft focus portraits lenses

Ian

 

[cowanw]

Well you made it into the online photographer
And I notice back in 2014 in https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109110-Soft-Focus-Lens-Examples
Your post number 30 of a different Cooke and the Special.
Needless to say I like the special!

 

[Ian Grant]

Nicely spotted, actually the second image reminds me of using a Cokin soft focus filter in the mid 80's when photographing a Jazz singer who was returning to performing after the death of her second husband, she wanted to look 20 years younger, it sort of worked well she thought so, and I got paid

I'd prefer something a touch more subtle, I did like the pre WWII Triotar on an old Rolleicord, made some wonderful E4 portraits with it fairly wide. I rarely shoot portraits these days so can't justify the outlay on anything special and I have a nice Petzval.

Ian

 

[Richard Man]

Well you made it into the online photographer
And I notice back in 2014 in https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109110-Soft-Focus-Lens-Examples
Your post number 30 of a different Cooke and the Special.
Needless to say I like the special!

The "Galli Special" is a bit too glowy for me at that time, ha ha, so I sold that. I still have the Cooke 7". Now? I don't know.


FWIW, I made it to the online photographer once before with my review of the Gibellini ACN45

 

[Ian Grant]

The "Galli Special" is a bit too glowy for me at that time, ha ha, so I sold that. I still have the Cooke 7". Now? I don't know.

FWIW, I made it to the online photographer once before with my review of the Gibellini ACN45

I acquired a Cooke 7" triplet lens in a job lot of plate camera bits, I didn't realise what make it was as the barrel is worn, it was only when restoring a camera for someone else with a shorter Cooke lens I recognised the barrel and aperture control. Optically it's excellent but there's issues with the aperture blades, anyone who's unscrewed a Cooke Triplet knows how much glass is used - very thick elements compared yo modern triplets. My other Cooke triplets are in sunken mounts for SLRs, I need to get it repaired.

Ian