Differences between the Carl Zeiss Softar Filters I, II and III

ted_smith · Apr 16, 2016

Further to my post (there was a url link here which no longer exists) , what is the dfference between the Carl Zeiss Softars I, II and III? I assume they vary in strenght, is to how much they fuzzy the image? But I can't seem to find a detailed technical write up of how they work, what their designed usage is etc? Anyone any info, or better yet, a side-by-side image set to show the same scene shot with a I, II and a III?

BrianShaw · Apr 16, 2016

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/filters/BWHandbook.pdf

RalphLambrecht · Apr 16, 2016

ted_smith said:
Further to my post (there was a url link here which no longer exists) , what is the dfference between the Carl Zeiss Softars I, II and III? I assume they vary in strenght, is to how much they fuzzy the image? But I can't seem to find a detailed technical write up of how they work, what their designed usage is etc? Anyone any info, or better yet, a side-by-side image set to show the same scene shot with a I, II and a III?

a piece of nylons over your lens does the same thing and they need to come off anyway.

Alan Gales · Apr 16, 2016

Zeiss lenses can be harsh for portraiture. A Softar I can be really helpful to slightly soften the person's face. If you are doing a close-up of the person's face or are shooting an older women you may prefer the Softar II. A Softar III looks like mush in my opinion so I'd skip that one.

Alan Gales · Apr 16, 2016

RalphLambrecht said:
a piece of nylons over your lens does the same thing and they need to come off anyway.

Well, I guess that all depends upon what "look" you are after. Helmut sometimes liked nylons left on the model.

http://agonistica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fa7552a02c23c66e0ea5659bf84759fd.jpeg

BrianShaw · Apr 16, 2016

I can only agree with half of Ralph's comment, but my agreement with that half is quiet vehement!

Kawaiithulhu · Apr 16, 2016

Alternately you can use "The old vaseline smeared on the clear filter trick" - Maxwell Smart

itsdoable · Apr 16, 2016

Softars are unique in soft focus filters, they consists of small negative lenses embedded in plane parallel optical resin. The optical resin transmits a sharp image (dependant on the host lens) and the tiny lenses adds an out of focus component, the amount depending on which softar (I, II, III) that you use. They are expensive to construct, hence their price. The optical resin is easy to scratch if you use any cleaning tissue, hence you will find a lot of used softars are heavily scratched.

The resulting image is as close to a soft focus lens as you can get with a filter (Soft focus lenses use uncorrected spherical aberration to add an unfocused component to the image).

What make soft focus lenses and softars different from the cheap soft filters or nylons over the lens? Adding a slightly out of focus image component limits the extent of the blur to the proximal region of the image (limiting that glow around high contrast regions), where as a nylon really only adds haze throughout the image, lowering contrast. Dabs of Vaseline are probably the closes you come to softars.

The "look" is unique and different, but for most people it is pretty subtle - much like our arguments of why medium (or large) format "look" different/better than 35mm.

Alan Gales · Apr 16, 2016

BrianShaw · Apr 16, 2016

Here is another option. Similar design to Softar and I think may be a bit more affordable. I use one and it's one of my favorite SF filters.

Tiffen SoftFX
http://www.tiffen.com/sfxpics.htm

benjiboy · Apr 16, 2016

I find It's best to focus first before putting the Softar on the lens.

Alan Gales · Apr 17, 2016

BrianShaw said:
Here is another option. Similar design to Softar and I think may be a bit more affordable. I use one and it's one of my favorite SF filters.

Tiffen SoftFX
http://www.tiffen.com/sfxpics.htm

It's a warming filter too? How does it do with Portra?

BrianShaw · Apr 18, 2016

It comes either way, plain or combined with 812 warming. I use a plain softFX.

Alan Gales · Apr 18, 2016

BrianShaw said:
It comes either way, plain or combined with 812 warming. I use a plain softFX.

Thanks Brian.

ted_smith · Apr 24, 2016

Well I bought a Softar I for £15 from FFordes in the end.

It arrived and I see now what people mean about the tiny "mini lenses" inside the filter.

It is fairly scratched though. I read that was common and not generally a major issue. I am a littl concerned though because they obviously weren't made with scratches in them! I guess my point is that will they particular ruin the images?

BrianShaw · Apr 24, 2016

Theoretically, perhaps. Practically speaking... Not at all.

You got a real bargain there. If you want better the only option is to pay more.

Stop worrying; be happy!

Alan Gales · Apr 24, 2016

ted_smith said:
Well I bought a Softar I for £15 from FFordes in the end.

It arrived and I see now what people mean about the tiny "mini lenses" inside the filter.

It is fairly scratched though. I read that was common and not generally a major issue. I am a littl concerned though because they obviously weren't made with scratches in them! I guess my point is that will they particular ruin the images?

Scratches degrade an image. Some say scratches on a soft focus filter don't matter since the filter is degrading the image anyway. I guess it all depends upon how scratched up the filter is. I owned both a Softar I and II which were in great shape. I bought them off Ebay but sold them when I sold my Blad. I hear that many of the Softars on the used market are scratched up a bit.

Try it out and if you don't like it then buy another in better shape like Brian suggests.

Maris · Apr 24, 2016

Differences between Softars? I once worked with a studio where the I,II,III Softars were labelled Young, Middle, and Old for the ages of women they were to be used on. Cynical, sexist stuff like that wouldn't fly these days, would it?

BrianShaw · Apr 24, 2016

Actually, yes... But those same equivalents are used with both genders.

itsdoable · Apr 24, 2016

ted_smith said:
... It is fairly scratched though. I read that was common and not generally a major issue. I am a little concerned though because they obviously weren't made with scratches in them! I guess my point is that will they particular ruin the images?

Scratches in the filter or lens do the same thing, they lower the contrast. Usually imperceptibly, but that really depends on how many scratches you have.

The Softars were often used professionally, which means a lot, and most people were use to cleaning mounted filters with a cloth or tissue, which scratches the resin filter (you would not clean a resin cokin/lee/singh filter that way). However, you can increase contrast during printing, and a good lens hood helps a lot. (My softars have a "fair" number of scratches)

The reason many people equated scratches and "soft focus" being complimentary (on the filter) is that often portraits benefit from a lower contrast film (especially with B&W), especially in the multi-coated optics era. I found that I much preferred the B&W negative from my old 150mm C lens (single coated) than my 150mm CF lens (T* coated) when shooting people in natural light.

Differences between the Carl Zeiss Softar Filters I, II and III

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency