Soft focus lens for 35 mm?

[cowanw]

There is the Leica Thambar and the Nikkor S 50mm 1.4. Both in Leica thread mount.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

So Helios is a Russian version of Zeiss' Biotar, if I'm correct. [...] Does anybody know which version is the softest?

In general, I suppose, Helioses might be softer than the original Biotars: Henry Scherer has written about the quality range of Russian lens copies ...

 

[fstop]

Probably not necessary to say this, but For clarity - Vaseline on a filter, not on the lens itself.

Thank you.

Throw out the filter when you are done too.
I had someone (female) borrow a lens and then smeared vaseline on it, when cleaning the grease off thought the multi coating was a film left by the grease and ruined the lens trying to clean the film (multi coating) off.

 

[fstop]

Minolta makes a 85mm soft focus lens, but I have not tried it.

I have a Canon EF 135mm soft focus lens and like it, but it is too long for your purpose.

Nikon made 105mm and 135mm Defocus Control lenses, which again too long for you.

I like Zeiss Softar as well.

I've used them. Works good but unless you are Bob Guccione 500 bucks for a lens you'll use a few times is not worth it, filters are a better option and can be used on different focal lengths.

 

[xkaes]

In general, I suppose, Helioses might be softer than the original Biotars: Henry Scherer has written about the quality range of Russian lens copies ...

You should also throw the Seagull HAIOU-64 58mm f2.0 into this mix. It's a Chinese copy of the Soviet Helios. As far as I know, it only comes in a Minolta mount, but I could be wrong.

https://diediemustdive.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/the-chinese-biotar-haiou-64-%E6%B5%B7%E9%B8%A5-58mm-f-2-sr/

 

[xkaes]

filters are a better option and can be used on different focal lengths.

Filters are the easiest option, for sure, and usually the cheapest -- except for the Zeiss Softars -- but not all "soft-focus" filters produce the same effects with different focal length lenses or apertures. As I mentioned before, using the Softars with shorter focal length lenses or anything other than a wide aperture is a waste of time (and money). You'll probably have a similar problem with "fish-net" filters.

And don't forget that soft-focus filters can usually be used on the enlarger as well. This approach gives you more control, because you can make part of the exposure without the filter and the remainder with it in place -- giving you complete control of a sharp image mixed with a soft one.

 

[grain elevator]

soft-focus filters can usually be used on the enlarger as well

With a different effect though. The dark areas will bleed into the bright areas, rather than the other way around when used during taking.

 

[mollyc]

For Lensbaby, the Velvet line would be pretty close to what you want I think. They make a 56mm focal length. Wide open, they are very soft, but by f/4 the center sharpens dramatically and leaves just the edge soft, and stopped down it's pretty sharp throughout the frame. The bokeh is probably too angular for you. I don't keep track of my apertures on manual lenses, but the first one is probably wide open and the second probably at f/4.

 

[xkaes]

With a different effect though. The dark areas will bleed into the bright areas, rather than the other way around when used during taking.

Depends on the soft-focus filter, and how it works. For some that's true, like the Softars, but you'd never want to use a Softar on an enlarging lens anyway because its effect only works on longer lenses wide open. Minolta, on the other hand, actually suggests using their Portrayer filters on the enlarger -- but they work in a completely different way than any other SF filter.

 

[blee1996]

There is also this Sima 100mm soft focus lens, which is very inexpensive. And some people had excellent results with Sima plus 1.4x teleconverter. But again, it is a bit too longer for OP.

 

[xkaes]

There is also this Sima 100mm soft focus lens,

Thanks for mentioning that one. I could picture it, but could not remember the name. It's similar in some ways to the Spiratone Portagon, and probably easy to find at a good price. It has a FAST f2 (?) aperture with discs for a sharper image for f4 and f5.6. Focusing is done by pushing the lens out along the outer tube.

 

[aoresteen]

Fuji made an 85mm SF lens and it MIGHT have come in a M42 screw mount which would work on a Nikon.

The Fuji 85mm SF did come in M42. I have one. It is the third one I have owned. I sold the lens twice only to buy one again. This time I will not sell it again. I use it on a Pentax film body and my Sony A7 III.

This is the one to get for 35mm SF.

 

[Animalcito]

This page describes soft focus filters and how they work. A short excursion to soft focus lenses is undertaken, too.
Nikon Soft Focus Filters Soft 1 and Soft 2

 

[Sanug]

You see a sample image taken with Zeiss Softar I. The statue is gold plated and was shining in the sun. Please don´t care about the sky, It shows some mottling due to defective paper (Easy Print RC).

Zenza Bronica SQ-A
Zenzanon-S 3,5/150 mm
Kentmere 100, ISO 200
Adox XT-3, 1+2, 16 Min.
Silver Gelatine Print

 

[Arthurwg]

This page describes soft focus filters and how they work. A short excursion to soft focus lenses is undertaken, too.
Nikon Soft Focus Filters Soft 1 and Soft 2

Wow! Most interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[charlemagne]

Thank you mollyc, that is a good example.

Good information about the Portrayer filters, thank you xkaes. Also thank you for mentioning the Seagull, I will look into it.

 

[charlemagne]

The Imagon is a simple construction, but in it's simplicity it is also beautifully designed. It is an old type of achromatic lens - two elements in one group.
Am I correct that the rear element of a Tessar lens is, like the Imagon, also an achromat? Could I use this rear element alone as a soft focus lens?

I found out that the old PENTAX SOFT 1:2.2 85mm is also made in this construction. This will give me a shorter focal length.

I also found the Lomography Daguerreotype Achromat 64mm. Does anyone have experience with this lens?

In the meantime I am still having fun with my Linhof Technika and my collection of Imagons on 4x5"

 

[reddesert]

The Imagon is a simple construction, but in it's simplicity it is also beautifully designed. It is an old type of achromatic lens - two elements in one group.
Am I correct that the rear element of a Tessar lens is, like the Imagon, also an achromat? Could I use this rear element alone as a soft focus lens?

Rudolf Kingslake in his book "Lens Design Fundamentals," in his discussion of the Tessar says that the rear doublet of a Tessar is an achromatic doublet. I don't know if every "Tessar-type" design exactly follows that, but they are probably pretty close. So yes you could try the rear cell as a soft focus or aberrated lens. I don't know what exactly to expect, probably large spherical aberration: an achromat was used alone as an early landscape lens, and (according to Kingslake) Paul Rudolph designed both the Protar and Tessar from considerations of improving the achromat lens to reduce spherical.

In the Tessar-type lenses that I have looked at, the front airspaced doublet has some negative power (it doesn't make an image by itself). The rear group has a somewhat shorter focal length than the combined lens, by a factor of maybe 1.5-2. That actually works in your favor here since you wanted a short focal length soft focus - to get a ~50-60mm achromat, try the rear group of a ~75-100mm Tessar ?

It's also possible to just buy an achromat off the shelf from optics suppliers, Surplus Shed has inexpensive achromats in many focal lengths and diameters. You have to mount it and there is no aperture of course. The concave side should go towards the subject, convex side towards the film.