Soft focus lenses for medium format or FX/Soft Filters....?

[harlequin]

Dear APUG Members,

The folks I share a studio space with have Pentax67, RB67 Mamiya, and Fuji GX-680 cameras...

a) They all swear by the soft focus lenses for portraiture
b) 120 SF for P67, 150 SF with Disks for RB67 and 190 SF Lens for Fuji
c) With your experience, are any of these superior, I have seen interesting effects from all 3, but
when looking thru the viewfinder, looks like a FX Soft2 over the lens....What would be difference
really be. Is it something you can see on the negative or print. I thought a soft focus was just that
a general softening of the image, I would like to achieve a GLOW effect around the subject if possible.
d) The cost of these lenses on used market is not too high, will they still be sharp at higher numerical
apertures say 8/11 or f16?
e) A soft fx filter is $20 and a 120SF for Pentax about $200.00 is there that big a difference.?
f) if they were that "special or magical" how come Hasselbad didn't make a soft focus lens in its lineup?

Appreciate your explanations or feedback on this maybe a sample of some sf work
would answer the question, the folks I share the studio with are busy shooting and not wanting
to interrupt them for newbie/technical questions.....however the Polaroids/FUJI I have seen do look
interesting indeed.....

Thanks!

Harlequin

 

[tedr1]

My experience is solely with the RB67 150SF.

It has a VERY definite effect that is easily seen.
The effect is adjustable between nothing and maximum. This is done with two adjustments. The first is aperture. The effect is maximum wide open f4 and decreases at f5.6 and by f8 the effect is zero, the lens is a normal 150 sharp focus at f8 and higher. The second adjustment is the diffusion disc set. These reduce the effect in steps that are smaller than the half-stop aperture steps. Maximum effect is f4 and no disc. Minimum effect is f5.6 and disc 3.

The effect is two fold. There is blurring of the image, all over, due to deliberate lens aberrations, highlight areas are expanded. The second effect is a reduction of contrast, the darker tones are filled with a small amount of light. The combined effect is dramatic, I have attached an example, you want glow? here's glow in spades! And they are crazy cheap

The lens has an automatic aperture diaphragm that closes the aperture only at the moment of taking when the shutter fires, at other times the aperture is wide open. The lens has a depth of field preview lever. This is used to compare the scene with and without soft focus effect. During image composition to find the amount of soft focus wanted the lens is set at f8 (at which aperture the soft effect is zero) however because of the automatic diaphragm the aperture remains fully open so that the image can be composed while the soft effect is visible. To see the image without soft focus effect operate the depth of field lever, the aperture closes to f8 and the soft focus effect is removed.

In my limited experience with this lens I haven't seen the "tea-strainer" effect described in the next post below, in my experience a specular highlight was given a glowing halo.

The soft focus effect is most apparent when the scene includes lots of highlights, such as bright florid fabrics often favored by the brides party at weddings, especially when strongly lit, which is what the lens was designed for.

 

[cramej]

I will second the 150 SF. The only issue with using the discs is that you can see the dot pattern around strong specular highlights such as the sun reflecting off of a car, etc. I like using the 150 and you'd never know it was SF at f8 and smaller.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I haven't checked to see whether any of you candidate lenses are here http://www.galerie-photo.com/soft-focus-objectif-portrait-flou.html but go look at the example shots anyway.

 

[wiltw]

Hasselblad portraitists often used the Softar filter, and experienced pros really felt they offered a uniqueness of quality in softening not replicated by other means. These Softar filters came in three strengths, in the unique Hasselblad filter bayonet, Making it somewhat difficult to directly compare results in a controlled direct comparison.
Zeiss offered the filters, in standard screw thread sizes as well, but discontinued this line. They are all quite expensive; the Softar was about $250 over 25 years ago.
I understand that now B+W makes similar but not identical filters under license with Zeiss.

You also need to be aware of the fact that there are two generations of Soft Fx filter, one using mesh, and the other using 'lenslets'. Here is what Tiffen says about their current generation of SoftFx: http://www.tiffen.com/sfxpics.htm while I describe the net-based filters below...

• For the one using nets (first generation) is not ONE SoftFx filter, but at least SIX of them! They are all based upon mesh filters of different mesh density and color.
• The black soften with little change in shot contrast, while the white soften with visible change in shot contrast. I have no direct experience with the flesh colored mesh.
• The coarse soften less visble than the fine.
• For the one using 'lenslets', these are similar in effect to the Zeiss Softar filters that have been associated with the Hasselblad, but have a range of densities.

You can find comparisons of the Tiffen current generation 'lenslet' filters online.

So in combination with the fact that the Softar came in 3 strengths and SoftFx came in two versions, plus a variety of strengths and color nets, it is truly hard to 'compare' simply!
Which are being compared within any comparison?!

One should understand that the different techniques of achieving soft focus are all different in what they do, and about whether or not they please the VIEWER!

Classically, you can put a

1. Softar filter (of different strengths) over the lens
   
2. a dark fine net over the lens
   
3. a dark open net over the lens
   
4. a white fine net over the lens
   
5. a white open net over the lens
   
6. a flesh colored fine net over the lens
   
7. a flesh colored open net over the lens
   
8. Vaseline on filter in front of the lens
   
9. a dark fine net over the enlarger lens
   
10. a dark open net over the enlarger lens
    
11. a white fine net over the enlarger lens
    
12. a white open net over the enlarger lens
    
13. a flesh colored fine net over the enlarger lens
    
14. a flesh colored open net over the enlarger lens
    
15. or use a soft focus lens

...and now you can add different types of blur digitally

I know that putting a net over the taking lens is different in appearance from same net over the enlarger lens. Whether or not with digital blur one truly reproduces and of the analog approaches I have never bothered to investigate. I rather doubt it. Optical filters can vary the effect depending upon the brightness of various parts of the scene, while software cannot distinguish brightness, for example.

And 'better' is a matter of personal taste, combined with the added variable of 'on what FL lens?'

 

[itsdoable]

Soft Focus lenses achieve that look by using uncorrected spherical aberration. This means that the outer part of the lens focuses at a slightly different plane than the center part of the lens (which is what a spherical shaped glass surface does, hence the name). In essence, there is a sharp image in there, mixed in with some out of focus image, which gives the highlights the glow.

A mesh type soft filter generally add veil, which lowers contrast and hides fine line. You don't get the same glow in highlights.

A lenslet filter (like the Hasselblad softars) embeds lenses in a flat resin matrix, allowing it to mixes in an out of focus image. This approaches the effect of a soft focus lens, and hence it is the more desired soft focus filter for professionals. A dedicated soft focus lens incorporates a continuous range of out of focus image components, whereas the filter's lenslets have only one out of focus image.

In theory you can mimic this by taking an in-focus and an out-of-focus images and mix them together - but you need a good cine lens that does not breath when you change focus.

There are a few different approaches to achieving a pleasant soft focus image. The sick strainer filter is meant to function as an apodization element, controlling the out of focus component from the periphery of the lens. The Rodenstock Imagon work this way. The Leica Thambar works the other way, the bare lens has only a small amount of spherical aberration, and they supply a center spot filter to block out the sharp center part it increase the soft effect.

Whether the subtle differences in the soft look are worth the trouble is up to you, but some of the soft focus lenses are pretty inexpensive, some not. Usually their is a reason for this price discrepancy, but I think the differences are pretty subtle.

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Keep in mind that the trick that real soft focus lenses do is to overimpose on a sharp image, another image which is more or less soft. The softness is controlled by the aperture, or by specific scolapasta slip-in diaphragms. This effect is, in general, not achieved by placing net or fabrics over the lens, or by applying hair spray over a filter, as the entire image will be softened and there will be basically nothing really in focus (which may be OK with some images, but it's a different thing nonetheless)

The Zeiss Softar somewhat imitated the behaviour of a soft focus lens, as the filters are almost flat with occasional small domes here and there, so the image will be composed by a perfectly focused image (passing through the "flat" areas of the filter), over which there will be superimposed an image defocused by the domes. However, the soft-focus effect can not be controlled by the diaphragm: it stays more or less the same at all apertures (which may be either a flaw or an advantage, it depends). As already said by others, these filters were unreasonably expensive when new. All Zeiss gear has always been terribly expensive, but these filters were expensive beyond reasonable.

Filters made with lines will also create a focused + defocused image composition, but these were mostly introduced in order to get those cheesy, kitsch "starlight" highlights that seem to appeal so much to uneducated brides and newlyweds. I would definitely rule them out, unless for some reason you would like / need to get this horrible artifact.

Coming to the Soft focus lenses you mentioned, the 120mm for Pentax is too short for portraiture in 6x7 in my opinion. It's even shorter than the 127mm that Mamiya offered as a "normal" lens option for the RB system. Unless you're working in a very narrow studio room, I would rule it out.

The Mamiya and Fuji both imitate the much celebrated Rodenstock Imagon system with its distinctive scolapasta style diaphragms, and their focal length is quite all right in both cases. I would personally go for the Mamiya because their scolapasta has very fine holes that mask a bit the strange (or "characteristic") behaviour that these lenses show on point highlights. I never used a Fuji soft focus lens, so I will just report that they have mixed reviews: some claim they're excellent, others say that they are soft at all apertures and that basically there is never anything really in focus under all conditions. But again, these comments are not mine and may be rubbish in one way or another.

As a side note, keep in mind that Zork also made a "tubus" with which a true 200mm Rodenstock Imagon could be installed on a Mamiya RB 180mm shutter assembly, by unscrewing the front lens block.

In any case, whatever you will buy, just check twice that the lens will come with its COMPLETE set of scolapasta diaphragms. Some (or all) of these are very often missing from the kit, and finding a spare is a mightmare.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

[QU

Keep in mind that the trick that real soft focus lenses do is to overimpose on a sharp image, another image which is more or less soft. The softness is controlled by the aperture, or by specific scolapasta slip-in diaphragms. This effect is, in general, not achieved by placing net or fabrics over the lens, or by applying hair spray over a filter, as the entire image will be softened and there will be basically nothing really in focus (which may be OK with some images, but it's a different thing nonetheless)

The Zeiss Softar somewhat imitated the behaviour of a soft focus lens, as the filters are almost flat with occasional small domes here and there, so the image will be composed by a perfectly focused image (passing through the "flat" areas of the filter), over which there will be superimposed an image defocused by the domes. However, the soft-focus effect can not be controlled by the diaphragm: it stays more or less the same at all apertures (which may be either a flaw or an advantage, it depends). As already said by others, these filters were unreasonably expensive when new. All Zeiss gear has always been terribly expensive, but these filters were expensive beyond reasonable.

Filters made with lines will also create a focused + defocused image composition, but these were mostly introduced in order to get those cheesy, kitsch "starlight" highlights that seem to appeal so much to uneducated brides and newlyweds. I would definitely rule them out, unless for some reason you would like / need to get this horrible artifact.

Coming to the Soft focus lenses you mentioned, the 120mm for Pentax is too short for portraiture in 6x7 in my opinion. It's even shorter than the 127mm that Mamiya offered as a "normal" lens option for the RB system. Unless you're working in a very narrow studio room, I would rule it out.

The Mamiya and Fuji both imitate the much celebrated Rodenstock Imagon system with its distinctive scolapasta style diaphragms, and their focal length is quite all right in both cases. I would personally go for the Mamiya because their scolapasta has very fine holes that mask a bit the strange (or "characteristic") behaviour that these lenses show on point highlights. I never used a Fuji soft focus lens, so I will just report that they have mixed reviews: some claim they're excellent, others say that they are soft at all apertures and that basically there is never anything really in focus under all conditions. But again, these comments are not mine and may be rubbish in one way or another.

As a side note, keep in mind that Zork also made a "tubus" with which a true 200mm Rodenstock Imagon could be installed on a Mamiya RB 180mm shutter assembly, by unscrewing the front lens block.

In any case, whatever you will buy, just check twice that the lens will come with its COMPLETE set of scolapasta diaphragms. Some (or all) of these are very often missing from the kit, and finding a spare is a mightmare.

OTE="wiltw, post: 2003443, member: 28732"]Hasselblad portraitists often used the Softar filter, and experienced pros really felt they offered a uniqueness of quality in softening not replicated by other means. These Softar filters came in three strengths, in the unique Hasselblad filter bayonet, Making it somewhat difficult to directly compare results in a controlled direct comparison.
Zeiss offered the filters, in standard screw thread sizes as well, but discontinued this line. They are all quite expensive; the Softar was about $250 over 25 years ago.
I understand that now B+W makes similar but not identical filters under license with Zeiss.

You also need to be aware of the fact that there are two generations of Soft Fx filter, one using mesh, and the other using 'lenslets'. Here is what Tiffen says about their current generation of SoftFx: http://www.tiffen.com/sfxpics.htm while I describe the net-based filters below...

• For the one using nets (first generation) is not ONE SoftFx filter, but at least SIX of them! They are all based upon mesh filters of different mesh density and color.
• The black soften with little change in shot contrast, while the white soften with visible change in shot contrast. I have no direct experience with the flesh colored mesh.
• The coarse soften less visble than the fine.
• For the one using 'lenslets', these are similar in effect to the Zeiss Softar filters that have been associated with the Hasselblad, but have a range of densities.

You can find comparisons of the Tiffen current generation 'lenslet' filters online.

So in combination with the fact that the Softar came in 3 strengths and SoftFx came in two versions, plus a variety of strengths and color nets, it is truly hard to 'compare' simply!
Which are being compared within any comparison?!

One should understand that the different techniques of achieving soft focus are all different in what they do, and about whether or not they please the VIEWER!

Classically, you can put a

1. Softar filter (of different strengths) over the lens
   
2. a dark fine net over the lens
   
3. a dark open net over the lens
   
4. a white fine net over the lens
   
5. a white open net over the lens
   
6. a flesh colored fine net over the lens
   
7. a flesh colored open net over the lens
   
8. Vaseline on filter in front of the lens
   
9. a dark fine net over the enlarger lens
   
10. a dark open net over the enlarger lens
    
11. a white fine net over the enlarger lens
    
12. a white open net over the enlarger lens
    
13. a flesh colored fine net over the enlarger lens
    
14. a flesh colored open net over the enlarger lens
    
15. or use a soft focus lens

...and now you can add different types of blur digitally

I know that putting a net over the taking lens is different in appearance from same net over the enlarger lens. Whether or not with digital blur one truly reproduces and of the analog approaches I have never bothered to investigate. I rather doubt it. Optical filters can vary the effect depending upon the brightness of various parts of the scene, while software cannot distinguish brightness, for example.

And 'better' is a matter of personal taste, combined with the added variable of 'on what FL lens?'[/QUOTE]
HOYA used to have a Softener A & B, that appeared to be the same as the Zeiss Softars, but in a threaded Aluminum Mount.

They were available in sizes from 49 mm to 77 mm. They NO LONGER Make them like that, SO YOU CAN'T BUY THEM NEW !

However they can be had rather cheaply, since NO ONE knows what they were. ALSO DONOT SHOOT ABOVE F8.0 AS lenslets become visible on image.

It's been recommended to me that f6.7 is IDEAL for this set-up.

Here's the CAVEAT: The Larger the Format, the More Diffusion can be tolerated. EX. A Tiffen Softnet 2B works great with my 35 mm,

But my 4x5 Loves the Tiffen Softnet 3B.

For CRAZY EFFECTS:

1. High Halation: Combine a Hoya Softener A with a Tiffen Ultra Contrast 5 !

2. To REMOVE WRINKLES in 35 mm use a Sima Soft Focus Lens @ f4.0 & ADD a Canon 1.4 Tele-Extender to it.

Shooting Aperture becomes f5.6. INCREDIBLE !

 

[Arthurwg]

As already said by others, these filters were unreasonably expensive when new. All Zeiss gear has always been terribly expensive, but these filters were expensive beyond reasonable.

Softars , which come in three strengths, are now very cheap on Ebay, apparently because they are not popular. You have to experiment to figure out how to use them. I don't find that they look near as good as an actual soft focus lens.

 

[Arthurwg]

ALSO DONOT SHOOT ABOVE F8.0 AS lenslets become visible on image.

SOFTARS: This is true. I had this experience and it's not pretty.

 

[Russ Young]

A softar filter is as close to true soft focus as a fog filter is to real fog. Not.
A soft-focus lens produces a sharper image overlain by a more diffuse image. By varying the aperture (and perhaps softness degrees set independently such as the Minolta 85mm Soft lens), the ratio of those two images can be varied thereby producing a sharper or softer image. This is not analgous to a soft focus filter which simply destroys resolution. Furthermore, one of the key effects of a true soft focus lens is an apparent increase in depth of field, again, nothing like a fuzzy filter. As the soft focus lens is stopped down and the spherical aberration decreases to nearly zero, it becomes well-corrected and functions like any other sharp lens.
I find the Mamiya 145mm Soft Focus lens to be excellent but tis for 6x4.5. For 6x7, The Pentax 120SF is a pretty good soft focus lens. I shoot both the Mamiya 150 and 180 soft lenses, with and without the "tea strainers," but on the whole, don't enjoy their signature look as much as these two prior lens. Your mileage may vary considerably as this is personal perception. IMHO, most modern users create images that are far too mushy ...
If ypu have curiosity and patience, you might want to browse my doctoral thesis (University fo St. Andrews, 2008) about soft focus lenses: https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/505
regards,
Russ

 

[AgX]

2. To REMOVE WRINKLES in 35 mm use a Sima Soft Focus Lens @ f4.0 & ADD a Canon 1.4 Tele-Extender to it.

The Sima lens is of a desing that one could even make it oneself.

 

[Pieter12]

Try a Tiffen Pro Mist filter. http://www.tiffen.com/promist.htm

 

[Dennis-B]

If you'd like to experiment, try a UV filter, and put varying amounts of Vaseline on the filter. You can get soft focus results very easily. I worked for a portrait photographer in the 60's who used this method on his Hasselblad. I used it until I bought a Mamiya RB67 and a 150mm soft-focus lens. I've also used various strengths of nylon hose stretched across two empty filter rings.

These solutions for medium format are lens solutions. A "real" soft focus lens uses chromatic and/or spherical aberration to get soft-focus effects. Today's lenses have too much correction for true soft focus effects that were used up until the 1960's. Chromatic aberration is effective in color photography, and spherical aberration in black and white.

 

[JPD]

The few times I want a soft focus effect I use the DUTO/Rolleisoft attachments. Instead of the lenslets of the Softar the DUTO has concentric ring lenses that have a different focal plane than the lens to give that unfocused overlay over the sharp image. Like with the Softar you should only use large apertures with a DUTO. It was invented in 1932 by hungarians Jenő Dulovits and Miklos Tóth and had great success.