Cooke vs Combo Soft Focus

[john_pittman1]

I am interested in getting a modern multi-coated soft focus lens

to use on my Tachihara 5x4 for both portrature and Landscape

work.

 

The choice seems to be between Cooke and Combo. Cooke

seems expensive and heavy in a size 3 shutter, while Combo

seems to have an unreliable reputation for quality control.

 

Does anyone have more recent experience to add to the existing

wisdom?

[charles_hohenstein]

I'm just curious: if you are after a soft effect, why is multi-coating a priority? Do you

want soft focus with hard contrast?

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Combo? I haven't heard of that lens brand. Perhaps Congo? There is a

150 mm f4 soft focus Congo, <a href="http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/sf150_e.htm">http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/sf150_e.htm</a>, and the 200 mm f4, <a href="http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/sf200_e.htm">http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/sf200_e.htm</a>.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Charles: multicoating doesn't seem important on lenses like these -- these lenses have few air-to-glass surfaces, and so contrast should be excellent with single coating. And a little contrast reduction wouldn't seem that bad in a soft focus lens. Quality control? If the spacing or alignment of the elements are a bit off, it will increase the abberations. Would you notice in a soft focus lens?</p>

 

<p>If you decide that multicoating isn't necessary, the 180 and 250 mm Fuji-SF lenses are readily available on the used (and perhaps new) market, and the 250 mm Imagon is readily available used, at least the version in a Compound shutter. The other versions of the Imagon are a bit harder to find.</p>

 

<p>With the <a href="http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/52614d4325c1735a85256ee7005e8edb/ea6ebec9c195544585256e850029570e?OpenDocument">Cooke 229 mm f4.5 SF lens</a>, the soft-focus effect is controlled by the aperture setting. One reason for the expense of the Cooke is that it has an aspherical surface to produce a desirable mixture of spherical abberation to cause the soft focus effect. The soft-focus effect of the Congos is apparently also controlled by setting the aperture.

At the selling price of the Congos, they can't include aspherical surfaces.</p>

 

<p>The Fuji-SF and Imagons use diffusion disks with a central large hole and small holes on the periphery to control the soft focus effect. Some previous discussions:

<i>Fujinon 180 SF vs Rodenstock 200mm Imagon</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BSYF">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BSYF</a>,

<i>Fuji soft focus</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Rx2">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Rx2</a>,

and <i>Looking for LF Soft Focus Lens, Anything like the Cooke PS945??</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007U6Z">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007U6Z</a>.</p>

[jonathan_brewer1]

You can certainly do soft focus with the Cooke PS945, but the designation 'Portrait' which is included in its name is much more descriptive of what this lens can do, soft focus isn't just what this lens can do.

 

There's a big difference between this lens and other so-called soft focus lenses in terms of the transition between the foreground subject matter and the background, with many/most of the soft focus lenses there is a drastic/very abrupt transition of focus. The Cooke portrait lens has a very 'seemless' and 'smooth' transition between foreground and background and there's no abrupt 'break' between the foreground subject matter and then a sudden 'snapping' out of focus completely.

 

With the Cooke there's an illusion of the highlight areas seeming to generate their own luminosity/glow, this is a lens you have to play with, to just dial in the lens at its widest aperture/its softest setting is to me overkill, in fact using any lens/soft focus lens like that is to me just too plain obvious, the lens and the texture it gives you is most interesting closed down somewhere between F5-F8, depending on the subject matter.

 

Unless someone tells me different, I believe that the multi-coating of this lens is the reason that it is approx. half the strenth of the original Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality IV in terms of its ability to dial in diffusion. It would've been interesting if Cooke had offered some of these lenses for sale without MC, but all out diffusion is not what this lens is all about.

 

This lens does what it does without you having to overexpose the highlights/resorting to high key, in fact I don't think that's the way to go with this lens, in fact with drastic overexposure, this lens tends to blow out the highlights, it makes those same highlights glow with just a little overexposure.

 

I'm still learning with this lens, and since it is a fairly new lens, you won't see a lot produced with it at first, but I suggest you check out what the old masters like Alvin Langdon Coborn did with the Pinkham & Smithh Visual Quality IV, to get a feeling for what the Cooke can do, some of that kind of imagery from the old masters was all about texture, and mood, not dialing in the maximum diffusion to make things 'fuzzy' to the point of 'mush'.

 

Think 'smooth', 'sheen', 'glow', a 'smooth' connection between foreground and background, think 'luminous and sparkling', and I think you're more in tune with what the lens can do.

[jonathan_brewer1]

I've seen some folks use heavy fogs on folks to where you can barely make out what they look like, and that's all you can think about the shot, there's so much diffusion that it distracts from all the other values in a shot, I diffusion is valuable and to be used in a way that is seamless/the least noticeable way as not to distract from everything else that makes up the shot.

 

Thinking that slapping on a soft focus filter or using a soft focus lens at a particular setting is all you think you have to do when you start out using diffusion, to achieve a particular look, doesn't work that.

 

It's also a matter of your film pallete, subject matter, distance from the lens, lighting ratio, make-up, light source, selective focus, and diffusion used in a very understated way that can combine with the rest of the above to give you a texture that you cannot get with resorting to using heavy diffusion alone without considering the other values in a shot.

 

Just 'slapping' on a diffusion filter, or thinking that you can dial in diffusion with a particular lens, is going to make you very disappointed, and it's effect is going to overpower everything else in the scene. If you like everything in focus from the front of your lens element to the far reaches of the next galaxy, then you might want to rethink that focusing technique so you're not fighting yourself when using a softar or soft focus lens.

 

So when you get into this, expect to test/consider what films, types of lighting, the distance at what you'll be shooting your subject matter, make-up, light ratio, and so forth that you'll be using with your filter/lens.

 

I'd say if you're willing to test and ride out the learning curve that goes w/shooting like this, then the Cooke is worth every penny, in terms of just dialing in diffusion at a wide open aperture, then I'd say save your money, there are cheaper ways to do that.

[john_cremati]

Hi,

 

I got the soft focus bug pretty bad..... I can share a few tips of what little I know .....I have studied it the best I can as not much is written on it in depth, and have purchased several lenses and modified a modern APO process lens to soft focus for a total of 4 ..............You are right in going for a lens as the traditional Soft focus effect can not be duplicated by the use of filters......... The problem you will have if you are going for a new portrait lens is that the new lenses have relativley short focal lenghts......If you study the masters of soft focus Portraits you will notice that they all have 8x10 cameras minimum.....They also will have thier bellows streched considerably.....They do not tell you this in the books but I believe that the reason many of thier images do not have the multiple lighting shadows is that they are using 14 to 22 inch long focal length lenses..... They are getting a telephoto effect where the background is much farther away than it appears......They are also many times filling the entire frame with a head shot and the features are not distorted .... Again this would indicate a long lens..............You will find in researching SF lenses is that they all have very different qualities...... Ansle Adams began playing around with SF lenses and found that the Soft images can not stand much enlargement before they fall apart.....Again this is why you find the oldtimers using 8x10 or 11x14 cameras............ A great book to see what the old lenses do is called "Professional Portrait Lightings" by Charles Abel where they take over 100 photographers and they tell how they took the shot including which lens they use..... For a coated Soft Focus lens that is color corrected, the absolute cheapest way out is the Wollensak Veritar....It comes in 12 and 14 inch sizes in barrel or shutter..... Wollensak make this lens for color work and it is supposidly a "Verito" lens on Steriods...........As far as the new lenses go I would die to have the Cooke spin off of the Pinkham Smith Visual Series IV of which I own two , one in 14 inch and the other in 18 inch....... The new lens is coated and corrected for color so it can not possibly have the same effect as the old Pinkhams although they claim it is the same lens formula....The old Pinkhams used both Chromatic and Spherical aberations to achieve the effect they became famous for .....I would be very interested in seeing a side by side shot of the the two lenses with everyting being equal.....A huge advantage of the new lens is that they are in Copal Shutters but again that is at the sacrifce of both small formats and higher aperatures..........On old lenses another good book although very short is by Jay Allen " Historic Soft Focus Lenses" .... He lists the manufactures description of their lenses..... What is surpising is that some 18+ inch lenses were designed for 4x5 or 5x7 format....... Good luck, I will follow this post and jump in now and then....jc

[jonathan_brewer1]

John....................................................'For a coated Soft Focus lens that is color corrected, the absolute cheapest way out is the Wollensak Veritar....It comes in 12 and 14 inch sizes in barrel or shutter'............................................. I agree that that used to be true, I bought my 14" Wollensak Veritar from and individual on these forums a couple of years ago for three bills and change, last time I looked though, they were going for around $1,000, they've gone up quite a bit.

 

'The new lens is coated and corrected for color so it can not possibly have the same effect as the old Pinkhams although they claim it is the same lens formula....The old Pinkhams used both Chromatic and Spherical aberations to achieve the effect they became famous for .....I would be very interested in seeing a side by side shot of the the two lenses with everyting being equal.'......................

...........................I think there's some confusion here, not on your part, but on what the Cooke lens is, and what Cooke says about the lens................................. I don't think Cooke is saying that the Cooke PS945 was constructed in the same manner as the Pinkhams, but they are saying they've duplicated the look, albeit half as pronounced as the Pinkhams.

 

I actually would have preferred the lens without the modern coating, but I'm not about to have it taken off. I would've also preferred the lens in 8x10, but I'm relatively happy using it for portraiture w/my 4x5.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Re <i>"I don't think Cooke is saying that the Cooke PS945 was constructed in the same manner as the Pinkhams, but they are saying they've duplicated the look, albeit half as pronounced as the Pinkhams."</i> Cooke seems to be saying that they have used the same key lens technology as the Pinkham lenses to achieve the (claimed) special soft-focus performance: intentional aspherical surfaces. From <a href="http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/52614d4325c1735a85256ee7005e8edb/ea6ebec9c195544585256e850029570e?OpenDocument">Cooke's webpage on the Cooke PS945 lens</a>:</p>

 

<p><i>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.</i></p>

 

<p>Cooke clearly states that the unique feature of the Pinkham and Smith lenses was aspherical surfaces. They aren't quite as clear about their lenses: is the difference that they don't have aspherical surfaces, or that they the Cooke lens has aspherical surfaces, but not hand corrected? The use of machine-made aspherical surfaces in the Cooke lens would be plausible since this technology has recently become cost effective, e.g., the Schneider Super-Symmar-XL lenses. Using one or more aspherical surfaces in a soft-focus lens would give the lens designer alot of control over spherical abberation and thus the soft-focus effect: the degree of bluring in part of the image, and the relative weights of the sharp and soft components, and how the relative weights change with aperture.</p>

 

<p>Jonathan says that modern Cooke gives half the effect of the original Pinkham and Smith lenses (I haven't used either). My guess is that this isn't because of the multicoating on the Cooke, but rather a design choice. As John observes, the old lenses were usually used in longer focal lengths on large formats -- these were probably contact printed. If the same soft focus were rendered on a 4x5 negative and then enlarged, the soft focus effect would be too strong.

So Cooke probably reduced the strength of their lenses, which is targeted at 4x5 film.</p>

 

<p>But this is guess work because Cooke isn't crystal clear on the technology of their lenses.</p>

[jonathan_brewer1]

'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.'............................My reading of the above phrase is that they have reproduced the 'look' and how the lens behaves in comparison with the Pinkhams, this phrase however, makes no comment on whether the Cooke lens itself is a REPRODUCTION OF THE Pinkhams...................................................I may be wrong, but I think this is where the confusion is coming from, I do firmly believe the Cooke is about half the strengh of the Pinkhams in terms of the diffusion, I would rarely use this lens wide open/the full diffusion from this lens, so it's really a moot point as far as I'm concerned.

 

It would be a nice experiment if John Cremati and I could photograph the same subject matter w/the same lighting/exposure/film, him w/his Pinkhams, and then w/the Cooke, that would be interesting.

 

John..........where are you located?

 

There's no doubt whatsoever that the Cooke is a limited production lens, I don't think they're stating whether the Cooke has any hand rubbed aspherics, it's fine w/me one way or the other, I'm completely happy w/the lens, I'm going slowly w/the lens.

 

Trying again to describe its look, most of the other so-called soft focus lenses have a 'milky' veil over everything, or they're mushy, or fuzzy, the Cooke has a velvety smooth clarity about everything w/a luminosity in the highlights that seems to glow,...................................so with most soft focus filters and some of the other soft focus lenses, you seem to be looking through something to see the subject matter, whereas the cooke projects a smoothness ONTO subject matter as part of it's physical texture.

[michael_briggs2]

I'd say that there is no chance that the modern Cooke lens has hand-figured aspheric surfaces -- it would be far too expensive. It is possible that it has machine made aspheric surfaces -- techniques for this have been developed in the past few years.

[jnanian]

john

 

there are places to buy veritar lenses - - both the 10" ( 5x7) & 14" (8x10) and shuttered verito lenses, where they don't cost a thousand dollars. not to mention other vintage portrait lenses --- i have 2 veritars (coated: 10 + 14 ") neither cost me over $300. i also have both a vitax + verito and they each cost less than $200. while i can imagine the new cooke being a beautiful lens ( i have never heard of the congo ), it isn't really necessary to spend close to $3,000 for a soft focus lens. for the price of the cooke, one could buy a 8x10 camera, wollensak lens, film+holders and still have a fistfull of money left over.

 

i guess from where i am coming from, newest isn't really the best. :)

[jonathan_brewer1]

If you know where you can pick up a verito for less than $300, please help me out because I'd love to pick up one for my 8X10, I'm sincere about this request.

 

John...........about 60% of my gear is used, I don't buy new for the sake of buying new, this isn't about that, but it is not for nothing that the old Pinkhams are coveted and for a lot of money, but as I've said, and as John Cremati also touched on, you can judge the value of this lens in terms of what the old masters did with its precessor and the values they were able to give to their imagery.

 

I've got the 14" Veritar, the 12" Wollensak Velostigmat II, I've had the Mamiya soft focus w/discs in MF, any number of softars, I've played w/soft focus for years, and I initially was skeptical of the Cooke PS945 for 3K and wrote a thread expressing that skepticism. I began looking in detail at what the master did with the Pinkham & Smith, and I would suggest to J Nanian et al that a j-peg of a Cooke image doesn't 100% justice to some of the values you see looking up close at a print.

 

I don't know if Cooke still has the Demo/loan out/rental arrangement where you can actually use the lens, I understand the sticker shock, but I'd suggest that you can make a more informed judgement of this lens by actually using it, in fact for John that's exactly what I'd suggest.

 

I don't know how many of these have sold, I have #31 purchased from Clive Russ, from what I've read, I think they're approx 50 in private hands, correct me if I'm wrong but not a one has come on the market used.

 

I looked long and hard for a Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality IV, FOR A FEW YEARS, AND NOBODY WAS SELLING, so all that was left to me was the iffy proposition of maybe waiting some more years and possibly having nothing to show for it, or purchase the Cooke which is here, with a modern shutter, and start shooting.

 

This had nothing to do w/buying new, getting a status symbol or anything else than what I've mentioned, good luck.

[jonathan_brewer1]

I won't name any names, but as a touch of interest.................the engraving and final touches of each Cooke PS945 are performed by a company/machinist you all know.

[jnanian]

hi jonathan -

 

i can't say where you might find one today. i picked my 14" verito off of ebay for $170 shipped, and that was about 1 1/2 years ago. the vitax cost about $140, also in perfect condition, and i found the veritar (14") for $300 and the 10" veritar with original instructions, box and cap for $200 a few years ago. i can' say who has them now, and how much they are selling for &C. if i come across one in my travels, i'll let you know.

 

i wasn't saying the cooke doesn't produce beautiful photographs, or it isn't all it is suggested it is, all i was saying was there are other options out there that don't cost nearly as much $$$ and still are capable of producing beautiful images. kind of like the new schneider "fine art" lenses or one of the wisner slr cameras ... i am sure they are beautiful, well crafted, &C, but i cannot see spending as much money on a lens or camera as my first car cost ( NEW ) :)

 

 

- john

[jonathan_brewer1]

I totally agree w/you, it all depends on you wants and needs, 3K is a LOT OF MONEY, it also depends on your circumstances which is entirely understandable, brother/sister photographers are always welcome at my house, if anybody is ever around the vicinity of Redondo Beach, and if you want to look/play around with/take a few shots w/#31, you're welcome.

 

I'd love to get together w/John Cremati and get a look at his Pinkhams, maybe even do a dual shoot w/both the Pinkhams and the Cooke, and post the results, or something like that.

[pvp]

I use a heavy 10" f/4.5 lens in a #4 shutter on my Tachi without any problems, so I doubt if the Cooke in its #3 would be unusable. I can't tell you what to do about the expensive aspect...

[john_cremati]

The New Cooke SF lens in its "dependible" ( and repairable if need be ) Copal#3 shutter to a good Portrait artist would be a money maker.......... There is not a woman alive that wants her picture taken with a normal lens........From what little I can see the soft effect is enough to hide blemishes and give the subject pleasing appearence.....If I had a strong portrait bussiness, it would be a no brainer..... To the fine art photographer it definatley has its place but I at times personally like the heavier flares and halos in the highlights ....... I personally would like to have both a Pinkham and the New Cooke as each lens has its useful characteristics......From what I can see they are two different animals.......If I could justify the cost I would seriously consider the new Cooke lens......

John Cremati , Cleveland, Ohio.

[john_cremati]

FYI a interesting process lens that I have been playing with is the JML 165 mm process lens...... It has 6 air spaced elements and I believe it is just single coated......... It covers 8x10 just as it sits at F8. so it is a wonderful WA lens for 8x10.......... It is a APO designed lens used for Graphic arts in Nu Arc Process cameras.......I Noticed that the iris when full opened at F8 only covered about 1/2 of the diameter of the lens opening.......... I took the lens apart and and ground out and extended the apeture stop slot so the iris when full opened would be the full diameter of the lens......... I estimate that it is now about f4.......At this smaller wide open apetures you get wonderful fall off and glare in the highlights.........It has a mild fish eye effect at F4 which diminishes as you close down the apeture.......You can remove the front lens and you have a great rear softfocus lens at about 300 mm as it is a symetrical design...........It is hard to get a sharp image at that focal lenght...... You can stop down dramatically and get a fairly sharp image in the center............. You can then disassemble the lens and reverse one of the front rear elements and you get about a 2 inch clear center with everthing falling off and going into extreem ghosting , halos and fisheye effects....... It is just a very interesting lens at this point and it is Still wide angle........... I paid $25 for mine and they come up on ebay reguarly and cheap.............. I rigged mine with a front mount Packard shutter that will also fit on the front even when the front lens is removed...... There is nothing subtle about this lens except when used as a stock process lens........ Let me know if any of you try it......John Cremati

[john_pittman1]

Thanks to everyone who got involved in this discussion.

The absence of any significant experience with or even awareness of the Congo (pardon my fat fingered error in the original), and the strong detail on Woolensacks etc will keep me looking.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been at home with the flu, and while I can read them from home I could not reply until now.

 

John Pittman

Melbourne

Australia