what is your favorite "soft lens"

[greg_mason]

what is your favorite "soft" lens? so much has been said on the recent posts about which are the the sharpest lenses, but what R or M lens is the one you would pull out to photograph your mother, or your wife. I have never been a fan of softening filters and I would rather soften with the photo, rather than in the processing. my camera bag is currently too full of lenses which my wife threatens to use as weapons as they render every laugh line in excruciatingly clear detail.

[marco_grande]

A coated 7.3 cm Hektor (naturally), usually wide open, but certainly

not coseded down more than one sto por so.

[jacques_balthazar1]

All R or M mountable lenses (except maybe a few SM oldies) will

be "too" sharp for the audience you mention, unless you shoot wide

open (not necessarily the best option for that application).

 

<p>

 

People often refer to older 90 'crons at f2, but the DoF at f2, at

portrait distances, is not deep enough for traditional flattering

portraiture: only some parts of the face will be in focus, which may

be interesting, but will rarely be seen as successful by the

viewer/model. And at f5.6, the 'crons of yore are just as unforgiving

as today's macro-elmarit....

 

<p>

 

Softars are the way to go to manage the issue in a crude but coherent

way.

 

<p>

 

Beyond the M/R ranges however, some suppliers offer interesting soft

lenses. Through experience, I would recommend the Pentax 85mm f2.2 SF

(older MF K mount), and the current Minolta 100mm f2.8 SF. The latter

manages the degree of softness independently of the aperture

(allowing freedom for DoF management, very nice between settings nr 1

and 2), while the soft effect on the Pentax is directly linked to the

chosen aperture (too strong wide open but very nice at f4).

 

<p>

 

All that said, work on the light rather than softening the lens seems

the best way to go: large diffusers, soft boxes, overcast days,

Portra NC will do the job without the outdated SF glow effects...

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Lol...its not Leica. I have an el-cheepo Canon EF 80-200 that was my

wifes. She used it in some very foggy weather and it sucked moisture

inside and has a film (not fungus, but condensation residue) on one of

the inside elements. Its like a $150 lens and Canon wanted $200 to

clean it. So I started using it for soft portraits. Works for me!

Its like a permanent built in Softar, but I wish it was faster than

f/4.5

 

<p>

 

For the 90M-Elmarit, I'm waiting on the 46-52 ring so I can mount a

B50 (already have 52-B50 ring) Softar on it. To me, these

filters offer esthetically pleasing results time and again, as long as

you dont close the lens too much (don't go past f/5.6).

[kaiblanke]

A nice option is an old summar, which does not even have to be a

clean lens. This will cost you less than $40 plus adaptor depending

on the condition and has a very nice and classic look. Stopped down

it gets sharper, but is still a bit soft: It then features a real

nice 'old' look due to its tendency to flare.

<br>

Another lens that will also work is an early summitar / summicron

(scratched / with cleaning marks), but these are usually much more

expensive.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Gaussian blur?

[roger_michel]

summarit 50 of course. this was a faddish lens a few years ago, but

now little is said about the summarit anymore. at 1.5 - 2.8 the

effect is very very nice -- creamy skin tones, lowish contrast, but

rather high resolution for these apertures. everybody should have

one.

[albert_smith]

I didn't "discover" it until I sold it, but I miss my old 50mm

Summarit. It was fine after f/4.0 for general photography, but I was

not impressed with the first couple of apertures. Years later, while

looking at some photos I did with window light and this lens, I saw

something that can't be measured or quantified on a test chart. The

subject of those portraits looks different than similar shot made

with a Summicron.

 

<p>

 

I like to have that old lens back to try to exploit that "look".

[james_elwing]

Kodachromes with a Summarit taken by my wife at the time impressed me

enough to seriously take up photography. I was later surprised to

find how soft the lenswas at large apertures. Otherwise, I think you

should buy a 90 Thambar; after all, it's only money and you can't

take it with you, and it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye

of a needle etc..

[bert_keuken2]

I can't read Japanese but the pictures showing the bokeh of the same subject with different lenses. The Summarit and Canon have a very <i>impressionistic</i> bokeh. Claude Monet would be jealous.

 

<p>

 

http://www.takanet.com/hobby/camera/Lens/Boke/

[bert_keuken2]

Here's a page with several older 50 mm lenses (Summar, Summarit, Summitar etc.). Could someone tell us that can't understand Japanese what the text means?

 

<p>

 

http://www.takanet.com/hobby/camera/Lens/LensTest/

[jackflesher]

A few years back -- like 20 -- Sima made an el-cheapo plastic-

barreled one-element 100mm soft-focus lens that used "T"-mount

adaters to mount it to a 35mm SLR. Focus was achieved by pushing or

pulling the barrel in and out. The aperture, and respective amount

of "soft" were adjusted by inserting various aperture disks in front

of the lens. It cost about $20. All in all, it produced very

pleasing soft results, with a sharp central image surrounded by a

slight halo-ing or ghosting. I still have the lens; just need to

find it, get a Canon EOS "T"-mount adapter and give it a whirl!

 

<p>

 

Perhaps you can find one on eBay, but if not there is always the

Leica "Thambar" soft-focus lens for your M -- about $3,000 on eBay

when you can find one.

 

<p>

 

;-),

[kelly_flanigan1]

Russian Jupiter-9 85mm F2 LTM lens at F2.0

[igor_osatuke]

Sima. Can't be used on Leica M. But it's hard to beat for 10-20 bucks.

http://store3.yimg.com/I/visionstudio_1690_1777525

[Rob F.]

OK, here's an idea. Take a spare UV filter (maybe even a bargain

one) and put a patch over the center, like maybe a stick-on label

that's been cut round. If the label transmits a little light, so

much the better. It'll add more veiling softness. Use on your

favorite classic lens, like maybe a collabsible Summicron, or an

Elmar. Shoot the lens wide open. In theory, the greater spherical

abberation out at the edges should improve the soft-focus effect.

 

<p>

 

Question, How will DOF be affected? We would still be using the full

diameter of the lens. My guess is, DOF would be minimal.

 

<p>

 

Any takers?

[andrew10]

Bert: Monet surely couldn't (or wouldn't) put so many donuts in his

paintings! ;>)

[fotografz]

Next time your wife puts a run in her panty hose, grab them and

cut a piece to secure over your most brutally sharp Leica glass

with a rubber band. It's a trick used in Hollywood for decades.

[jackflesher]

Bob:

 

<p>

 

Actually, I tried something very similar: I took an old UV filter,

some white netting material, and cut a small 1cm hole in the center.

I then used hairspray to "glue" the net onto the filter. It works

surprisingly well and was cheap to make. However, the effect is more

like a very good diffuser than like that of the Softar -- or perhaps

somewhere in-between. In the end, I ended up biting the bullet (or

should I say bending over?) and purchasing the exhorbitantly over-

priced Softar... Which I rarely use.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[dante_stella1]

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

<p align="center"><img

src="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/paw20.html"></p>

<p align="center">This lens. More are <a

href="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/softworld.html">here

</a>.</p>

<p>I generally believe in shallow focus to achieve a softer effect,

but not in

using "soft" lenses. Sometimes (a lot of the time)

you will miss with

a nice, sharp, fast lens and achieve the same effect. Or you'll

shoot into the

light to flare it out. I like the 80/1.4 Summilux-R the best.</p>

</body>

</html>

[dante_stella1]

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

<p align="center"><img

src="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/paw20.jpg"></p>

<p align="center">This lens. More are <a

href="http://www.dantestella.com/softworld/softworld.html">here

</a>.</p>

<p>I generally believe in shallow focus to achieve a softer effect,

but not in

using "soft" lenses. Sometimes (a lot of the time)

you will miss with

a nice, sharp, fast lens and achieve the same effect. Or you'll

shoot into the

light to flare it out.</p>

</body>

</html>