Softar Filter & Soft Focus Filter

[coolmingli]

Hello, I was looking for a Hasselbald Softar Filter but saw a B&W

Soft Focus Filter catch my eyes, can someone tell me what is the

difference between the two? Which filter gives better smooth result

for Portrait? Thanks!!

[tom_harvey1]

Ming:

 

I'm unsure of the optical characteristics of the B&W soft-focus filter, but the B&W line of optical accessories has quite a good reputation. On the other hand, I personally have the Contax (Zeiss) Softar 1 and Softar 2 filters, and their effect is quite pleasing for portraits (especially if you're using a lens which has excellent out-of-focus characteristics [bokek]).

 

TH

[bob_salomon]

The Carl Zeiss Softar performs differently then the soft focus copies that look like the Softar.

 

The Softar holds its effect at most apertures. The copies get sharper as the lens is stopped down.

[bernhard]

On the Zeiss website it says:"Zeiss Softars are available from Hasselblad, Rollei, Kyocera/Contax and the filter manufacturers B&W and Heliopan."

[lex_jenkins]

The Zeiss Softar is designed with multiple lenslets polished into the surface - it resembles a clear golf ball. Unless another softening or diffusion filter is made the same way it cannot duplicate the look of a Softar.

 

To me, the distinctive look of a Softar is in its ability to produce a glow around highlights without blowing out, while retaining fine detail that preserves the sense of the photo being in focus. For example, eyelashes and eyebrows will remain in focus while keylighted and backlighted hair will glow; catchlights in the eyes will glow while the irises remain sharply focused. There's just no other effect quite like it, short of heavy airbrushing and custom work on a large format negative or transparency.

 

There's a good reason why the Zeiss Softar is the standard filter for Playboy magazine photographers.

 

I've tried to mimic the effect by polishing lenslets into a Cokin diffusion filter using a moto-tool. No luck.

 

(I wish some distributor would take note of my slobberings about the Softar and send me one: 52mm would do nicely, thank you.)

[patric_dahl_n]

B+W (not B&W) says: <I><B>B+W Soft Focus 1 and 2</B>

These filters reduce contrast and create a soft halo around the highlights. They are also ideal for creating a hint of softness or blurred contours. Their effect is based on concentric rings and can be enhanced or reduced by opening or closing the aperture.</I><BR><BR><B><I>B+W Original Zeiss Softar 1 and 2</B>

Despite softening of the highlights, the basic focus remains sharp up to the edges with this classic soft focus accessory -- an advantage which makes focusing easy. The degree of softening is not affected by the aperture setting. Tiny lens-shaped structures in the glass of the Softar create this pleasing effect. The model number of the filter and size determine the level of effect.</I><BR><BR>The "Soft Focus" filters is of the type that Rollei used on their Rolleisoft filters. Invented by Jenö Dulovits, a hungarian photographer. These filters are often called "Duto" after Dulovits and the maker Todt.

[ian_gordon_bilson]

I own a B&W soft filter and a Zeiss Softar #1. The Softar does everything claimed for it. The B&W just gives an "out of focus" look :so it lives in my junk box..

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Lex, this is not correct: "The Zeiss Softar is designed with multiple lenslets polished into the surface" There are positive lenses coming out of the plane surface of the back side of the Carl Zeiss SoftarI I have.

[lex_jenkins]

Audun - thanks for correcting me. I've never actually taken a Softar out of the packaging and it looked to me like the lenslets were polished into the front surface. Now I'm even more intrigued.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Bob, who is usually right, is not in this case.

 

The Softar will NOT give you the same results at different apertures.

 

This is quite easily seen as you stop down the lens. As the DOF of the lens increases (even on say... a 150 for 2-1/4) the lenslets of the Softar create smaller ares of OOF image, the result being the dread "floating snotballs" when the aperture is at about f/8 or smaller and the subject has regular detail, or is backlit, or both.

 

At f/5.6 and wider, you cant beat em though!

[lex_jenkins]

"Floating snotballs!" - that's hysterical. I can see how that could be a problem in some circumstances, especially with smaller apertures. My clumsy effort at mimicking the Softar lenslet effect (polishing spots into a Cokin clear diffusion filter) showed a similar effect - stopped down much beyond f/2.8 or so the polished areas became ghostly halos independent of anything else in the composition.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

The effect is clear unsoftened image, with dots of soft image. Its probably the worst effect you'd ever imagine seeing on your film.

 

I bought, used, and totally ruined a shoot with a Softar-II stopped down to f/8 on a 150. I questioned Ernst Wildi about it (this was about 11 years ago), and he emphatically stated, not unlike Bob, that the effect remains the same. I sent him some prints, and got a nice letter back stating that of course some variation was to be expected, to test first, yadayadayada.

 

Try this with a Softar on your lens: Get a dark background, and put bare light against it. Stop down to f/5.6 with the DOF preview lever.

Observe the image, and flare from the light, as you pan the camera around the field. Stop to f/8 and do the same, yikes. Then do it at f/11 and its totally useless.

 

Haveing said all this nay-saying, I want to add that I regularly use a Softar-I or Softar-II the whole time at a wedding, or at social events. The f/5.6 rule seems to work the same for the 60, 80, 120 and 150... and even the 250 lenses, I dont know why.