Lenses ~ MORE soft focus in miniature format optics

There must be a support group out there somewhere for un-repentant Soft Focus lens junkies.  Perhaps I could use a bit of support?  Or perhaps not.  Either way, the Madness continues unabated.

I've been looking specifically for first element focusing lenses.

Covering old ground, opticians designing and manufacturing "pictorialist" era lenses sometimes made them with configurable gaps between lens elements.  This capability provided softness controls for when softness was desired.  

I often stop and drool a bit when I see a full, original Dallmeyer casket set at local camera swaps or when I see a gorgeous Hermagis Eidoscope sitting on a vendors table.  There's Serious Wonderfulness in those that I wish I had the time and tools to explore.  These days I'm limited to miniature formats with digital sensors - ie: APS-C and Full Frame mirrorless.

Looking at SLR special purpose lenses, I find 35mm SLR specialty Soft Focus optics to be too strong and nearly uncontrollable.  That certainly was the case of a Pentax 85mm f/2.2 where it was so difficult to control that I traded off against something else.

What I've been looking for, instead, are lenses with potentially gentler, more easily controlled levels of softness.  Enter the first element focusers.

Normally, I've thought of lenses moving as a block or "unit" when effectuating a good focus.  Until very recently, every single G. D. 35mm SLR manual focus lens I'd ever used were unit focusers.  Moving the focusing ring moved the lens elements together and there was no convenient way of altering the gap between various element. 

Only recently, as in the past couple years, I've stumbled upon first element focusing lenses.  I found one, talked a bit about it with friends, who then turned me on to another, and another, and as I continued my research, yes, I found yet another. 

Here's my current list of Miniature Format not made purposely as Soft Focus optics that actually could work well as in-camera Soft Focus photo-makers. 

• Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8 - m42 Tessar formula
• ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 - m42 Cooke Triplet
• Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 - Pentax K 4 element 4 group _not_ Dylite/APO Artar/203mm Ektar
• Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 - m42 Cooke Triplet

To turn these into controllable soft focus lenses, here's the setup -

• Note the ffd (flange focalplane distance) of the lens, destination camera, and calculate the gap to be filled by a...
• Helicoid close focusing adapter this the shortest length measuring at or smaller than the gap calculated above

For instance, Sony E ffd is 18mm.  M42 ffd is 45.5mm.  The gap is 27.5mm.  There's 17mm to 30mm close focus helicoid on the market that works well enough.  If 17mm on the short length of the helicoid is intellectually un-inspiring, add a short m42 extension tube and you'll get closer to the correct combined 45.5mm ffd.  No worries, though, as I've used m42 lenses on the helicoid I have without an extension tube and have been able to focus at infinity as well as get a little closer focus as a bonus.

Here's how to use the setup -

• For sharp work - first case
• Set the m42 focus ring on infinity
• Use the helicoid to focus the subject
• For soft work - second case
• Set the lens' focus ring at its closest setting
• Use the helicoid to focus on the subject

When using first element focusing lenses, in the first case the lens elements will be "squashed" together.  It seems, based on what I've observed so far, that this is the designed point of maximum sharpness.  The helicoid has turned the first element focuser into a unit focuser hereby.

In the second case, sticking with first element focusers, the first element is moved as far away from the other elements as the mechanical design (focus ring) allows.  This introduces optical imperfections in both Cooke Triplet and Zeiss Tessar design lenses from what I can see.

What this means is that a first element focusing lens, used in concert with a helicoid adapter can be used in two ways - as a unit focusing sharp lens, or as a soft focus optic. In both cases the helicoid is being used to set the focus and the lens' traditional focusing ring is being used to define overall scene "sharpness."

Adding a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 (early) and a Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 m39 Paxette to the mix, here's what I see -

 

Sony A7 - Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 at f11 

Comments ~

It should be obvious that focusing rings can be used as softness control on first element focusers when a helicoid adapter is deployed to effectuate the overall focus.  The closer the lens focus, the more optical imperfections are introduced.

Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 - Unit Focuser

This lenses is nearly "modern lens" sharp from wide open in the center.  It takes going to f/8 and below to clean a scene up across the field, as expected.  If I were to gripe about anything, it's that the extreme corners never fully clean up, even at smallest apertures.  Overall, the Tessar is gently lower contrasted compared to a modern optic, which I feel adds to a sense of beauty to an image.

It comes with a nice multi-bladed round aperture.  The out of focus rendition is creamy smooth, even stopped down. 

I think the copy I have is the "cat's meow", as _all_ the other 50mm Tessars I've owned over the years (nearly a dozen) weren't worth holding onto.  This one's a "keeper."  I finally begin to see what people have been trying to tell me for decades about Zeiss optics. 

Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

This has a Soviet-era "industrial" feel to the aperture ring, even coming from Japan.  Having nothing to do with the aperture ring, I re-lubed the focusing threads and that part of the lens now moves "smooth as butter." 

It comes with 5 aperture blades, so caution needs be exercised when considering out of focus rendition and specular highlights.  Stopped down a scene can feel "choppy" in the out of focus regions compared with, say, the Tessar or Steinheil Paxette. 

More contrast than the CZJTessar stopped down.  Like the Ricoh 55mm, this Cheap as Chips lens is shockingly sharp when stopped down and could easily be a dual purpose soft/sharp daily carry lens. Yields a "modern" looking images at f/8 and f/11.  

Quite lovely "pictorialist" qualities at f/2.8, f/4, and leaning perhaps toward f/5.6.  This becomes an interesting option for creating "pictorialist" effects in-camera on miniature formats.

Nearly give-away priced in the marketplace.  Pretty interesting "find", this one.    The optic was also sold under the Porst, Casenar, and Reuvenon labels.  I wouldn't pay more than 10Euro/12USD for any of the branded versions.

ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

Not many aperture blades, so I need to be careful with specular highlights when stopped down.  Sharpens up across most of the field as the aperture drops, but never really cleans up the extreme edges. 

Wide open and at f/4 the lens could work well in rendering young skin in a "pictorialist" manner. Focus on infinity, however, shows the intrusion of the first element as a strong circle of distortion about 3/4s the way out on the field.  

Widely available in the marketplace for not a lot of money.  Overall, an interesting lens, perhaps, but not the most flexible optic in the Toy Box.  I wouldn't pay more than 20Euro/25USD for one.

Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 - First Element Focuser

This is in Pentax K-mount.  I can't use it on my little helicoid setup, even though this is first element focuser.  Fortunately, there are optical imperfections at f2.2, f2.8, and f4 which can be useful at any subject distance.  This lens can be used in a "pictorialist" manner for portraiture all the way out to landscape.  

Not many aperture blades, so there's the usual caution of watching the specular highlights when stopped down.  However, however, however... from f/5.6 and below the lens shows a surprising (to me, at least) level of sharpness that, frankly, bowled me over when I first saw it.  Like the Cosina Cosinon 55mm Tessar, this 4 element 4 group Strange Design lens is sharp enough when used properly for me to consider using it as a dual purpose soft/sharp optic.  It's really that good.

I find these widely available in the marketplace for around 20Euro/25USD.  For the kind of soft focus work I'm looking to implement, this is really quite a good lens.

Steinheil Auto-Cassaron 50mm f/2.8 - First Element Focuser

Typical of the Steinheil I've experienced, there's softness and then there's a beautiful underlying sharpness.  The softness is more prominent in the optic at wider apertures. 

Stopping down sort of/kind of cleans up the veiling softness in the Auto-Cassaron, but never in a modern sense.  So I'll put this down to having been designed as a lower contrast, sharp at the point of focus optic.  I've seen this in other Steinheil lenses, which is why I mention the potential purpose design aspect to the veiling/lower contrast.  

Having written all that, I have two friends who say their Steinheil give crisp/clear images.  One even says his is the sharpest lens he's ever seen in the format he wants covered.  Makes me wonder if there's something about the Steinheil I own.  Or perhaps there's a certain variability in Steinheil optics, which I would doubt, knowing the long history of optics design and manufacturing the company had.  Frankly, I'm stumped. 

One caution, however, is that like with the ISCO, using the focusing ring to control softness level can lead to a dreaded distortion circle for subjects nearer to infinity than not when using the softest setting.

OK.  I lied.  Another caution is that there are fewer aperture blades in this lens than in its sister 45mm m39 Paxette.  Specular highlights quickly go wonky, so care needs be taken to avoid the ick. 

 
Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f/2.8 - Unit Focuser

There's Steinheil veiling softness and then there's the beautiful Steinheil underlying sharpness, which never really subsides at lower multi-bladed very round apertures.  As I wrote somewhere above, friends' Steinheils are sharp sharp sharp.  Not sure what's going on with the Steinheil I have, but this 45mm, the 50mm Auto-Cassaron, and a 135mm Culminar f/4.5 all show similar behavior.

Still, even with the discrepancies in different people's experiences, I LOVE this lens.  Gorgeous round aperture.  Super light.  Super small.  I took this lens to Italy with me last winter for it's Soft Focus "pictorialist" qualities (see: Napoli and Rome).  I can feel the infinity energies of the "pictorialist" potential pushing outward into the cosmos beyond the moon of the fantastic sky... er... I'd better stop now...

 

Summary ~

If I were to "grade" the lenses, I'd say the Steinheil are like Hermagis Eidoscope-like smooth in the way they render.  The Ricoh and Cosina are Dallmeyer-Bergheim-like gorgeous.  For soft focus work I just wish these two, Ricoh and Cosina, had round apertures, then things would be perfect.  But, there's little perfection in life, right?  The Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar... on the other hand... ah... that CZJT... even though it has zero soft focus capability...  I must be in heaven... I'm up to my armpits in lenses I never thought I'd find for miniature formats...

In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7

After tone mapping Creative Style Black and White where Contrast [0..-3] a Sony A7RII, I applied a setting to a Sony A7 and went to an exhibition of automobiles.  The event was the avant depart of the Tour Auto 2026.

My setup was the aforementioned Sony A7 plus one of my garbage/trash/crap lenses - Ricoh Riconar 55mm f/2.2 in Pentax K mount.  

I wanted to see if the wide open magik the lens comes with could translate well to cars.  I already knew it would be outstanding at f/8 and f/11.  To confirm the tone map findings I shot RAW + jpg with the following in-camera settings  -

• Creative Style Black and White
• Contrast -1
• DRO 

This recipe matches the in-camera black and white default jpg processing of a Fuji GFX100RF.  I like that "look."

The event was interesting and I had a wonderful time.

Once back home and without reviewing the in-camera output I moved all the jpgs into a separate folder and processed the RAW.  There were a few images I liked in BW and processed those RAWs using my Digital Zone System 0EV as Zone 5 recipe.

On a lark I compared a RAW processed black and white against the in-camera jpg.  Here is what I found -

 

Sony A7 - shutter speed 1/200th sec
Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 at f/2.2 - highlight glow galore

Matrix metering - no Digital Zone System 
spot metering required 

 

To me, all the thinking, wondering, measuring and futzing about is well worth the effort.  Understanding and knowledge is unbeatable.

Onward. 

In-camera black and white image processing ~ Sony A7RII

I enjoy learning about how Sony processes black and white images in-camera.

Using an A7RII I mapped the tonal response as a matrix of settings with tone patches that express the numeric value measured.  

Selecting Contrast [0...-3] and DRO [Off...3] and normal jpg, and then adding as reference points two different tone mappings, which are outlined in 18percent gray - 

• 1EV steps from -2EV to +7EV and letting the highlights linearly roll off to +4EV pure white and shadows to linearly toe to -5EV as pure black (which Sony has chosen as the bottom end of the processing range) - maximum tonal separation by luminance (not color)
• Fuji GFX100RF tonal response mapping - which I particularly like

Here is the (rather giant) map -

Comments -

Looking carefully at the map I see why our visit to Vienna and my use of Contrast -3 "worked" as well as it did.  The shadow tones are fairly decent compared with any of the three references.

If I want the whites to "sparkle", Contrast -1 + DRO1 is quite nice.

If I want "creamier" highlights, Contrast -2 + DRO1 does the trick

 

Image Processing ~ matching tones black and white

Lets say there's a reference image with tones we'd like to match.  In black and white it's as simple as loading that image into an image processing software and measuring the tonal values.

It's then an easy matter of taking those tonal values and processing a different image where shadow, highlight, and various mid-tones match the reference.

To prove this works, I took an image that I like that was made by Clarence White of Eugene Debs.

As can be seen, this is a Pictorialist era work.

For the exercise I'm embarking on here, there are three things to note from the above photo.

• Tonal placement
• Image softness
• Image tint 

For tonal placement I measured portions of this reference image (desaturated to eliminate the tint making it easier to directly note the tonal values).  The dark areas raise up off pure black to 2Bhex/43dec.  The light tones are suppressed with a maximum value of ADhex/173dec.  This is a rather narrow tonal range by modern visual practices/expectations and I find the old Clarence White image to be quite beautiful.

To emulate the sense of softness I used an ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8, racked the focusing ring on the lens to it's closest point, then used a focusing helicoid to effectuate the final focus.  The ISCO is a Cooke triplet first element focusing optic.  The first element focusing introduces aberrations as it's focused on close subjects.  In miniature formats this lens and the effect of the first element focusing is an approximation of how soft focus lenses behaved on larger formats.

Borrowing the tint of the reference image is as easy as opening two images in the Gimp and using the Sample Colorize tool. 

As for the subject matter I guess I should apologize.  He's not the best of models, but I take what I can get.

Here are the steps used to mimic the reference image of Eugene Debs.

Load the new image into image processing software - enabling demosaicing (of course), auto-select camera color management - turning OFF tone curve - which leaves the image looking very flat.

 

Using Channel Mix, turn the image into black and white.  It looks gawd-awful, right?

 

Continuing with Channel Mix, emulate a late-1800's emulsion sensitivity filter - 0% red channel, 25% green channel, 75% blue channel.  It still looks gawd-awful.  I know, there's zero helping the model.

 

Find the lightest tone and move curves until that tone measures ADhex/173dec.  Maybe if one squints real hard things might be looking a bit better.

 

Find the darkest tone and move the curve until it measures 2Bhex/43dec.  OK, now we're beginning to see the full disaster the model brought to imaging.

 

By inspection, move the bottom of the curve until the dark tones look like the reference and add a slight vignette (if the lens hasn't already done that itself).

 

Tone the image by sampling the reference and... well... pretty close but no cigar.  It's too sharp.

 

Nice, but too sharp 

 

Comparison to reference 

Using the fact that soft focus lens spherical aberration returns a depth of field that anastigmat optics don't, I slightly defocused myself by moving behind the optimal point of focus.  In doing this there is still an underlying "sharpness", but diffusion that comes from spherical aberration transforms the images into something that more closely matches the Clarence White, Eugene Debs reference.  In fact, if one reads Kodak's instructions on how to use the 12inch Portrait lens they made in the late 1940's it clearly states that focusing on the tip of the nose and letting the depth of field build from there will yield better results.  Rather like the Heinrich Kuhn "Tiffenbuilder" - aka: Depth of Field Builder lenses of earlier era and design.

Here are a couple examples of letting the depth of field build itself.

 

Pretty decent sense of softness, eh? 

 Now 'er cook'n with gas!

OK.  I'm done.  Enough is enough already.  Again, sorry 'bout the model.  Some things just can't be helped.

Lenses ~ going small

Two Flickr friends have me falling down yet another Wabbit Whole.

It started with trying to find soft focus lenses for 35mm format that are more controllable than the special purpose built optics.  Chetworth del Gato and I had been talking about old large format soft focus lenses work.  To mine this vein of potential richness it was a matter of trying to find lenses that might exhibit similar properties optically and mechanically.

Once on the soft focus for miniature formats path it became evident there was a whole field of lenses I'd avoided and/or, knew nothing about.  Bonzo Din suggested I consider a lens or two of a specific kind and the next thing I knew I was enjoying learning about and understanding German lenses built during the 1950's for the 35mm format. 

Here is where I'm currently at -

Clockwise from bottom left...
- Staeble Choro 38mm f3.5 - 3 element 3 group
- Staeble Telon 85mm f5.6 - 4 element 3 group Antiplanet
- Roeschlein Telenar 135mm f5.6 - 4 element 4 group
- Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f2.8 - 3 element 3 group Cooke 

As can be seen, these are m39 thread mount lenses made for the Braun Paxette series of cameras. To illustrate just how small that 35mm lenses can be I added the NEX5T/Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 kit as size comparison to the first image shared above.  

NOTE: The m39 Paxette have a 44mm ffd, and NOT the 28.8mm of the more commonly known m39 ltm Leica Thread Mount.  These are the smallest lenses currently in the Toy Box.  

In terms of sharpness and character...

- Staeble Choro 38mm f3.5 - Sharp in the center at f3.5 with softness increasing towards the edges.  Sharp at f11 across the field. Decent chromatic aberration control and excellent field flatness.  Rumored to be better than the first Leitz 35mm f3.5 tessar formula, which also was best at f11.

- Staeble Telon 85mm f5.6 - Sharp.  Period.  Well, OK, perhaps not clinically sharp wide open, but close enough.  Quite the surprising lens, actually.  Field flatness and chromatic aberration are well controlled.  If there's a downside it is the lack of decent flare control.  Shooting toward off-axis brightness very quickly shows the challenge.  So this is pretty much a Sun Over The Shoulder kind of lens.

- Roeschlein Telenar 135mm f5.6 - Sharp in the center from wide open. The edges never really clean up, even at small apertures, where chromatic aberration, particularly in the out of focus areas, is some of the strongest I've ever seen.  Though I must admit that my Nikon Nikkor 10.5cm f2.5 "tick mark" behaves rather similarly towards the field edges, and I LOVE that lens.  Perhaps I'll come to appreciate this tiny Roeschlein, too?

- Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f2.8 - I used this as a soft focus lens for two months in Italy. First in Napoli and then in Rome.  It's underlying sharpness mimics that of large format film soft focus lenses quite well.  Bright areas glow correctly.  Sharp in the center from wide open.  By f11 it's sharp across the field.

At first I wondered if there was something wrong with this Cassarit as the "glow" remains pretty much constant across all apertures.  Bonzo Din's Cassarit doesn't do this, but there's someone  using a Sony A7 that showed two slightly different versions of the Cassarit, both of which do exactly the same thing mine does.  So who knows? 

------------ References ---------------

Lists of Paxette lenses - incomplete

Fitting a m42 adapter for Paxette use 

My own blog post on adapting Paxette lenses to mirrorless cameras 

Manual Focus forums has slightly different information 

 

Things that caught my attention ~ Winter in Italy

While away this winter my mind wandered and stumbled and came upon a few things.  

While not immediately photography related, I find the process of musing over these topics informs and directs how I approach the craft.

 

~ Culture Defined

The first is a renewed appreciation for how received culture impacts my view of, well, just about everything.  

Culture is delivered/given to us.  We consume it.  We participate in it - for or against.  It's something I seldom think about but (all too often passively) agree/disagree bound by limits set by culture itself.  

Which led me to a question: Can I think beyond those boundaries?  What would it mean if I did?  How would I see the world differently?  How would I behave in the future?

Fortunately there are plenty of hints and ideas.  

 In Europe Antonio Gramsci and Stuart Hall explored how the control of a small class of people defines culture for the rest of us.  In the US there are Howard Zinn, David Graeber, and Noam Chomsky who looked at the imposition of culture through politics and money.  In literature we have the example of Cervantes in the early 1600's and his hero, Don Quixote.  More recently we have Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Jack Kerouac, all of whom looked at culture from various perspectives.

What I do, what we all do, in photography and art is caught up in culture as we experience it.  How we see.  How we react.  How we do.  All of it.

 

- The Renaissance

European art experienced a "rebirth" starting in the late 1300's.  I wondered, a "rebirth"?  What was the first "birth?"

Our trip to Napoli and Rome helped me see.

Renaissance paintings commonly show we humans as we are.  Architectural features correctly rendered.  Compositions and subject are proportionally correct.  This was obviously different than the iconography of the Eastern Roman Empire what were simplistic with subjects and elements disproportionately distributed.

What came before? 

In Napoli we visited a museum that holds many wonderful fresco that were taken out of Pompeii.  One room is filled with what I found to be incredible examples of correct human shapes, an correct architectural proportion and perspective.  All pre-dated the Renaissance by 1500 years.  It was instantly clear to me that Roman artists knew quite well what they were doing.  This had to be a bit of the first "birth."

Similarly, with sculpture I've marveled at the incredible beauty of Bernini's figures, Michelangelo's sculptural stout firmness and power, and Canova's exquisite line and execution.  For me many of their works have the power to emotionally move me.  

It turns out so can classic Greek and Roman sculpture. The Capitoline Museum and the Villa Doria-Pamphilj in Rome house early works that I've found to be absolutely exquisite.  The Greeks and Romans led the way and I finally understand what is meant by "Renaissance." 

An incredible world of art existed many centuries prior.

This made me wonder if everything had been forgotten and needed to be re-discovered?  Or if everything remained in the continuum of art but had to be left out due to the demands of those who employed artists? 

 

- Caravaggio 

One artist is credited with the introduction of "chiaroscuro" lighting.  

It's the kind of light that, if we are speaking in photographic "Zone System" terms, moves skin tones from Zone 6 up to Zone 7 or even 8 and takes the shadows and moves them from Zone 4 down to Zone 2 or 1.  

At the Doria-Pamphilj we saw several of Caravaggio's early paintings.  They are quite "classic" with open shadow details and muted highlights. They could've been executed by any of the early Renaissance masters as they fit the general style of the time.   The arc of his work spans from early flat, calm paintings to later contrasty drama.  His later works are what we tend to know him by, and I was quite surprised to see examples of his earliest paintings.

However... his lighting (as important as it is, what with the immediate impact it had on European painters during Caravaggio's lifetime) is most definitely _not_ the thing I find the most interesting about Caravaggio's work. 

When we were in Napoli we visited a chapel in the Pio Monte della Misericordia where a Caravaggio hangs over the altar.  It's titled "The Seven Works of Mercy."

At first I wasn't sure what to make of it since it failed to conform to expectations I had about, what?, I don't know, just about everything.  The lighting was harsh and slashing, which I expected from Caravaggio.  

There was something else going on in there.  After a minute or two a 5watt bulb turned on in my mind.  I had to stand and look and experience and appreciate what he'd done.  He'd broken one of the prime "rules" of painting.  *snap*  As if it were a little twig to be played with and disfigured. 

All the important action was pushed to the edges of the frame.  The center, ah, yes, the center contained shockingly nothing of interest, and in that light it could be seen as nothing more than a black space, dead center, a black nothingness.

Could it be that Caravaggio's greatest contribution to art was his sense of composition?

Oh my.  There could be freedom in this.  Maybe.  Yes.  Likely so.

Things are shifting. 

Lenses ~ finally found one

I swore I'd never ever own another Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 (nor a f/3.5 for that matter).  

In my hands they've never ever been any good.  Terrible wide open.  Maybe OK if you squinted hard at f/11.  Edges never cleaned up.  

After struggling with the famous name optic I wiped the thought of ever trying to own another one from my mind and moved on.

 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 

Went to a swap meet recently and tried to sell a few of unloved/unused lenses.  Met a little success, but not to the degree I was hoping for.

Stumbled around and looked at everything I could.  Had everything I wanted or could find.  Did as many deals as I could.

Being human can be "interesting."  Bright shiny objects attract, right?  And here I was thinking/hoping I was immune. 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

Casually looking through a milk crate of m42 lenses my eye was drawn to a bright shiny object.  *natch*hooked*  The front cap was made of beautifully machined aluminum.  The rear cap was beautifully machined from, well, more aluminum.  The lens barrel was, oh yes, machined from beautiful aluminum.  The knurled focusing ring was honed from beautiful aluminum. 

Instant lust swamped my being.  I had to have it.  Whatever it was.

Taking the front cap off I saw it was a Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8.  Removing the rear cap I confirmed it was indeed m42.  Lenses were clean and clear.  So...

OK.  How much is this?  It didn't matter. It was going home with me.  Here's my wallet.  Take whatever you need.

Swapped a Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 Pentax K mount for it and a couple Euros and the deal was done.

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

As the endorphin rush subsided and my emotional chemistry returned to near normal I remembered: These lenses are horrible.  I've owned far too many of them and know this as deeply as anything I've ever known.  Just awful.  Even with a famous name engraved around the front ring.

Ugh.  Would I ever learn???  I could always use it as a paper weight.  My mother collected them.  Maybe it was in my blood.  Paper weights.

To confirm how horrible it was I put it through it's paces.

f/2.8 Center is... hmmm... wot's all this then?  This one is sharp in the center wide open.  Never saw that before.  Seriously.  Cheap supposedly worse Meyer Domiplan triplets were _always_ better than any Zeiss tessar I tried. Edges, not so much, as expected of early tessar... forgivable perhaps... and... again... not nearly as bad as the dozen or so others that've passed my way.

f/4 Field of sharpness expands from the center but doesn't yet cover the field in Glorious Sharpness on Full Frame. Still, impressive.  Maybe this could be the Sweet Aperture for portraiture? where edges typically go soft in the Old Style.

f/5.6 Huh.  Not 1/2 bad across most of the field, though, actually, the edges are still a touch soft.  Eminently usable. Eminently.

f/8  Holy Flipp'n Moly dear Molly.  So _this_ is why people talk about Zeiss Tessar so lovingly.  This looks like an nicely corrected modern lens.  OK, then.  Early 1950's traditionally designed optics can still do it.  Glorious Sharpness with a sense of depth and heft.

f/11 As good as anything in the Toy Box.  Still ever more Glorious Sharpness with a sense of depth and heft and... and... OK... I'll stop now...

Found a keeper.  Finally.  When I least expected it.  Why did this take so long?  Oh well.  There's no use asking questions with no answer to.  

Did I mention the lens comes with a many bladed aperture?

 

 

Sony A7RII, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8  

---------- Resources ------------

Does the tessar layout predate Zeiss' patent by 1/2 a century? 

Notes on the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar

Notes on the humble tessar - with design suggestions  

Lenses ~ adapting m39 Paxette

As a placeholder to a longer conversation...

Leica Thread Mount lenses (m39 LTM) ~

• m39 - 39mm diameter by 1mm thread
• FFD of 28.8mm precisely

Paxette lenses ~ 

• m39 - 39mm diameter by 1mm thread - same as LTM
• FFD of 44mm  - which means Paxette will NOT work natively on LTM adapters, event though the threads are the same

 

 Sony A7RII, Staeble Choro 38mm f/3.5
Tiny little lens, plenty sharp stopped down

So the question arises of how to adapt m39 Paxette to digital mirrorless?  Here are three solutions.

Modify m42 adapter ~

As previously noted, the ffd of Paxette is 44mm.  m42 has a ffd of 45.46mm precisely.  Using this knowledge, here is one solution for adapting Paxette lenses.

• m42 adapter
• Remove the front m42 ring 
• Remove 1.5mm off the rear surface of the ring (machine or sandpaper grind)
• Reinstall the ring into the adapter 
• One each m39 to m42 ring for as many Paxette lenses as are on hand
• Mount m39 to m42 stepup ring on the Paxette lens
• Mount the lens on the m42 adapter 
• Mount m42 adapter on camera
• Take photographs 

The downside of this is one is limited to focusing distances as set by the lens. 

m39 to m39 extension tube on LTM adapter ~ 

Another approach requires a specialty extension tube.  Here's that solution.

• m39 Leica Thread Mount (LTM) adapter
• 14mm m39 to m39 extension tube 
• One each m39 to m42 ring for as many Paxette lenses as are on hand
• Mount m39 to m42 stepup ring on the Paxette lens
• Mount the lens on the m39 extension tube
• Mount extension tube on LTM adapter 
• Mount LTM adapter on camera
• Take photographs 

The downsides of this is one is limited to focusing distances as set by the lens, and the precise extension of 14mm is difficult to find.  I know of two possible suppliers but I'm not sure the part is always in stock. 

Adapt a m42 close focusing helicoid ~

A third approach is proving to be rather flexible. 

• m42 close focus 17mm-33mm helicoid adapter
• One each m39 to m42 ring for as many Paxette lenses as are on hand
• Mount m39 to m42 stepup ring on Paxette lens
• Mount the lens on the m42 helicoid 
• Mount helicoid on camera
• Take photographs 

Simple.  Direct.  Inexpensive. Flexible.

Using a helicoid allows for flexible focusing.  There's no need to measure the adapters for infinity.  Just turn the adapter threw to find the focus point.  And the lenses own focusing ring is still available for use as well.  Lastly, because everything remains m42, this approach is good for Pentacon/Pentax mount lenses and even provides a bit of close focusing capability.

  

 

Sony A7RII, Staeble Telon 85mm f/5.6
Smallest 85mm I've ever seen, plenty sharp 

Why all the Monkey Motion?  

There are more than a few tasty German optics with many aperture blades (think: beautiful out of focus rendition at all apertures) to be found in the Paxette family lens tree.

• Carl Zeiss - 50mm tessar 
• Enna - reportedly excellent, though I've yet to try them
• ISCO - nice, simple optics from a Jos Schneider division
• Roeschlein - I'd not heard of this company until recently
• Schacht - decent contrast and resolution selection of lenses
• Staeble - another decently sharp/contasty selection of lenses
• Steinheil - my current favorite for in-camera soft focus/pictorialist-like work

 

 

Sony A7RII, Steinheil Cassarit 45mm f/2.8
Tiny little lens, pictorialist effects at all apertures
with underlying "sharpness" that'll cut the
paper it's printed on

------------ References ---------------

Lists of Paxette lenses - incomplete

Fitting a m42 adapter for Paxette use 

Manual Focus forums has slightly different information 

Lenses ~ another whack at software intervention

On lens "corrections" -

While researching a lens I was interested in I stumbled across a comment that struck me.  It went something like (yes, I'm paraphrasing in the following)...

 "... you can use software to sharpen up this old lens, but you won't have a true understanding of how bad this lens really is..."

I wondered if the writer understood something fundamental to digital photography and current image processing. Software "corrects" for all manner of lens design and implementation "faults."

To see what I mean turn off software intervention.  Specifically, turn off -

• Capture Sharpen - which ostensibly counters AA filter effects
• Lens Correction Profile (LCP)  - which corrects for
• Chromatic Aberration
• Field Distortion 

For in-camera jpgs this means locating and changing the settings there on the camera.  For RAW this means locating these settings in the image processing software, where switches and controls could be very well hidden.

Now have a close look at an image and compare it against a software "corrected" image of the identical scene.

It can take a lot of image processing  just to reach a decent starting point.  What's good for the goose might be good for the gander, right?

Question: Why not apply software "corrections" to old manual focus lenses?

 

 

Sony NEX05T + Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN
Illustrating the results of
all the software interventions applied
by default on file import into a RAW
image processing software 

On Lens Diffraction limits ~ 

Who hasn't read lens reviews that tell us things get mushy when shooting at apertures below the limits of what a sensor can resolve?  The phrase "diffraction limits" comes up shockingly often.

For full frame cameras 12 to 24mpixel that's f/16 and for 40 to 60mpixel that's f/11.  The caution is to avoid those apertures if you want the sharpest rendition possible.  The implication being that images shot at apertures below the resolution limits of a sensor are <insert favorite unsavory expletive>.

In light of software intervention capabilities, I wondered if this was strictly true.

Taking the question seriously, I used a beautiful old Nikon Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Ai lens, focused two feet, adapted to a 42mpixel Sony A7RII (shooting RAW) and shot three photos starting at f/11, then f/16 and finally at f/22.

Looking at the images with Capture Sharpened turned off I could see a slight difference in the sense of sharpness between f/11 and f/22.  Between f/11 and f/16 it was a little more difficult to tell a difference at full rez or 200 percent rez.

Then I turned Capture Sharpen on and... <drum roll, please>... I see zero sharpness difference between them.  As in, it don't matter (bad English intended).  Software did what it was designed to do: Make things sharp.  OK.  OK.  There was, however, a clear difference in depth of field.  But that's also the point of shooting at small apertures, right?  

To check if this was strictly true I then took a fine little Pentax-M 28mm f/2.8 and reran the f/11, f/16, f/22 comparison.  In this case the sharpness difference between f/11 and f/22 was more obvious, even when using Capture Sharpen.  Because of the way the Nikkor performed, there's likely something in the Pentax-M design that adds a bit more softness at really small apertures.  However...

... for grins, I took the Capture Sharpened f/22 Pentax-M image and applied a gentle UnSharp Mask (USM) and compared the result to a Capture Sharpened bitingly/critically/fabulously sharp f/11 image.  The result is... <another roll on the drum, please> ... zero, zip, nutt'n, nada difference between them.  Software intervention of the kind applied to digital lenses now applied to the wee-Pentax-M is able to make a f/22 image look as good as a Capture Sharpened f/11 shot.

Question: How many people avoid shooting at small apertures because they've been told something awful happens down there? 

Recap question: With the kinds of beneficial image improving software tools available to us, why not use them, regardless of the lens? 

Lenses ~ Steinheil

I wanted to write a little about what I'm experiencing using lenses from a former German manufacturer.  C. A. Steinheil Söhne Optical and Astronomical Works, as they were first known, made early and significant contributions to lenses for photography.

 

Sony A7RII
Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 Cassarit at f/11 

A little history ~ 

In 1866 Carl August von Steinheil patented the Rectilinear four element two group symmetrical design lens.  He beat Dallmeyer by a week or two to the patent.  The importance of this early design can't be over-stated.  Many subsequent designs descend from this idea.

There was also an early design for what would later by patented by Carl Zeiss as the tessar four element three group design.  Steinheil patented theirs in 1881, which was two decades before Zeiss.  Zeiss inverted the Steinheil optical layout and successfully claimed uniqueness of concept before the patent office.

Steinheil continued to develop lenses for photography through the 1960's.  They had Dagor/Protar designs. They offered their Antiplanet inverted tessar.  They developed Cooke triplets.  Many of these lenses are available for not much money on the used market these days.

Soft focus lens search ~ 

I've been looking for lenses that gently introduce optical imperfects into images made on miniature formats.  

Wollensak offered a Velostigmat Series II that allowed users to move the first/front element away from the second and third element and group.  Various focal lengths implemented this feature to be used on various large film formats  The lenses introduce soft focus effects that were sought after by Pictorialists and portraitists at the time.  I am looking for something similar for use on miniature formats.

I stumbled across a Japanese first element focuser, bought one, and found it does the trick, just like the Velostigmat Series II.  Then, a friend alerted me to the fact that certain German lenses from the 1950's and 1960's were also first element focusers.

In these I found the soft focus lenses for miniature formats that I was looking for. 

On vacation ~ 

This past winter we headed to Italy to escape the cold, gray, set skies of Paris, only to have those clouds and wet follow us.  No matter.  We needed to get away.  

I hauled a Sony A7RII with three lenses.  One of the lenses practically lived on the A7RII was a Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 Cassarit.  This is a unit focuser in a m39 Paxette mount (44mm FFD, not the more comment 28.8mm Leica Thread Mount spec).

This unit focusing 45mm Steinheil went along because I'd not correctly/fully cleaned a 50mm f/2.8 Auto-Cassaron Edixa my friend originally alerted me to.  I didn't think the 45mm would have much majick.  I was wrong.  These Steinheils they have a range of soft focus-ness that can be quite useful.

The soft focus images made around Napoli and Rome were made with the 45mm f/2.8 Cassarit unit-focuser. 

Designed differently ~

Steinheil unit and first element focusers seem to share a common trait.  They render very crisply with evident underlying sharpness.  They also exhibit an overlaying reduction in overall contrast and highlight bloom.

Characteristics of two soft focus candidates ~ 

• Ricoh 55mm f/2.2 
• four element four group
• First element focusing 
• ISCO Iscotar 50mm f/2.8 
• Cooke triplet 
• First element focusing
• Both lenses
• Soft wide open
• Good contrast from wide open
• Center sharpening up as aperture closes
• Edges struggling to sharpen up even as aperture closes
• Exposures normal ~ comparable to modern AF optics 
• Highlight bloom diminishes with aperture closure 

Characteristics of Steinheil soft focus candidates ~

• Sharp across from wide open
• Veiling softness at all apertures ~ diminishing slightly as aperture closes
• Tendency to feel over-exposed on Sony mirrorless ~ tonal distribution crowded to the high end of the curve
• Highlight bloom largely unaffected by aperture closure 

Note: I also have a 135mm f/4.5 Culminar 4 element 3 group tessar formula Steinheil lens.  It's not as sharp from wide open as the shorter focal length lenses listed above.  Stopping down does little to improve resolution.  However, there remains the underlying veiling and highlight glow of the two shorter focal length optics.  This is different than how a 135mm f/4.5 Staeble behaves.  The Staeble has good contrast from wide open, which improves with the closing of the aperture.  I'm beginning to think that soft image rendition is a Steinheil trait.  If anyone knows a Steinheil lens designer who wouldn't mind commenting, I'm all ears.

This underscores something I've come to appreciate.  That is, a photographic lens of the same optical layout designed by two different teams can and often do render differently.  Sometimes dramatically differently.

To me this means any majick found in lenses is not simply the result of the lens type (tessar, plasmat, triplet, Ernostar, Sonnar, etc).  Rather, differences in rendering are the result of the calculations and decisions made in details, such as lens curvatures, glass types, and element placement.

 

----------- Resources -------------

Steinheil lenses with design cross-sections 

Steinheil company history 

Lenses ~ thoughts on Viltrox 28mm f/4.5 FE

On a lark I purchased a ridiculously cheap Viltrox 28mm f/4.5 FE.

 

What I found can be summed up in the following two sections. 

Pros ~

• Very inexpensive (pleasantly low impact on the wine budget)
• Very small
• Very light
• Surprisingly sharp 
• Autofocus... sort of...
• Cute little built-in lens cover that is actuated by a small knob on the front of the lens that helps keep the pocket lint out of the optic 

Cons ~

• Fixed f/4.5 aperture
• Prone to flare in strongly off axis lit scenes 
• Slow/inconsistent startup  
• Dodgy AF 
• Works only on certain Sony cameras depending on firmware version (or so I'm told)
• Periodic AF startup failures on AF cameras 
• Periodic AF failures if camera left on too long
• Regular AF failures in lower (note: not yet low) light
• Firmware updates are an absolute disaster
• Some versions are available through a Viltrox app for cellphones
• Other/newer (?) updates are only available through Microsoft/Apple desktop computers.

Note 1: AF failures require a re-power start.  Failing that, I need to unmount/remount the lens.  Failing that, I need to drop the battery out and reinstall.  There must be something going on with the way the Viltrox is programmed and is trying to interact with the camera.

Note 2: Because I run Linux and the cellphone app appears limited to earlier firmware versions there is no way to update the firmware in my lens to see if AF performance has been improved in more recent versions. 

From this you can easily guess that this is a troublesome lenscap of a lens.  On the one hand it fits in my pocket when mounted on a small APS-C Sony E (in my case - A5000).  On the other, startup time and AF have proven to be a frustration.

None of this prevented me from taking it on holiday this past winter.  Only once did I put a Sigma 19mm EX DN on the A5000.  Everything else, litterally, was shot using this Lens of Frustration.  I suffered through it's faults to enjoy the portability aspects of the setup. 

Is sainthood granted for living under these (well, OK, self imposed) conditions?

There are a couple Flickr albums filled with images made in this way.  

See - Napoli and Rome

The sharp images in those albums are from the Viltrox 28mm.  The soft images are from an A7RII/Steinheil 45mm Cassarit setup I also took along for the adventure.

I wish the Viltrox 28mm f/4.5 FE were a more reliable optic.  It'd never leave one of my cameras if that were the case.  Alas... well... I still enjoy using it... and get to practice breathing slowly when the little lens starts acting goofy... which seems like every 3rd or 4th startup...

 

Lenses ~ short list of Soft Focus lenses from 1866 to 1945

Similar to my wondering about lens histories for sharp lenses, I wondered when soft focus came into being.

 

 

Sony A7RII + Steinheil 45mm f/2.8 Cassarit
Showing in-camera lens induced
soft focus effects are indeed
possible when shooting 
miniature formats 

It turns out, Dallmeyer did the job back in the mid-1800's.  This is a few decades before the start of the "pictorialist" movement.  Several things I've read suggested these Dallmeyers didn't sell all that well (Portrait nor Bergheim - are they in fact the same lens?  someone please correct me if I'm wrong) at first.  When the "pictorialist"s showed up the Bergheim was resurrected.

For me, that's not the most surprising thing.  Rather, it's the fact that an American company, Wollensak, offered a very broad range of soft focus lenses with introductions of new optical formulas spanning more than 20 years.  Then there's Kodak.  They put to market two Portrait lenses in the 1940's.  Which seems rather late to me.

The reason this surprised me is that for many years writers claimed that soft focus and "pictorialism" died during the First World War.  It turns out that they were wrong.  "Pictorialist" photography continued to be practiced well into the 1970's.  Well, it was in America, at least.

With the adoption of smaller formats (120 and 35mm) soft focus lenses continued to be introduced.  They were a "thing" on the Japanese "scene" with some of the product leaking out into other markets.  I've written about this at length in prior posts.  

For this entry I would simply like to put a few place-holders in history as way posts along the road of soft focus lens history. 

Keeping in mind:

• There were many many opticians who offered single element lenses that were adaptable to soft focus photography 
• Due to uncorrected optical aberrations there was a difference in points of focus between what was seen on the ground glass and which portion of the color spectrum the UV/blue/slight-green sensitive materials recorded 
• The Eidoscope being the first lens to allow accurate focus correspondence between the ground glass and light sensitive materials - sort of (see next comment)
• Soft Focus lenses achieve the effect in part by under-correcting for spherical aberration, which means there can be a broad range of possible focus points (depending on film sensitivity).  Several sources suggest when deploying for portraiture to focus on the nose and the to let the aberrations do what they do behind the point of focus. 

Brief list of dates and manufacturer for large format cameras: 

• 1866 ~ Dallmeyer Portrait
• 1868 ~ Dallmeyer Bergheim
• 1891 ~Hans Watzek Meniscus described
• 1890s ~ Dallmeyer Bergheim reissued
• 1903 ~ BOM Hermagis Ediscope corrected for ground glass focus

... and then something I very seriously underestimated: Wollensak

• 1903 ~ Wollensak Achromatic 
• 1906 ~ Wollensak Royal Portrait 
• 1906 ~ Wollensak Portrait Series A - less expensive than the Royal
• 1909 ~ Wollensak Vitax 
• 1911 ~ Wollensak Velostigmat Series II
• 1911 ~ Wollensak Verito - design borrowed from Bodine Pictorial lens
• 1912 ~ Wollensak Vesta - no diffusion adjustment
• 1926 ~ Wollensak Varium - Cooke Triplet giving gentle SF effects

... then...

• 1945 (approx) ~ Kodak Portrait 12inch and 14inch f/4.5

------------- Reference Materials ---------------

Rapid Rectilinear 

Optical design forms 

Soft focus ~ why 

Wollensak compendium 

Karl Struss Pictorialism 

Wiki on the Cooke triplet 

DPReview forum thread on lenses that preceded the tessar 

Tessar thoughts 

Tessar formula recalculations 

 

Lenses ~ short list of 1800's optical designs

Over the winter I wondered what the history of lens development for photography might look like.  While there are many many variations on the theme, I found a way through the Madness that made sense to me.

 

Keeping mind that optics were well known before photography, their adaptation to the photographic process is interesting.  It turns out, a certain Dr. Petzval played an important role.  It's so important, that in the 1902 Camera Club of Paris magazine they published the following description of the installation of a monument in the likeness of Dr. Petzval at the Imperial University in Vienna.

Translated from French -

"...  The series of festivities given by the Vienna Photographic Society concluded with the formal presentation of the Petzval monument to the Imperial University. This monument, modeled by Brenek and executed in marble, bears the following inscription:

DR. JOSEPH PETZVAL

PROFESSOR DER MATHEMATIK 1837-1877

geb. 1807; gest. 1891

gewidmet von der PHOTOGR. GESELLSCHAFT IN VIEN

In other words: To Joseph Petzval, Professor of Mathematics, born in 1807; died in 1891; dedicated by the Vienna Photographic Society

The monument depicts, in high relief, a remarkably expressive portrait of the great scholar. It is framed by a foliage-adorned border, and on the entablature, a laurel branch rests on a lens board. This detail recalls the portrait lens invented by Petzval, as noted in the document signed by Mr. Schipper, Rector of the University of Vienna, in which he declares his acceptance, on behalf of the Academic Senate, of the gift offered by the Photographic Society..."

Keeping in mind that:

• Dr. Petzval and Voigtländer had a business agreement until a falling out separated them
• Carl August von Steinheil was awarded a patent for his Rectalinear lens a week or two _before_ Dallmeyer ~ the designs/calculations appear to be strikingly similar
• Carl Zeiss was awarded a patent for their Tessar in spite of the fact that both Dr. Petzval and Steinheil had similar, though inverted, lenses decades before
• The Englishman Dennis Taylor worked from concepts (and wrote and spoke often about his approach), where the Germans preferred to work from calculations
• Germany in an Axis technology transfer to Japan before the outbreak of the Second World War shared their calculation approach to optical design, which now the adopted/accepted solution for making lenses today 

Here's a brief timeline that I've found useful for understand how photographic lenses came to be.

• 1840 - Voigtländer and Petzval - Portrait 4 elements 2 groups ~ *sharp resolution drop-off from center to edges
• 1857 - Petzval Orthoskop ~ 4 elements 3 groups ~ inverse of what later became tessar
• 1866 - Carl August von Steinheil preceeded Dallmeyer by a week or two - Rectalinear  4 elements 2 groups ~ *corrected the sharp drop-off of the original Petzval/Voigtländer Portrait 
• 1881 - Steinheil Antiplanet (Triplar, Culminar with examples made into the 1970's) ~ 4 elements 3 groups ~  inverse of what later became tessar
• 1890 - Rudolph Zeiss Protar ~ Anastigmat 4 elements 2 groups ~ similar to the earlier Rectilinear, though with different calculations and glasses
• 1892 - Emil von Hoegh - Goerz ~ Dagor 6 elements 2 groups 
• 1893 - Dennis Taylor ~ Cooke Triplet 3 elements 3 groups ~ outstanding corrections across the field
• 1893 - Steinheil Orthostigmat ~ Dagor-type 6 elements 2 groups 
• 1895 - Voigtländer Collinear ~ Dagor-type 6 elements 2 groups 
• 1900 - Hans Harting ~ Voigtlander Heliar 5 elements 3 groups Cooke derivative with cemented doublets on both ends of a symmetrical triplet layout
• 1903 - Zeiss Tessar ~ 4 elements 3 groups

Of course if a person digs just a bit deeper they'll find hundreds and hundreds of opticians who made photographic lenses and contributed to the development of optics for photography.  So the field of knowledge can get very muddy very quickly.  I stripped everything to just the simplest of skeletons.  Relevant details are left to the reader to explore.

To me, the important years would be 1840, 1866, and 1893.  Everything seems to descend from design advancements patented in those years.

------------- Reference Materials ---------------

Rapid Rectilinear 

Optical design forms 

Wiki on the Cooke triplet 

DPReview forum thread on lenses that preceded the tessar 

Tessar thoughts 

Tessar formula recalculations