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.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 22, 2002

Answers

A coated 7.3 cm Hektor (naturally), usually wide open, but certainly not coseded down more than one sto por so.

-- Marco Grande (Hektor73@yahoo.com), May 22, 2002.

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).

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....

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

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).

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the lens seems the best way to go: large diffusers, soft boxes, overcast days, Portra NC will do the job without the outdated SF glow effects...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 22, 2002.

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

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).

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 22, 2002.

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.
Another lens that will also work is an early summitar / summicron (scratched / with cleaning marks), but these are usually much more expensive.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), May 22, 2002.

Gaussian blur?

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 22, 2002.

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.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 22, 2002.

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.

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

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 22, 2002.

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..

-- James Elwing (elgur@acay.com.au), May 22, 2002.

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 impressionistic bokeh. Claude Monet would be jealous.

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

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), May 22, 2002.

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?

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

-- Bert Keuken (treb@operamail.com), May 22, 2002.

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!

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.

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 22, 2002.

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

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 22, 2002.

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

-- Igor Osatuke (visionstudios@yahoo.com), May 22, 2002.

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.

Question, How will DOF be affected? We would still be using the full diameter of the lens. My guess is, DOF would be minimal.

Any takers?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 22, 2002.

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

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), May 22, 2002.

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.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 24, 2002.

Bob:

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.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 24, 2002.

This lens. More are here .

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.

-- Dante Stella (dante@dantestella.com), May 25, 2002.

This lens. More are here .

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.

-- (dante@dantestella.com), May 25, 2002.