Looking for the Old Lens look

[Herbc]

I still have a few of the old LF lenses like Carl Zeiss Jena and Darolt, but not to fit a Sony A7x.
I am thinking some of the old screw lenses like ancient Leitz or whatever might work to give a
'painterly' look to my b/w landscapes.  Focal lengths in something less than 50 would be a help.
Some of the older DSLR lenses that were definitely soft in the corners would also work.  There have
surely been some that were not sharp but had decent sharpness in the center?

[razrblck]

Cheap Russian lenses, like a Zenitar 28mm f/2.8, can be a good solution. There are many, some are even ok, but most of them will give you mediocre to poor performance wide open.

An alternative solution is to scout eBay and look for lenses with extensive fungi colonies inside, as they will soften the image a lot and give some sort of misty look.

[AlterEgo]

I still have a few of the old LF lenses like Carl Zeiss Jena and Darolt, but not to fit a Sony A7x.
I am thinking some of the old screw lenses like ancient Leitz or whatever might work to give a
'painterly' look to my b/w landscapes.  Focal lengths in something less than 50 would be a help.
Some of the older DSLR lenses that were definitely soft in the corners would also work.  There have
surely been some that were not sharp but had decent sharpness in the center?

DIY, from anything = http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Apodization-Filter.html

[synn]

Put a uv filter on your regular lens and then apply some Vaseline on it.

[Chris Livsey]

An alternative solution is to scout eBay and look for lenses with extensive fungi colonies inside, as they will soften the image a lot and give some sort of misty look.

Then store them in isolation well away from any other photo gear otherwise you may find the colonies spreading and your problem solved, all lenses will be softened.

[Herbc]

Great stuff guys, especially the apodization idea.   

[Rob C]

I still have a few of the old LF lenses like Carl Zeiss Jena and Darolt, but not to fit a Sony A7x.
I am thinking some of the old screw lenses like ancient Leitz or whatever might work to give a
'painterly' look to my b/w landscapes.  Focal lengths in something less than 50 would be a help.
Some of the older DSLR lenses that were definitely soft in the corners would also work.  There have
surely been some that were not sharp but had decent sharpness in the center?

That's a very dangerous word!

For one calendar of a series of about seven for this client, I was told that we were going to the South of France, and that we were to shoot in a 'painterly' manner. Delighted, happy as a lark with a fresh worm, I said to him, great! I have a wondeful example of exactly what you are talking about for you to see!

I took him the 1972 Sarah Moon Pirelli. He almost had a heart attack. Grain, Impressionism, that wasn't painterly! We never mentioned 'painterly' again, then or on later productions.

;-)

Rob C

[petermfiore]

I am thinking some of the old screw lenses like ancient Leitz or whatever might work to give a
'painterly' look to my b/w landscapes.  

I think we need to hit the brakes on the use of the term painterly.
Most photographers  use the word "Painterly", when they mean soft, blurred or some kind of image degradation. This is not the meaning of painterly.
Painting incorporates a very wide world of visual interpretation that is unique to painting. You can check the definition here   https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=painterly%20definition .  The term "painterly photography" is problematic , just as the idea that a painting "looks like a picture". Paintings are pictures and some can take on a photographic look.  What the viewer means it the painting looks photographic. A non-compliment to a painter.

I have always found it interesting how the painter who builds his image one abstract mark at a time, will work mightily to craft his painting into a palpable space. While the photographer starts with reality and with the trip of the shutter struggles for abstraction.

Peter

PS  Art directors would use the term "painterly" all time...While most, not knowing in the slightest have to define it.

[Herbc]

You are correct, Peter, in fact that is where I hear the term- from Curators, as most of the work I exhibit winds up being in a show with paintings and sculpture, etc.
The battelfied images are not what I was referring to, if anyone subscribes to the Brit publication "On Landscape" you can see what I was talking about.

[razrblck]

Painterly to me is the surrealism of Giorgio de Chirico and Max Ernst, but there is no lens that can bend reality that much.

[synn]

Might also be worth checking the Nik plugins out. Lots of vintage looks on offer, plus you can customize everything.

[Herbc]

Thanks I do use NIk Silver eFX a lot, was trying to get it done in the field.  When you are retired and every day is like Saturday, these things have appeal.

[Rob C]

Have you tried one of those cheapo Cokin filter holders?

I bought one centuries ago when the split tobacco horror was being played with; I've had a plain sheet of glass cut to fit the frame, and if it gets cold where you are, you can do pretty odd things just by breathing on that sheet of held glass and watching how the condensation pattern changes - usually quite quickly - through the viewfinder. (I've found it's best to meter the exposure first, before breathing on the glass, because the resulting highlight smears can upset the exposure you really need.)

Of course, you can also put a minimal smear of vaseline over parts of the glass sheet for other results, but personally, I never dream of putting anything on actual photographic filters. Grease is smarter thn we are: it finds its way wherever the hell it wants to find its way. The further from the lens the better!

Rob C

[LKaven]

I don't know how far and in what direction the OP wants to take his landscapes.  But I'd put in a vote on the range of vintage Nikkors.  They are often very sharp (e.g., the 28/2 AI), but emphasize the middle spatial frequencies in a way that has a kind of cinematic character. 

One can go back to the various version of the 21/4.  There was a version from the RF days, and a version from the early F-mount days that required mirror lockup before being mounted.  That lens, which is no good on a Nikon DSLR, would be great on a mirrorless. 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/21mm.htm