I was going to shoot the ice chest w/my Visual Quality but the shot looked almost the same on the groundglass as my original shot, so I turned to the Velostigmat II.   I don't think much of the Velo II w/its 1-5 diffusion control, so I've had the stop which limits the diffusion on my Velo removed, and this shot is w/front diffusion ring unsrewed out to about 3/8" from the barrel, which is quite a ways.

This point is a 'sweetspot' for me and I've this position taped so that it'll never change.   For me, w/the diffusion ring screwed out to this point, I consider the Velostigmat II the equal of the Pinkhams, the Kodak Portrait, the Heliars, the Struss et al.   The Velo costs about 1/10 of these other lenses, and is the lens you want to get if you don't have deep pockets.

The Kodak Portrait glass is coated, the Velo isn't, yet I like the color better on this shot, and while there is a difference bet. this shot and the Kodak version, they're very close.   I love 'em both.

The focus doesn't carry forward as much on the Velo II as it does the Kodak, and there seems to be a noticeable diff. in contrast(maybe I'm seeing things).

Another thing I want to touch on...............Photographing glass from the front, and illuminating that glass from the rear, tends to make the glass glow, but sometimes the illumination goes another way and the glass in some areas tends to take on an opaqueness that gives it the look of something other than glass.  You can see this by looking at the differences between the Kodak and Velo shots and my shot of the set-up.  

Looking at the set-up, you can see the walls of this ice chest are clear glass..........photographing this as I have straight on, the walls of the ice chest almost look metallic in some areas.

$250.00 versus $2,500.00..........................................That's the difference between the Velo and some of the lenses I've mentioned here, but you can't see it, or at least I can't.