Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Got my Heliar
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:46 pm    Post subject: Got my Heliar Reply with quote
I finally succeeded to get a Heliar at a reasonable price. It is a 1928 f/4.5 10.5cm and came mounted on a more or less broken Voigtlander 6x9 in a pre-1920 dial-set Compur shutter. After an initial test I was a little bit disappointed in the bokeh, all the praise on the net seemed just so much hype, at least when shooting at f/4.5. Anyway, I mounted it and spent most of Saturday in Tallinn, Estonia, shooting at f/8, some 200 RAW frames now waiting for conversion and sorting. An initial look at some frames seems to indicate that the lens is quite OK, not a pixel peeping lens, but the resolution is quite adequate for reasonable sized prints, the dynamic range is wide enough, and the colors are nice. I'll post a couple of selections later on.

Yesterday and today I did some shooting at the full aperture, some city scenes and vegetation. At f/4.5 the lens is rather on the soft side, and the bokeh may be a little bit queer for the street so I'll stick to f/8 and other lenses for street use. The vegetation shots are another matter, however, curved lines suit the Heliar bokeh. I'll post a few shots here, more shots are available at http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/heliar_bokeh.html, it pays to have a look.

Well, a horse isn't exactly vegetation, but...



(There was some wind so exact focusing wasn't possible, but this shot was for the bokeh, not the foreground.)

Some sun-lit maple leaves about 8m behind the target show green highlights:



The distant group of trees goes nicely soft, the foreground leaves are very present:



A lilac:



There is one problem with this kind of bokeh: the subtle shading looks quite different on different screens, and the results of optical printing would very much depend on the grade of the paper - a single negative could be used to provide many very different prints.

I think the Heliar would also be a very nice portrait lens when used wide open with a suitable background.

Veijo

PS. here are two shots from Tallinn to exhibit the performance under very different conditions, no contrast adjustments:

First, very strong back-lighting: Food for the Leica Smile



Quite good performance by an uncoated lens. The Heliar has 5 elements in three groups, it is a modified triplet with split outer elements. These f/4.5 versions are supposed to have a rather low contrast, the f/3.5 versions may be slightly better. Then some stronger color, the vignetting is due to my hand-held lens shade:



Not too bad.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have been coming to the conclusion that these very old lenses are just not adequate for close-focus work, even if they are quite sharp otherwise.

I have been playing with my Ansco, a Bell&Howell (from @1900), a Kodak Anastigmat @1940, and all are reasonably good at distance, but are impossible to get sharp for the typical flower picture at 1 meter or less.

The flower shots are not good quality or personality tests for this type of lens.

The proper test for these may be from 2-3m-infinity.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe it's too early to judge, but from what I see this lens is not on the same top level of your Radionar or Cooke.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
I have been coming to the conclusion that these very old lenses are just not adequate for close-focus work, even if they are quite sharp otherwise.

I have been playing with my Ansco, a Bell&Howell (from @1900), a Kodak Anastigmat @1940, and all are reasonably good at distance, but are impossible to get sharp for the typical flower picture at 1 meter or less.


No fully open 4.5/105 lens will produce a very sharp flower photo at 0.5m and f/4.5 as the normal DOF is about 3mm and "pixel peeping DOF" is less than 1.5mm. Even my very sharp Leitz 2.8/60 Macro-Elmarit-R cannot do it at f/2.8 despite having about twice as much DOF. Besides, even with a flat target it is very difficult to keep focus when shooting without a tripod, and with a rather hefty wind it is impossible anyway.

Quote:
The flower shots are not good quality or personality tests for this type of lens.

The proper test for these may be from 2-3m-infinity.


I'm not trying to acquire very sharp flower shots, the bokeh and the atmosphere are the important things -- for "production" I've been mainly using the meniscus, which is really far from any kind of sharpness, especially when a 350D shot is printed at 12" x 18", but those prints sell better than any clinically sharp shot ever does. With some practice, this Helios may be quite a good lens for flower shots, I think. In the street I'll rather use the Aviar or a Cooke triplet for sharper shots and this lens at between f/5.6 and f/8 for a somewhat softer look.

Veijo


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Maybe it's too early to judge, but from what I see this lens is not on the same top level of your Radionar or Cooke.


The Heliar is quite soft fully open and not clinically sharp even stopped down, but it is supposed to have a very good transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. The quality of the bokeh is, of course, a matter of taste, but this lens type is quite famous for it and usually commands rather high prices, even unreasonably high (Click here to see on Ebay.) For me it fills a category slot in my lens line-up - at the moment the only remaining lens type I'm hunting for is a reasonably priced 3.5/75 Heliar, but I'm in no hurry, I've enough lenses for this summer and maybe even the next one.

Veijo

PS. I'll be retesting the Radionar for landscape photos in a unit focusing mode mounted with a variable close-up ring (in order to be able to have the front cell set at 1m all the time, which provides a quite interesting bokeh for longer ranges) and with a proper lens shade - I have been using none until now.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would imagine this lens is killer on its intended MF frame size. I have a Skopar that I don't really want to decapitate - I'd rather use it on the original folder. But it too has some of that quality, hard to explain but the photos just make more sense than with many other lenses.

With the close up work, it's not just the DOF, I think, but also the absolute resolving power of the lens - each little detail becomes that much more important. I'd think that even with narrow DOF if the OOF transition is well done, you just end up with a nice rounded rendering. Perhaps this is the trade-off that made the Heliar famous - with a larger negative.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello vilva

You have a Schneider radionar. It's a triplet, 3 elements, without the correction of the 4th element for improve the borders of the image.
What is the rendition? May be best in B&W-consideration of the year of production?

Perhaps the tessars are much contrastier (ie 150 mm). What's your opinion?

I question because Ican buy one of both.

Thank you


PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You know, I use the 3.5/10.5 Heliar, and my findings are completly different. This type of lense has a low edge contrast, therefore correct focussing is very difficult.

The resolution and sharpness is normaly two stops down absolut great, and wide open more as usefull. The Bokeh looks different to my 3,5/10,5cm Heliar.

In wich type of camera was your Heliar?

Ingo


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Hello vilva

You have a Schneider radionar. It's a triplet, 3 elements, without the correction of the 4th element for improve the borders of the image.


When you are using a lens taken from a 6x9 camera on a dSLR, you usually have no problems with the borders. Besides, a well-built triplet designed to be used at a sensible aperture is a very good lens, faster than f/4 may be asking for trouble, but f/4.5 is certainly OK.

Quote:
What is the rendition? May be best in B&W-consideration of the year of production?


Most decent lenses built after 1900 are good enough for color - otherwise they wouldn't be sharp for B&W either. E.g. Zeiss Planar was designed in 1896 and Tessar in 1902, the only new thing after that is the coating. For the performance of my Radionars, see http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/index.html#radionar, above it on the same page you can find twenty years older lenses, nothing much wrong with their color rendition.

Quote:
Perhaps the tessars are much contrastier (ie 150 mm). What's your opinion?


There is no appreciable difference between the contrast of an uncoated triplet and an uncoated Tessar, both have the same number (6) of air-to-glass surfaces, just like this Heliar here. Aldis Uno (also on my pages) has a slightly better contrast due to having 4 air-to-glass surfaces only, that is, the real f/7.7 Uno, not the f/4.5, which is just a triplet. For more contrast you'll have to get a post-WWII coated triplet or Tessar, but then you might as well get some M42 version instead of a folder lens - I use these old uncoated lenses because they are different.

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ingo wrote:
You know, I use the 3.5/10.5 Heliar, and my findings are completly different.


The f/3.5 is newer and slightly different. The Heliar was changed several times during its lifetime with only the lens grouping remaining constant. It is also possible that my specimen has suffered during the years, it may be out of alignment although it looks just fine.

Quote:
This type of lense has a low edge contrast, therefore correct focussing is very difficult.


When mounted on a 350D there certainly are no problems with the edge contrast. However, focusing at f/8 is a wee bit difficult, I must say.

Quote:
The resolution and sharpness is normaly two stops down absolut great, and wide open more as usefull. The Bokeh looks different to my 3,5/10,5cm Heliar.


Well, I'd say that at f/8 my Heliar is good for reasonably sharp 20cm x 30cm prints but not on par with the Cooke triplet or Aviar. Anyway, I acquired it mainly because I was interested in the bokeh.

Quote:
In wich type of camera was your Heliar?


It was in a Voigtlander "Rollfilmkamera" 6x9 (1927, that's really the model name. It was not indicated on the camera, but I found a photo of it in a very comprehensive Voigtlander archive on the net.)

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:

Well, I'd say that at f/8 my Heliar is good for reasonably sharp 20cm x 30cm prints but not on par with the Cooke triplet or Aviar. Anyway, I acquired it mainly because I was interested in the bokeh.


The bokeh with this strong rings wide open is not typical for the heliar, also the performance.
Are you sure, that the rear part from your lens is made with two elements? BTW: The Rollfilmkamera with the Heliar is absolute rare.

Look at your samples. One of the typical effects of all heliars is the good transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. Look at this crop, that means:



Best regards Ingo

[/img]


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote]Perhaps the tessars are much contrastier (ie 150 mm). What's your opinion?[/quote]

There is no appreciable difference between the contrast of an uncoated triplet and an uncoated Tessar, both have the same number (6) of air-to-glass surfaces, just like this Heliar here. Aldis Uno (also on my pages) has a slightly better contrast due to having 4 air-to-glass surfaces only, that is, the real f/7.7 Uno, not the f/4.5, which is just a triplet. For more contrast you'll have to get a post-WWII coated triplet or Tessar, but then you might as well get some M42 version instead of a folder lens - I use these old uncoated lenses because they are different.

Veijo[/quote]

Yes, you're right. The coat let "born" the planar design, eclipsed by the contrastier triplets .

Thanks for the page, greats lenses and instructive shots.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is a lens I am not as impressed by as with your other lenses.
It still is astonishing (each time again) that you can use such an old lens on a modern DSLR. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="LucisPictor"]This is a lens I am not as impressed by as with your other lenses.

It's seem to me to be an excelent portrait lens, with very good tratransition from in-focus to out-of-focus, and this may be very nice in a face's shot.
Regards.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leon, in a message there must be an equal number of "open quote" and "close quote" tags, else they will not appear correctly.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you, I will take care. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ingo wrote:

The bokeh with this strong rings wide open is not typical for the heliar, also the performance.


The bright edge of the OOF highlights is prominent only with very bright highlights and being rather thin has a very minor effect on most photos. After inspecting the lens very closely I've concluded it cannot be out of alignment so that cannot be the reason - probably there are differences between the various Heliar versions.

Quote:
Are you sure, that the rear part from your lens is made with two elements?


It is rather hard to tell for sure because this Heliar seems to be one with a Dynar configuration (V018/Voi018 in the Vade Mecum), which has a very thin front element in the rear group.

Quote:
BTW: The Rollfilmkamera with the Heliar is absolute rare.


Yes, rare but listed as the most expensive 6x9 variant. My specimen was in rather a sorry state: one viewfinder broken, the other one totally missing, front standard loose and out of alignment, bellows deformed...

Quote:
Look at your samples. One of the typical effects of all heliars is the good transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. Look at this crop, that means:




That OOF section looks suspiciously like a bright edge effect. Inspecting my photos I cannot find even a single one with that effect. Here is a corresponding crop from my leaf shot showing an even smoother transition:



and another one:



The edges just widen and soften, but there never appears a distinct double edge. Over all my lens is softer with more flare, but that is what I expected - the f/3.5 is a better design, supposed to be very good.

Veijo
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1