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

Why the fuss about 5-element Heliar/Pentac types?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:58 pm    Post subject: Why the fuss about 5-element Heliar/Pentac types? Reply with quote
Before the advent of coating, the 6-element Planar/double-gauss type lens wasn't very practical. Triplets and Tessars were the standard fare. The top of the line were 5 element types, most famously the Voigtlander Heliar/Dynar and the similar Dallmeyer Pentac. Other makers used the type, some Kodak Enlarging Ektars are Heliar/Dynar types, as are some Ektar camera lenses, such as the highly regarded one fitted to the Medalist, before they introduced the Meogon 6-lement plasmat, Meopta's top enlarger lens was the Heliar/Dynar type Meopar.

These days, it's pretty much impossible to find Heliars and Pentacs at a reasonable price, sometimes you can find Voigtlander Bergheil 9x12 cameras with Heliars and not pay too much, Pentacs in any size other then the common wartime 2.9/8" are uncommon and fetch high prices.

So, is there a practical quality difference between a common 4-element Tessar type and an expensive 5-element Heliar/Dynar/Pentac type? Or do the 5 element types have some special characteristic that makes them more desirable?

I have heard a few people say the Skopar is a superior lens in most situations then the Heliar and many people have had disappointing copies of the wartime Pentac 2.9/8", but old photo magazines praise the Pentac highly and I suspect the issues people have with the wartime ones are down to condition and a lot of them being made by other makers than Dallmeyer and not necessarily with the same quality control.

So, who owns a 5 element lens of this type and can share some insights? Picture samples would be most welcome.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Before the advent of coating, the 6-element Planar/double-gauss type lens wasn't very practical. Triplets and Tessars were the standard fare.


Stuff and nonsense. TTH sold many uncoated 6/4 double Gauss type lenses to "Hollywood." Panchro and Speed Panchro, and they were used. I don't know why still photographers didn't take to them, suspect price was an issue. Kodak Retina IIs came with uncoated 50/2 Xenons, design licensed from TTH by Schneider, and users don't complain about those lenses.

Don't forget Goerz Dagors, Goerz fast dialytes (Celor, Dogmar, Syntor, Tenastigmat, and nameless), Helioplans, Sonnars and derivatives including the first type of Biogon. You've looked at too many bottom-of-the-line cameras fitted with bottom-of-the-line lenses.

Kodak Heliar types? 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars, 100/3.5 Ektars as fitted to Kodak Medalist cameras, 105/3.7 Ektars as sold for US-made 2x3 press cameras, and the 63/8 fixed aperture Microfile Ektar. Most of these lenses are coated.

I've tested an uncoated 101/4.5 Ektar against two 105/3.7 Ektars, both coated. Did acceptance test type testing on all, USAF 1951 on the 101 and second 105. The 101/4.5 Ektar is by test sharper and has greater coverage than the 105/3.7. Chris Perez got the same result.

I've had, actually still have, one Skopar. 80/3.5 Color Skopar on a Perkeo II. Sweet camera, mediocre lens. I've never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with that camera and the lens is collimated to infinity on it. When I mentioned this to Charlie Barringer, he remarked that he'd never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with his either. Its not just me.

I've tried a 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar mounted normally, as recommended by H. Lou Gibson, as a macro lens. He said the lens is very good, mine agrees with his assessment.

I very much like my Apo-Saphirs shot at f/16 or smaller. These are heliar types. At apertures larger than f/16 the equivalent dialyte type Apo-Nikkor is better.

People seem to like Pentacs, especially the 8"/2.9, because longer ones are fast for the formats they cover. People claim to like heliar types in general because of their smooth transition from in focus to out-of-focus. I'm usually insensitive to this so can't comment.

I don't think it is safe to generalize about lenses of the same design type, e.g., Tessar, Heliar, ... There are too many different prescriptions. Not all tessars are created equal. And not all lenses engraved "Heliar" have five elements in three groups.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What I meant was triplets and tessars were on the majority of cameras, dialytes and double anastigmats were for semi-pro and pro shooters largely, I forget to mention them, surprising oversight as I cleaned my Kodak Anastigmat 6.3/170 today and discovered it is a 4 element n 4 group dialyte like the well known 7.7/170.

Skopar on Perkeo should be sharp, certainly the Perkeo with Vaskar triplet is capable of sharp results, and the uncoated older Skopars on Bessa I have shot were sharp too.

Perkeo with Vaskar, shot by David Lloyd, dev and scan by me:



PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have an old Heliar 114mm f/4.5 (uncoated) and a Medalist II with the Heliar-type Ektar 100mm f/3.5(coated).
The Ektar is sharper, has nice color rendition and better contrast. But what I like the most is it’s nice transition from sharp to un-sharp. Is one of my favorite lenses for 6x9. It's a pity I haven’t used my Medalist lately…

Some samples from my Medalist:


At f/3.5 , croped image:



At f/16 , croped image, Velvia:



A crop of the above image:


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Dan, that's very useful, the gradation of the tones on the portrait is very nice and the second shows excellent sharpness.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lens is not a scheme only... a Tessar from Carl Zeiss act pretty different than from an 'unknown' maker. In folders if a Color-Skopar perform less than excellent , I think that is wrongly assembled camera faulty. So in general talk about Heliar is useless, they can perform very differently.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have no experience of most, maybe all, of the lenses Ian began by asking about. But I do understand that enthusiastic internet "reviews" and gushing blog-posts excite people greatly and lead them to buy-and-try, which often leads them to find exactly the qualities they've been told to expect. In turn, that leads them pass on the good news, triggering more demand . . . and jacking up the prices and reputations still further.

I suspect that those who don't actually find the anticipated wonders put the lenses aside and go searching for yet another Holy Grail. Apart from Ian, of course Very Happy It's rather like the Hans Christian Andersen story about the Emperor and his new clothes . . . (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes if you don't know the story)

My wife says I'm becoming cynical in my old age.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
So in general talk about Heliar is useless, they can perform very differently.

I think it might still be useful if it could show how different samples of Heliar/Pentac – style lenses made in time by different makers behave and, based on this, if it could reveal, despite differences, the specific general character (if any) of these type of lenses to those who have no experience with them.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm pretty cynical too Smile

I think Stephen describes a phenomenon that I have seen happen in the last 2-3 years. Certain names, either of lenses or makers have become known in certain circles, so now it's become very hard to find those items at reasonable prices. I suspect a large part of the reason why is because SE Asian shooters often don't speak good English so they know to look for certain names. I suppos it works exactly as Stephen says, one guy in Shanghai buys a TTH or Dallmeyer lens, creates beautiful images with it and before long, you can't buy TTH or Dallmeyer lenses at a reasonable price anymore, they all go to Shanghai.

The Pentac, well, you try getting one cheap now, the 2.9/8" can still be had for reasonable prices, but a 3 inch or 4 inch one, forget about it, the price these fetch now is crazy. Good example, a set of assorted enlarger lenses went for what I thought a stupendous price the other day, it was a couple of Wray Supars, a couple of wartime Enlarging Anastigmats that were probably Dallmeyers, a postwar Beck Enlarging Anastigmat and the one item that was responsible for the high price - a Dallmeyer Pentac 2.9/3" in barrel. Then I saw the front half only of a 4 inch Pentac sell for a crazy sum too, and the seller was very clear the back half, th glass behind the iris, was missing. A couple of months ago I saw a complete but dirty looking 4 inch Pentac sell for about 5x what I thought it was worth.

So I was wondering, is there something special about how the Pentac renders or is it just a case of the name Pentac has become known so carries a premium, like the Meyer Trioplan 2.8/100 which you can forget about buying at a reasonable price anymore.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Attila wrote:
So in general talk about Heliar is useless, they can perform very differently.

I think it might still be useful if it could show how different samples of Heliar/Pentac – style lenses made in time by different makers behave and, based on this, if it could reveal, despite differences, the specific general character (if any) of these type of lenses to those who have no experience with them.


Exactly. We are all pretty familiar with how triplets and tessar types draw, so we can make a decision to buy those types or not based on our personal tastes, but the Pentac/Heliar types are much less common and much less widely known and used, it's not an easy or cheap task to go out and buy a Pentac/Heliar, hence I ask other people who may be lucky enough to own them to show me some image samples.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here some positive energy and beautiful flowers, shot with an old heliar type enlarger lens...in stereo that is (cross eye viewing)







and yes, Heliar lenses I like a lot.

P.S.: That first one (Gentiana) even made it into a Sir Attenborough film for SKY TV.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Attila wrote:
So in general talk about Heliar is useless, they can perform very differently.

I think it might still be useful if it could show how different samples of Heliar/Pentac – style lenses made in time by different makers behave and, based on this, if it could reveal, despite differences, the specific general character (if any) of these type of lenses to those who have no experience with them.


Agree, thank you to point it out.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Beautiful Klaus!


PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is a good example of the crazy prices people will pay for Pentacs now:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-Dallmeyer-Enlarging-Anastigmat-Lenses-and-1-Dallmeyer-Pentac-Lens-/321084633987?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&nma=true&si=jgzd8bU8TjMZnji8x4sSdte5SRI%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc


PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another one I was watching that went for $$$:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/151007628825?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649


PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Before advertise bullshit IAN, look always bid history

private listing - bidders' identities protected £194.00
12-Mar-13 14:12:42 GMT

obvious sign of cheating


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I personnally have found the two 5/3, Heliar-type lenses I own (Voigtländer Heliar 4.5/150 and Kodak Enlarging Ektar 4.5/75) to be less sensitive to flare than their 6/4 Planar & Plasmat types counterparts with same generation (roughly) coatings, and similar or slightly inferior to same era Tessar & Cooke types in this respect. Both the 75 & 150 display good resolution of fine details, but only moderate contrast and somewhat less-than-average edge contrast, with moderate but not negligible CA.

Why use them then ? Well, mostly for their very smooth transition between in-focus & out-of-focus areas, and for their very special bokeh that is both structured but unobtrusive. For my work (over 80% of proxy & macro, mostly between 1:4 and 2.5:1) I find them extremely pleasant to use for flower / insect shots when the sun is bright & high, where most other lenses tend to give very "hard" pictures.

Two samples below :

Heliar 4.5/150



Enlarging Ektar 4.5/75


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yann E. wrote:
I personnally have found the two 5/3, Heliar-type lenses I own (Voigtländer Heliar 4.5/150 and Kodak Enlarging Ektar 4.5/75) to be less sensitive to flare than their 6/4 Planar & Plasmat types counterparts with same generation (roughly) coatings, and similar or slightly inferior to same era Tessar & Cooke types in this respect. Both the 75 & 150 display good resolution of fine details, but only moderate contrast and somewhat less-than-average edge contrast, with moderate but not negligible CA.

Why use them then ? Well, mostly for their very smooth transition between in-focus & out-of-focus areas, and for their very special bokeh that is both structured but unobtrusive. For my work (over 80% of proxy & macro, mostly between 1:4 and 2.5:1) I find them extremely pleasant to use for flower / insect shots when the sun is bright & high, where most other lenses tend to give very "hard" pictures.

Two samples below :

Heliar 4.5/150



Enlarging Ektar 4.5/75


Anti-spam measure: images and links in your first post don't show up. You'll be fine from now on.


PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Anti-spam measure: images and links in your first post don't show up. You'll be fine from now on.


Safety comes at a cost, I guess... Laughing Thanks ! Wink


BTW, I forgot to mention one of the things I like about Heliar types : when diffraction starts kicking in and you have reflective items in the OOF background, Airy disks almost completely lack the typical concentric circles and show only as soft bright circles.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1