sleepyhead
Well-known
What is the minumum focusing distance for this lens?
Mister E
Well-known
.9m tenchar
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Regarding softness wide open, I'm guessing it becomes more obvious if you were to compare it to say, a 75 summicron.
Soft in this case doesn't mean out of focus.
It just doesn't capture quite as strong detail wide open as it does when you stop it down. I haven't even tried to demonstrate this to myself yet, mainly because I really don't care all that much.
The lens really does what I want it to do. It's certainly sharp enough wide open for my uses.
Soft in this case doesn't mean out of focus.
It just doesn't capture quite as strong detail wide open as it does when you stop it down. I haven't even tried to demonstrate this to myself yet, mainly because I really don't care all that much.
The lens really does what I want it to do. It's certainly sharp enough wide open for my uses.
ferider
Veteran
So you've got both lenses and can speak with authority that these are apples and oranges?
Bottom line: This lens seems to be a clear attempt to copy the 75 'lux rendering, just like the CV 35/1.4 appears to have been an attempt to copy the pre-ASPH 35 'lux, etc. Its a trend with Mr. K.
Is it a perfect copy? No, but in many ways I actually like this lens better than my 75 'lux. Like I pointed out, smaller and lighter. Apples and oranges, no. Navel oranges vs. Clementines--probably more like it.
Clearly, while "copying", besides a few glass elements, they missed a couple of minor Summilux features
1) the Summilux is (much) faster and has shorter min. focus
2) Stephen's link, for instance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhapeman/5024252386/lightbox/), shows that the Summilux corner resolution even at f1.4 beats the Heliar easily at least up to f4.
The Summilux was made for journalism type applications, usable for corner to corner sharp photos at f2 and up, behaving very much like a Summicron at the same f stops. Very usable even for landscapes.
The only thing similar between the two lenses is the focal length.
The Heliar is a great lens for sure. And if you like it and get the results you want, more power to you. However optically, it behaves much more, say, like my Helios 40-2, my Jupiter 9 or my Komura 80/1.8 than like my 75 Summilux. If you bought your 75/1.4 for shallow bokeh 400x600 flickr posts, well, let's just say you over-invested
Roland.
Last edited:
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Based on Stephen's post of jhaperman's Flickr comparison on the M9 (b/w the CV and Leica Lux) I'd have to say that the CV and Leica lenses exhibit the same "signatures" that I see when I compared the CV 35mm f1.4 MC to the pre-ASPH 35mm Lux.
Really interesting comparison indeed..
Cheers,
Dave
Really interesting comparison indeed..
Cheers,
Dave
ferider
Veteran
That, I can agree with, Dave Different beasts. You know I love my CV lenses. However, I want to avoid that the Heliar falls in the same trap, being compared to something it was not designed to be. It has high enough value all by itself
Different beasts. You know I love my CV lenses. However, I want to avoid that the Heliar falls in the same trap, being compared to something it was not designed to be. It has high enough value all by itself rwchisholm
Established
More M9 and heliar shots
More M9 and heliar shots
I put some more shots in my 75 heliar set on flickr.
Some pros of this lens, compared to the previous 2 75 lux's that I owned: obviously less expensive than the lux. Much easier to focus accurately wide open (for this user). However, if you desire maximum level of detail, than the 75 cron is probably a better choice (I do not want more detail for the type of shooting i do-people. The heliar gets great eyelash level of detail in portraits. That's great for me. I don't want " pores inside pores" level of detail for portraits. Too harsh.)
That said, the lux at 1.4 when focused accurately, gives such a dreamy bokeh... Just hard to get that shot in focus all the time! So it is a give and take with the heliar. I really appreciate the ease with which I can accurately focus the heliar without a magnifier on the m9. Rob
More M9 and heliar shots
I put some more shots in my 75 heliar set on flickr.
Some pros of this lens, compared to the previous 2 75 lux's that I owned: obviously less expensive than the lux. Much easier to focus accurately wide open (for this user). However, if you desire maximum level of detail, than the 75 cron is probably a better choice (I do not want more detail for the type of shooting i do-people. The heliar gets great eyelash level of detail in portraits. That's great for me. I don't want " pores inside pores" level of detail for portraits. Too harsh.)
That said, the lux at 1.4 when focused accurately, gives such a dreamy bokeh... Just hard to get that shot in focus all the time! So it is a give and take with the heliar. I really appreciate the ease with which I can accurately focus the heliar without a magnifier on the m9. Rob
Alnitak
Established
Clearly, while "copying", besides a few glass elements, they missed a couple of minor Summilux features
1) the Summilux is (much) faster and has shorter min. focus
2) Stephen's link, for instance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhapeman/5024252386/lightbox/), shows that the Summilux corner resolution even at f1.4 beats the Heliar easily at least up to f4.
The Summilux was made for journalism type applications, usable for corner to corner sharp photos at f2 and up, behaving very much like a Summicron at the same f stops. Very usable even for landscapes.
The only thing similar between the two lenses is the focal length.
The Heliar is a great lens for sure. And if you like it and get the results you want, more power to you. However optically, it behaves much more, say, like my Helios 40-2, my Jupiter 9 or my Komura 80/1.8 than like my 75 Summilux. If you bought your 75/1.4 for shallow bokeh 400x600 flickr posts, well, let's just say you over-invested
Roland.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. IMO, the difference of 10cm in MFD is pretty minor.
As for the sharpness issue, that photo Steve linked was mine, and there are reasons besides pure design that the corner sharpness is not the same. I will grant you that the 75 'Lux is sharper across the plane of focus than the new Heliar Classic, however, those are crops of only the extreme corners and only at the MFD, so you can't extrapolate too much from that. In particular, I would be hard pressed to speculate its similarity to any of the lenses you list. As far as I can see, you are the only person posting any images on Flickr with the Komura 80/1.8 in LTM, so most folks would be hard pressed to make that extrapolation.
As for your speculation on why I purchased my Summilux, let's try and not be petty, OK? Implying that I bought it to post small images to Flickr is a backhanded insult and you know it. Show a bit more maturity.
Jeff
Alnitak
Established
That, I can agree with, Dave
I don't think its a trap, and maybe that's the issue here--you appear to see the comparison the 75 'Lux as a negative and I see it as quite the reverse. I think the fact that they can be compared at all is a wonderful thing. What's clear from the name and background information we can get about this lens is that it was specifically designed to have "classic look." That look in the classic Leica lenses is in part derived from the older designs based on spherical lenses--the inherent aberrations of those lenses led to a certain look, particularly with regards to bokeh and rendering of fine detail.
Without exception, the modern Leica lenses have been designed to yield extremely sharp rendering, wide open and across the frame. To many this has come at the expense of some level of character or "signature" that they liked. Mr. Kobayashi's recent designs all appear to show a trend towards emulating some of that classic signature but with more modern coatings, etc. For example, note that there are no aspherical elements in the 50/1.1 Nokton, 35/1.4 Nokton and now the 75/1.8 Heliar Classic--and that's not a full list.
That was the crux of what I was trying to get at with the comparison with the 75 'Lux. This is a lens with a design that is based on spherical lenses, and is targeted at recreating some of that "classic" look. For most people, the natural lens they will think of when trying to place it is the 75 'Lux. Therefore, I see no issue with making that comparison, especially when this new lens compares so favorably, particularly for certain types of shooting, like portraiture. When you factor in the fact that the 75 'Lux is quite expensive and only available used, this new offering becomes a very compelling offering for those hoping to get a taste of some of the signature of the 75 'Lux.
I hope we can agree on that at least.
Jeff
peterm1
Veteran
Robert thank you for your post of images taken with this lens. I have just bought one and am pleased I did. Although I am yet to try it out I am very impressed with its images as produced by you and in particular love its bokeh.
My favorite camera store has recently brought in both this lens and a 50mm Nokton f1.1. I was for a moment tempted to go for the latter as I love fast fifties. But I am now pleased I chose the Heliar 75mm. The reality is that I will probably get the fifty as well at some time, and will probably finance it by selling some other less deserving or at least less well used lenses.
My favorite camera store has recently brought in both this lens and a 50mm Nokton f1.1. I was for a moment tempted to go for the latter as I love fast fifties. But I am now pleased I chose the Heliar 75mm. The reality is that I will probably get the fifty as well at some time, and will probably finance it by selling some other less deserving or at least less well used lenses.
Last edited:
Alnitak
Established
Alnitak
Established
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Apologies in advance if anyone feels like this shot is too racy.
But here is an image (color and b&w) from a recent session.
Shot at f/5.6, ISO 160 with softbox.
(of course, there's nothing here for bokeh fans)
But here is an image (color and b&w) from a recent session.
Shot at f/5.6, ISO 160 with softbox.
(of course, there's nothing here for bokeh fans)
b&w
Member
Krosya
Konicaze
This lens has been out on a market for some time, excitement is gone. People that wanted it, probably have it and used it a while. It looked like a very interesting and good lens. So, I have a question to users of this lens - now that you have had some time with it - whats your take on it? Still like it as much? How's your life with this lens now?
Sparrow
Veteran
Apologies in advance if anyone feels like this shot is too racy.
But here is an image (color and b&w) from a recent session.
Shot at f/5.6, ISO 160 with softbox.
(of course, there's nothing here for bokeh fans)
Um, I'm not sure that's true
P. S. people should pay more attention to Roland :yes:
Last edited:
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Just got the lens and have started to use it.
Kodak DOuble X at 400 asa.
On the M5 and Ilford 3200 at 1600
On the M5 and Ilford 3200 at 1600
Kodak DOuble X at 400 asa.
On the M5 and Ilford 3200 at 1600
On the M5 and Ilford 3200 at 1600
Last edited: