The Prettiest CV Lens? the Nickel 50/2 Heliar

If anything, I'm leaning a bit more towards the f/2 - or an old school Elmar... The latter is priced about the same or a little higher, depending on condition. Hard to argue against the pretty (and new) CVs though. Tough choice...

These old school lenses will always be around but these limited Nickels may not be so easy to find.....at least thats what I told myself when deciding the same thing as you DN
 
If anything, I'm leaning a bit more towards the f/2 - or an old school Elmar... The latter is priced about the same or a little higher, depending on condition. Hard to argue against the pretty (and new) CVs though. Tough choice...

At one time I had a Version 3 Elmar with my pair of Nickel Heliars. Sold the Elmar, and kept the Nickel Heliars along with my 50 Rigid version 1.

IMHO CV did a great job of mixing the old and the new. The Heliars have signature and character. Only moderate contrast when compared to a Zeiss. I find the rendering very detailed for the B&W work I do.

Easy to bring the pair to the July meet-up this Sunday at Puck Fair.

Cal
 
Well I saw this coming, looking forward to seeing the pics!

Well, let's turn this thread into a photo thread. I'll try to post something soon... though I don't really work that way (I like to edit over a long period of time). However, since there is no real indication as to what these lenses offer, I think I will post quicker once I make some good photos with it.
 
Hmm, well this decision isn't getting any easier. Thankfully I'm not in any sort of rush (except in maybe getting one of the Heliars). I think seeing them in person at the meet-up might be a good thing. I do like the rendering of the Heliars, no doubt.

The Elmar I'd be hunting for would be the old-school version with 15 aperture blades. Not sure what version that is. Certainly not the latest (last) one.

Definitely looking forward to (more) samples as well!

The Heliars are modified Tessars and I included my experiance with the Elmar V.3 because its also a Tessar design. Tom Abramson's review of his favorite Elmar made me want to try the latest Elmar for its sharpness and contrast (multicoated). I liked the Elmar very much, but I liked the Heliars more.

I'll bring my pair to the NYC Meet-Up this Sunday.

Cal
 
The Heliars are modified Tessars and I included my experiance with the Elmar V.3 because its also a Tessar design. Tom Abramson's review of his favorite Elmar made me want to try the latest Elmar for its sharpness and contrast (multicoated). I liked the Elmar very much, but I liked the Heliars more.

I'll bring my pair to the NYC Meet-Up this Sunday.

Cal

Man all the action happens in NY. Gotta make the trip east some time
 
Kristian, let me know if you head out east...we can meet up, especially if NYC,(my old hometown), or Wash D.C.

Dave (D&A)
 
Gonna try guys but this week I'll be in on assignment in Malaysia back on the 27th. Next time i'm really gonna try

Generally just give us a heads up and we schedule a meet-up that's convenient for you. We get guests and visitors from all over the world.

Cal
 
Hmm, well this decision isn't getting any easier. Thankfully I'm not in any sort of rush (except in maybe getting one of the Heliars).

Better do it soon before Cameraquest ups the prices based on this thread. :) I noticed that when I ordered, they had just added shipping costs to the ebay auction... prior to that, it was free. ;)
 
I don't think that's correct. Both are further developments of the cooke-triplet. The Heliar design was patented 1900, the Tessar 1902.

You are correct. Both the Heliar and the Tessar are both derived from the 1893 Cooke-triplet.

A Heliar is symmetrical and the five elements are maintained in a group of three where the front and rear lenses are both comprised of two elements to be more or less a modified triplet.

A Tessar is not symmetrical and is made of 4 elements in 3 groups, but there is enough overlap here to say that a Tessar and a Heliar are kinda similar, but my saying a Heliar is a Tessar derivitive is mistaken and an exaggeration.

Thanks for the correction.

Cal
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom