50/2 Collapsible Heliar - softness at f2 ?

C

Cutly

Established
Local time
7:27 AM
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
69
hi,
I'm pretty much tempted by a 50/2 collapsible heliar for my m3, because of all I read about his "caractere", great bokeh etc. But there's also a lot of things around the fact that it's soft at f2 and start behing sharp only around f4 or something. Can someone tells me exactly if it's true? On the contrary, I read also that it's very sharp even a full aperture, and was as good as a planar or a summicron. So what's true? Does someone compared this lens with some modern design such as planar, summicron or hexanon M ?
How is it on prints? Is it possible to get a good large print of a shot at F2 with the heliar, like you can with a cron?
thanks (and please excuse my english if I made some mistakes, I'm french).

 
It is nothing like as sharp at f/2 as a Summicron, as the Heliar triplet-derivative design is at its limit (or beyond) at f/2. I had one for test; liked it well enough; can see how easy it would be to fall in love with it; and had enough 50mm lenses already.

Cheers,

R.
 
I do not know about its actual charactistics but I can tell you this: 1) its fast, 2) it is tried and proven lens design, 3) an equal summincron would cost 2X more, 4) its boke is excellent, 5) good price.

I think for what it costs new you will not lose much on a resale.

The only neg I have read is that some shooters forget to open the lens when shooting. go figure.

Best - P
 
Well, a konica M-hexanon is not very far from 400$ on the used market, so I'm really hesitating. Specially because I shoot mostly wide open.
 
Roger Hicks said:
It is nothing like as sharp at f/2 as a Summicron, as the Heliar triplet-derivative design is at its limit (or beyond) at f/2. I had one for test; liked it well enough; can see how easy it would be to fall in love with it; and had enough 50mm lenses already.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


what about a planar ?
 
The Heliar 50f2.0 is "soft" at f2 and 2.8. That does not mean that it is "unsharp" - it is simply a slight flare and glow that does smooth out wrinkles and lines in portraits.
There is a difference in what is soft focus wise and what is "soft" contrast wise. Very often high contrast lenses will give an appearance of sharpness due to strong " divisions" between dark and bright areas, but still not have particularly high resolution.
The Heliar dates back to a formula that was mostly used for large format cameras (I used to have a 5x7 Graflex with a 300f4.5 Heliar - great portrait lens). In the guise of the 50f2 it is a lower contrast lens, up to about 4-5.6 and then it looks like any other modern 50. It does have a cousin, the 50f3.5 Heliar which is one of the sharpest 50's you can find - but slow.
If I only had one 50, I would probably go for something like the f2 ZM Planar 50 or the aforementioned Hexanon 50/2. The Heliar is a lens you take out to flatter subjects rather than dissect them.
I do have it and I do use it, usually on a M2 with medium speed film (250/400 asa bl/w) and I like it, but then I like virtually all lenses!
Todays technology and skill in glass making has given us a HUGE choice of lenses and I dont think there is a single bad one out there. They might have slightly different "look" to the finished print - but they are all good in their own way!
 
That's a difficult question, because I don't really know. In fact, I use a lot of jupiter lens (almost only jupiter lens) because it's cheap, but I get used to it and I really like the touch they give to my photos.
But now I have around 400$ and I have a big dilema, with two options:
the first one is to keep in the same direction, using lens with a kind-of-soft but interresting effect, and that is the Heliar one. Not as much contrast, less details, but a signature.
And the second one is to try a more "modern" looking glass, like a hexanon-M, to have an option of a significantly different look.
And I don't know what to choose ! I really enjoy things as great bokeh, softness etc.. but I'd like to experiment modern-sharpness too (I mean, wide open, my J-8 are very sharp up to 2.8); really hard to choose, and I can't have them both (at least now).

here's a little blog of mine, you'll see what kind of photo I usually make:
http://kmu-photo.blogspot.com
what do you think?
 
Last edited:
If you like the look of your Jupiters, fine - I like it, too.
I would go for a different look then, e.g. the M-Hex or Nokton which should be well in your price range.

Best regards,
Uwe

BTW: very good portraits in your blog!
 
I would stick with Leica lenses until I don't find what I am looking for. The classic Summicron surely is a must-to-have lens for any Leica mount camera user.
 
thanks for that answer, I'll try to figure out what you exactly want to say with that (I guess I understand - but pfiouuu reading all these pages in english!).
As I just started photogrpahy around a year ago, I didn't really think about going to Alres already. But yes, that would be great ; -) .
I'll find a direction first, thanks for the advice.
 
dude:

At f/2.0 I would choose between the Leica 'cron (latest) or the Zeiss 50mm/2.0. Each of these have their distinctive look and are at the top of its food chain. Having said this, if you can find the Hex 50 at $400, buy it!

merci boke -- Paul
 
Cutly, I also have a whole lot of 50mm lenses, but in two weeks I'm leaving for a trip to France for two weeks, and wondering which one to take. I've finally settled on the Collapsible Summicron, because I don't think I'll be shooting at 2 or 2.8 very much, and when I do, it will be pictures of my wife and my friends. All of us are of a "certain age." We can all use a little softening. The collapsible is so compact and light on my M3. I think it will make a great travel companion. It's always so hard to choose!
Good luck, Vic
 
Being a certified nut for the 50mm range I really enjoy the Heliar 2.0. It is "different", has a very nice signature and is really nice for people shots. The 3.5 that Tom referred to is razor sharp, almost clinical. It also happens to look very neat on the camera.

I have been using the C-Sonnar a fair amount lately trying to get a feel for it. The jury is still out :)

Kent
 
Heliar Classic on M8 at f2
2604093986_726e530232_b.jpg


2603269413_cd59f88556_b.jpg


2603267643_c768299e85_b.jpg

No sharpening applied.
 
CV Collapsible Heliar 50mm f/2

CV Collapsible Heliar 50mm f/2

You might want to try this one also. For me and my M8, I think it makes a nice combo. I will edit this with a pic when I get home.(I'm on my PDA) A little soft for some, but I like it.

L10100204x6bw.jpg
 
Last edited:
hey Cutly - im in same position like you. i use jupiter 8 and love it but i wanted to save money and buy some lens which isnt 20+ years old. heliar have also some mechanical improvements over jupiter 8 - shorter focus throw, and it is smaller enough when its collapsed.
only one thing bother me - is there enough difference in quality between heliar and jupiter to justify spending 400$ on it?
i see that they give same feeling to the photos - but is it heliar a bit better on f2(a bit higher contrast and sharpness)?
if it is better than it is money well spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom