50mm Heliar 3.5 Clinical?

[Captain]

The Heliar is sharp enough for most, except the most critical applications. But no way "clinical" sharp IMHO

LOL Given a few years ago this lens was rated at one of the sharpest in 35mm photography I wonder in what critical application its not sharp enough?

 

[Mablo]

What other Heliar type lenses are there for LTM or M?

 

[Andy Kibber]

One man's clinical is another man's sharp. It's easier to remove sharpness than add it.

 

[philosomatographer]

The 50/3.5 is the only lens I currently care to use on a rangefinder camera (Leica M3). With all due respect, the earlier images posted by raid suffer from softness due to vibration and incorrect focus, that much is plain to see. I wanted to post some extra ones for informational purposes.

The 50/3.5 Heliar is by all accounts the highest-performance M-mount lens available at any cost (it basically ties with, or exceeds the performance of the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH at similar apertures). It resolves 100lp/mm in the corners wide open, and is absolutely free of visble optical abberrations at any aperture. Use it at f/3.5 with gusto, even for huge prints. It resolves detail down to individual grains even in Ilford Pan F (though I usually use the brilliant modern 400-speed films with it, TMY2-400 is my favourite).

It is, however, not a high-contrast lens, which I find pleasant (as somebody who makes analogue prints). This, coupled with nice soft out-of-focus areas, make it less "clinical" by most accounts of what that means. And this s much more important, pictorially, than resolution (which everybody seems to obsess about). It's a great little precision tool. These were some of my earliest images with it (all scanned 8x10in prints, all taken at f/3.5):

(last on has lower resolution due to vibration, had to use something like 1/15s on a moving plane 🙂
​

 

[raid]

The 50/3.5 is the only lens I currently care to use on a rangefinder camera (Leica M3). With all due respect, the earlier images posted by raid suffer from softness due to vibration and incorrect focus, that much is plain to see. I wanted to post some extra ones for informational purposes.

Not to sound defensive here, but I see the eye lashes as sharp in my posted image with the 3.5 Heliar. I used a heavy tripod and a cable release. Errors are always possible.

 

[philosomatographer]

Not to sound defensive here, but I see the eye lashes as sharp in my posted image with the 3.5 Heliar. I used a heavy tripod and a cable release. Errors are always possible.

Fair enough, Raid - I also didn't want to sound offensive. Perhaps subject movement? Or just your post-processing? I distincly see "directional fuzziness" in the image, which alludes to movement.

I am very jealous (I think) of the 50/2.0 Heliar. I keep on wondering whether it makes sense to own both (I'll never get rid of the 3.5, that's for sure)...

 

[philosomatographer]

What other Heliar type lenses are there for LTM or M?

None, I'm afraid. All the other 50s are mostly Tessars, Plasmats, or Sonnars.

The "Heliar" 50mms are actually of the Dynar design (an improvement of the original Heliar design) and this was, before the advent of these two lenses from Cosina, only available in Medium and Large format (as the Apo Lanthar).

It's ironic then that the current 90mm f/3.5 Apo Lanthar is actually a different design, AFAIK. Cosina just uses the names for marketing purposes, but seems to have purposefully got them "wrong".

Be that as it may, the 50mm f/3.5 (the only one I have experience with) is a very special lens, very unique rendering compared to my other 50mm lenses, and technically superlative. The f/2.0 version looks very very appealing, but I am sure it "strecthes" the 5-element design a bit. For artistic purposes, this does not matter 🙄