50mm Heliar 3.5 Clinical?

[lawnpotter]

Hi, I am concidering to buy either the heliar 2.0 or 3.5 or both 50mm lenses. I like the size of the 3.5, but I read somewhere that it may be a bit clinical in its rendering. Can i use filters that will soften it a bit for portraits and add character with out looking fake or gimmicky? Also would using higher grain film help to give it more charater. I am talking negative to print with no PP on the computer. Thanks.

 

[Tom Diaz]

Hi, I am concidering to buy either the heliar 2.0 or 3.5 or both 50mm lenses. I like the size of the 3.5, but I read somewhere that it may be a bit clinical in its rendering. Can i use filters that will soften it a bit for portraits and add character with out looking fake or gimmicky? Also would using higher grain film help to give it more charater. I am talking negative to print with no PP on the computer. Thanks.

If you like the collapsible-Heliar idea but want softer, I'd suggest buying the f/2.0. I have owned both lenses and still have the f/3.5. I would not describe the 3.5 as 'clinical' either if that means "too sharp and contrasty" or something. The 2.0 definitely looked softer to me. Certainly try either lens with lots of kinds of film. Have fun. They're both nice lenses.

Tom

 

[lawnpotter]

Thanks Tom

Thanks Tom

In the future I may own both lenses, but for now my budget allows for only one. I was wondering if I put some kind of filter on the 3.5 if I could make it less sharp for portraits. Maybe it is not necesary. I read on the net that the 3.5 is good for landscapes and th 2.0 is good for potraits.

 

[raid]

Get the 50/2 heliar instead. I have both.

 

[lawnpotter]

Thanks Raid

Thanks Raid

Could you please tell me from your experience why you recommend the 50/2 over the 50/3.5? Thanks.

 

[raid]

I sensed that you want to avoid extra sharpness.
I first bought the 50/3.5, followed by the 50/2. Both are excellent lenses.
If I were to keep only one Heliar it would be the 50/3.5. It is a very sharp lens.

 

[lawnpotter]

Raid

Raid

have you used Heliar 3.5 for portraits?

 

[raid]

Heliar 50/3.5 @ 4: It is not surgical.

 

[raid]

Heliar 50/2 @ 4.0:

 

[lawnpotter]

That doesnt look clinical to me. Thanks for posting it.

 

[raid]

Some say that it gives that 3D look.

 

[lawnpotter]

You used diferent f stops on each lens. I wonder how 50/2 would look at f4. I read it gets much sharper sopped down

 

[raid]

It was a typo. The Heliar 50/2 image was taken at 4.0 too.

 

[raid]

Helair 50/2 @ 2.0:

 

[raid]

It is also sharp at 2.0.

 

[raid]

There was a discussion about these two images at 4.0. The 50/3.5 showed more depth of field. It is weird.

 

[raid]

Heliar 50/2 at 2.0: Is this soft?

 

[lawnpotter]

Wow

Wow

I guess I need both lenses.

 

[raid]

It is a matter of holding the camera steady or use a tripod. Both lenses are very sharp.

 

[Sonnar2]

The Heliar 50/2.0 isn't particular sharp @ f/2. Of course, it isn't as soft as the collapsible Summicron either!
I did some comparison shots of the Heliar 50/3.5 collapsible with the Canon 50/1.4 on one film. At f/8, the Canon can be judged "clinical". The Heliar is sharp enough for most, except the most critical applications. But no way "clinical" sharp IMHO.