lawnpotter
Well-known
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
Well-known
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
Well-known
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.
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
Dad Photographer
Get the 50/2 heliar instead. I have both.
lawnpotter
Well-known
Thanks Raid
Thanks Raid
Could you please tell me from your experience why you recommend the 50/2 over the 50/3.5? Thanks.
Thanks Raid
Could you please tell me from your experience why you recommend the 50/2 over the 50/3.5? Thanks.
raid
Dad Photographer
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.
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
Well-known
Raid
Raid
have you used Heliar 3.5 for portraits?
Raid
have you used Heliar 3.5 for portraits?
raid
Dad Photographer
Heliar 50/3.5 @ 4: It is not surgical.
raid
Dad Photographer
Heliar 50/2 @ 4.0:
Last edited:
lawnpotter
Well-known
That doesnt look clinical to me. Thanks for posting it.
raid
Dad Photographer
Some say that it gives that 3D look.
lawnpotter
Well-known
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
Dad Photographer
It was a typo. The Heliar 50/2 image was taken at 4.0 too.
raid
Dad Photographer
Helair 50/2 @ 2.0:
raid
Dad Photographer
It is also sharp at 2.0.
raid
Dad Photographer
There was a discussion about these two images at 4.0. The 50/3.5 showed more depth of field. It is weird.
raid
Dad Photographer
Heliar 50/2 at 2.0: Is this soft?
lawnpotter
Well-known
Wow
Wow
I guess I need both lenses.
Wow
I guess I need both lenses.
raid
Dad Photographer
It is a matter of holding the camera steady or use a tripod. Both lenses are very sharp.
Sonnar2
Well-known
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.
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.