Heliar 75/1.8 - your thoughts?

[RFH]

Fellow M9 users...

I'm considering the Voigtländer Heliar 75/1.8 for my M9 to complement my 35 Summicron, 50 Summicron and 90 Elmarit (all pre-asph).

I can't justify buying a new 75 Summicron, much less a 'Lux. The Summarit is three times the price of the Heliar with money left over for pizza, so it would have to be significantly more interesting than the Heliar to swing me that way.
Given all that, I'd like to hear your comments on the following:

1: I'm not particularly interested in shooting a 75 at 1.8 anyway. How does the Heliar perform from, say, f4 and up? I'd like to see portraits from the lens if anyone wants to share.

2: Considering that my 'old' lenses are probably not the sharpest Leicas available, they are fine by me. How would the Heliar (again, from f4 and up) fit with my current line-up in terms of sharpness?

 

[Srono]

if u dont need 1.8, you can also consider 75/2.5 which is a great lens too.

 

[peterm1]

Here are a couple of shots to help you decide. As far as I am concerned it has perhaps one sin - physically its a little long by comparison with the earlier version. But in every other respect...... WOW! Sharp, contrasty, nice colour and very acceptable bokeh. Nothing to complain about at all really either at f1.8 (Check out the low light shots in the tea rooms) or stopped down. It does sharpen up nicely when stopped down but is no slouch when shot open.

Hong Kong 2010, Victoria Harbour and Kowloon

Victoria Harbour - old and new by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Victoria Harbour by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Speigel im speigel by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Melbourne 2011, Hopetoun Tea Rooms and street shot

Church by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Through a glass darkly 3 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Through a glass darkly 6 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

Through a glass darkly 5 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

 

[ReeRay]

+1 on the Heliar 75mm f2.5. I use one on my M240. Dead easy to focus where I reckon my hit rate is 95%. Sharp throughout the range also. Well worth considering.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The Heliar f/1.8 is a fantastic lens.
I got mine when I had an M8 to get something closer to 100mm and after I sold the M8 I kept the 75 with my M9 for another year.
After I sold the M9, I kept the 75/1.8 Heliar for my M4-P but then had stars in my eyes when I got to play with an X100 and so traded that camera for the Fuji. After that, I didn't have any cameras with 75mm framelines so I sold it but if I had an M4-P or an M9/MM I'd but the f/1.8 version in a heartbeat because it's just so good.

With the M8:

On the M9:

Phil Forrest

 

[folville]

Agreed, it's a good lens, though I see a bit of fringing. It's still sharp, reasonably compact, and well-built.

 

[Doug]

I'm surprised at how good the newer 1.8/75mm Heliar turned out to be on the M9. It's become a favorite. One interesting factoid is that its arrangement of glass elements is strikingly similar to that of the 1.9/73mm Hektor.

 

[rscheffler]

I think it depends how critical you want it to be. It was one of the first lenses I acquired when I got into the M9 & Leica stuff back in 2010.

It's a good performer, but it's not going to be a high performing technical lens. As someone else noted, it will purple fringe, as many faster Voigtlander lenses seem to do, and in my informal tests with it, I decided it wasn't going to be a lens I'd use if I needed high performance across the frame. Stopping down helps, but the outer zone never impressed me for sharpness.

It's going to give you fairly typical Voigtlander character - on the smoother, somewhat lower contrast side.

I've also used the 75 Summarit, and it's what I'd go for if I wanted an all-round lens with great sharpness. I haven't tried the CV75/2.5, so can't comment on it, but it would seem a logical consideration if you think you don't need the extra speed. Oh, and I'm not sure there is a significant difference between the Heliar at f/1.8 vs. f/2. I couldn't see a difference in my M9 images if I left the shutter speed the same, and from what I recall, the meter didn't change at all either. So I'd guess it's at most a half stop faster than the f/2.5.

 

[filmtwit]

I like mine, but I prefer 90mm over 75mm. It's not the most compact lens either. It's nearly the same size, but a little lighter then most small 90's.

 

[CrisR]

I did consider this lens, but after looking at the various options for 75mm, reflecting on the fact that the Zeiss 50 Planar and 25 Biogon have the look I appreciate the most, and testing some examples out for myself, I discounted it and narrowed the choices down to the 75/2.5 Summarit and the 75/2 Summicron.

I've opted to save up the (considerable) extra and pick up a second hand copy of the 75 Summicron, mainly for the similarity of look/sharpness to my Zeiss lenses and the 0.7m close focus for product/food photography.

If I didn't appreciate the considerable extra zoom that the 0.7m minimum focus allows, I would have gone for the 75/2.5 Summarit, an outstanding performer.

 

[porktaco]

the 2.5 is fairly compact, and a really great little lens. if you can afford, leica, super go for it. if you don't want to spend the money, i'll tell you the 2.5 is a great value.

 

[MCTuomey]

what adam said

you might check out sean reid's take on the two VC 75's

if i didn't need the speed for my club shooting, i'd have either the VC 75/2.5 or the zeiss 85/4

 

[thompsonks]

Yes – I read Sean's review and decided on the 2.5.

 

[segedi]

If I didn't appreciate the considerable extra zoom that the 0.7m minimum focus allows, I would have gone for the 75/2.5 Summarit, an outstanding performer.

I did go with the Summarit at first. But my 50mm Summilux allowed me to focus closer and it was about the same field of view as the Summarit at its closest focusing distance. Got the Summicron, which though outstanding, doesn't focus accurately on my Monochrom. Even after a trip to Leica. I will either pick up a an M9 or just use the 75mm on an M7.

But back to the original question, though I don't have experience with the Voigtlander 75s, their 50s and 21mm are outstanding. I don't think you can go wrong.

 

[stevencrichton]

I had a 2.5. on an M4 It's so small it's a perfect thing with longer legs.. I'm sure leica glass is better overall on technicality but for the price of a used 2.5 you really would be pushed to hard to find more bang for buck over all the various manufacturers for any camera.

Also on III body the viewfinder apart from dead minimum focus works well too with it 😉

 

[hepcat]

The 75 f/1.8 is a great lens, and an excellent value. You won't be disappointed. I really like my copy.

 

[Denton]

Heliar vs. Skopar at f2.8

Heliar vs. Skopar at f2.8

75mm Heliar at f2.8

75mm Skopar at f2.8

On Leica M, ISO 200. I find them very similar at f2.8. If anything, the Skopar is a bit sharper at 100%. Bokeh is similar at f2.8, but Bokeh of Heliar is very nice at f1.8 so I like both lenses. Interestingly, the Heliar image is brighter even though both shot at same lighting conditions and they did not change. Either there is a T-stop difference or the f-stop setting on the lenses are not quite comparable.
The skopar is quite small, the Heliar is rather too large for a rangefinder, in my opinion, but the f1.8 makes it a special lens.
Denton

 

[Denton]

Color Heliar vs. New Heliar correction

Color Heliar vs. New Heliar correction

Sorry, meant New Heliar vs. Color Heliar (called it Skopar).

 

[V-12]

The f/2.5 Heliar is one of the special CV lenses, and where subscribing to ReidReviews does pay off by removing any doubt that it does indeed match the Leica Summarit, Reid suggesting the only difference is price and choosing one or the other depending on rendering preference.

I don't use mine much because often I find the 75mm focal length neither here nor there, but when I do use it I can genuinely expect a lens easily as satisfying as any Leica lens.

V

 

[RFH]

Thanks for all your helpful replies. I've been super busy and totally forgot I posted this. Then I come back and see all this... +1 for RFF members.

I had to send the M9 in for a $900 repair, and the 35 'cron for adjustment, so I guess a new 75 will have to wait.

Segedi has a good point about close focus and FOV. I also have the 50 'cron at 0.7m, so maybe a 75 at 0.9 is sort of the same.

But it's a lens to seriously consider if I find I 'need' it.