Heliar Classic 50/2 and Nokton 50/1.5

Heliar Classic 50/2 and Nokton 50/1.5

  • Just keep the Heliar Classic 50/2

    Votes: 65 33.0%

  • Just keep the Nokton 50/1.5

    Votes: 87 44.2%

  • Both of them are necessary

    Votes: 45 22.8%
  • Total voters
    197
GAS attack. Picked up a CV 50/2. Going on a 12 day trip to Virginia with the Heliar only. A bit risky but then risk is my middle name (Along with coward).
 
I often feel with the CV 50/2 that it's not a real lens somehow and that I need something else but the results are very pleasing and distinctive, perhaps less in certain landscapes where it lacks a bit of bite.

Be interested to know how you get on Akiva.
 
It's been three weeks now since you originally posted the question; have you had a chance to really try the two lenses out side-by-side? What have you decided?


And just in case you're still looking for opinions, I would keep them both. It might not be necessary to have two but it might be more fun that way.
 
kshapero said:
GAS attack. Picked up a CV 50/2. Going on a 12 day trip to Virginia with the Heliar only. A bit risky but then risk is my middle name (Along with coward).
Click to expand...

Good luck. As long as you don't expect really sharp results shooting wide open I think you'll be happy with it.

I've been considering getting a Nokton 50 just for shooting in low light, so please let us know how you think they compare.

Paul
 
Finally I have both lenses, but still thinking about sell one.
I don't like completely the ergonomics and the feels of the 50 Heliar Classic, but I'm sure that the results of this lens are unique.
I'm very happy with my 50 Nokton, it's very sharp and fast and simply feels stronger.
I understand using both in some days that the Nokton will last more than the Heliar in terms of durability.
This is my opinion in some days of performance.
 
Heliar is a very good lens. I prefer rigid lenses, - handling wise, but optically this lens has a very cool signature
 
I like the Heliar Classic quite a lot. I collapse it to put it away, but while it's on the camera I leave it extended. I'm not used to collapsible lenses, so I'm likely to forget to extend it... I think it's very well constructed, very solid. I also have the 50 C-Sonnar and 2.5/50 Skopar, so my three 50s offer different "looks".
 
CuS said:
This photo exhibits perfectly the cool 3D feel of the VC heliar classic f2. I have this lens and love it - makes a cute little friend for my 85mm f2 serenar
Click to expand...

The lens cannot give a 3-D effect. This is from the lighting. Backlit still life's look more three dimensional than front lit scenes.
 
Since you have both, keep both.

That said, if it comes to it, keep the Heliar. Much more interesting lens than yet another fast planar clone, but I'm known as a Tessar nutcase so what do I know? The Heliar is another glorious asymetric lens design and gives much more interesting optics, to my eyes, than do symetric lenses like the Planar.

I'll also simply say that a ERC that allows the top half to be taken off and a shade are the two things that make using a collapsible lens easy. Flip it open and taking off the top will remind you to extend the lens. Taking off the shade will remind you to collapse it. Personally I like them but then, as above, I'm a nutcase ;)

William
 
I be an ignoramus

I be an ignoramus

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The lens cannot give a 3-D effect. This is from the lighting. Backlit still life's look more three dimensional than front lit scenes.
Click to expand...

I'm stupid - sorry - maybe i'll get smarter - eat more wheaties - I said "feel" not "effect" - thanks.
 
Here's the Heliar Classic at f/2.4... I've never used a 50 Nokton.
U77I1312262798.SEQ.0.jpg


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 091023-46.jpg
    091023-46.jpg
    98.6 KB · Views: 0
lawrence said:
The OOF areas can look very nice with the Heliar, I think...
Click to expand...
Agreed, and your two shots show that well. I think the far-bokeh softness is aided by (suspected) under-corrected spherical aberration. (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml) This is my preference but it tends to make the near-bokeh less soft as a tradeoff, while it seems with most modern lenses it's the other way around.

So with the Heliar Classic (and also the C-Sonnar), OOF dewdrops for instance beyond the plane of focus have brighter centers than edges, leading to that soft smooth look, while OOF dewdrops nearer than the plane of focus are brighter around the edge for a less smooth look, and lines tend toward doubling. But it seems to me near-bokeh is usually less important visually than far.

at f/2
U77I1312526194.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I have owned both before and personally preferred the IQ of the Heliar. The ergonomics of the Nokton were better but I will put up with a bit of fuss with a aperture ring or slower focusing for a better photo. In actuality the fuss makes me slow down so my photos are usually better for that too. I have a 50/3.5 Heliar in the mail, I am hoping it produces similar to the 50/2 Heliar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom