Is the Heliar 50mm 3.5 over hyped?

[bennyng]

I used to have an S-mount Heliar 50/3.5 (the ugly duckling non-collapsible version). I found it to be very sharp from f3.5 (splitting hairs but it was very marginally sharper than the Millennium 50/1.4 at f3.5). It's a good little lens but I found the lack of click stops on the aperture ring annoying (aperture setting easily slips) and the f3.5 max. aperture too slow for my use. I sold it in the classifieds here for $250.

Interesting. I did not realise the S mount version does not have click stops. The LTM version has click stops. But the single helicoid construction meant that the aperture ring rotated when you focus. At least they have aperture markings on opposite end of of the aperture ring to make things easier.

Anyway, here's 2 pictures for comparison. One at f/3.5, the other at f/8.0. Warning: FULL RESOLLUTION PICTURES when you click through.


Picture A


Picture B

All pictures are unadjusted and unsharpened JPEG image straight out of the Epson R-D1s on standard setting. ISO at 200.

It's really difficult to tell which is f/3.5, which is f/8.0. Usually the f/3.5 picture will be weaker in performance, but in this case, you really can't tell the difference.

For the answer to which is f/3.5, and which is f/8, click here.

Cheers,

 

[pphuang]

It's a very light and compact lens, especially collapsed down without the hood. It did take me a while to get used to the aperture ring - I'm not sure how much this will bother me over time. However, I've been pleasantly surprised by the quality of the optics...

 

[Palaeoboy]

I have never read a single comment about its other imaging characteristics!

No, but I have heard that it has high resolution and good contrast from wide open. Sounds like a very high resolving skopar, which is no bad thing.

No there have been quite a number of comments about the character of this lens. I have on several occasions mentioned that it has a unique pastel rendering differing to the other Voigtander lenses in the line that have a similar family character. Its definitely no high resolving skopar. I have one in Nikon S mount when the bartender had them for $299. At that price for such a lens it was steal. The build quality of the S version is as solid as any old 50's rangefinder lens. You may think it looks ugly (It personally always gives me a giggle when I look at it which is good) but is that what really matters in a fine optic? The lens is too slow for most people so it would be passed over but I would urge everyone try borrow one at some point just for the experience and unique rendering.

In hindsight I think Cameraquest should have saved a couple to hire out to rangefinder forum members, its just one of those things that for most is not practical to own but definitely fun to try. Maybe you can start a pool, 20 forum members pitch in $50 each to collectively buy one and show the results on the forum. If carefully handled all those who contributed would get at least half their money back. You would be surprised how many are curious about the lens.

 

[raid]

Maybe I need to get one for a 5cm lens comparison with lenses I have not yet tried out such as the Hexar and the Heliar and Elmar-M and CV Nokton ... etc.

 

[notturtle]

There's nothing wrong with Skopars!

In B&W, I am assuming that the lens simply displays moderately high contrast and high resolution. Being a small aperture lens with modern coatings, this is what one would expect (like a skopar). In colour one would expect more factors to come into play, but I would be surprised if this lens has a particularly identifiable rendering in mono. maybe it does?

 

[pphuang]

Maybe I need to get one for a 5cm lens comparison with lenses I have not yet tried out such as the Hexar and the Heliar and Elmar-M and CV Nokton ... etc.

Well Raid, if you ever do a new test, I will lend you my copy...

 

[raid]

Well Raid, if you ever do a new test, I will lend you my copy...

Paul,
I will definitely will do a 50mm test if I can borrow your Heliar. Maybe a 50mm lens comparison for 50mm lenses with max aperture 2.8 or smaller.

I have never tried out a Konica 50mm lens either or even a CV Nokton.
I may need a Canon 50/2.8 too. I also may benefit from an Elmar-M [I have the old Elmar 2.8].


That would be a lens comparison for lenses that were not inlcuded in the previous 50mm comparisons. 🙂🙂🙂 😀

 

[Palaeoboy]

There's nothing wrong with Skopars!

In B&W, I am assuming that the lens simply displays moderately high contrast and high resolution. Being a small aperture lens with modern coatings, this is what one would expect (like a skopar). In colour one would expect more factors to come into play, but I would be surprised if this lens has a particularly identifiable rendering in mono. maybe it does?

No there is definitely nothing wrong with the Skopars but they share a common family character with most of the Voigtlander line. The 3.5 Heliar has a unique rendering that others in the line dont share. Tom A who only shoots B&W makes reference to it too so its evident in mono. The out of focus character of the lens is very smooth, probably the smoothest I have seen in a Voigtlander lens.

 

[raid]

Paul,

I have started a new thread on the RFF 50mm lens comparisons project!

 

[ljsegil]

Another from the Heliar 50/3.5. I do believe it has its own look.
LJS

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

Another from the Heliar 50/3.5. I do believe it has its own look.
LJS

a little hard too tell from this picture though...

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I have the Nikon version of this lens, which I use with a hacked adapter on an M8 and on an S2. It is a nice little lens. I am always a little surprised by the vehemence of folks' opinions about the quality, though. Let's face it, there are not that many 50mm lenses that don't perform adequately at f:3.5-4. I recently did a rainy day "test" with a tripod of a number of 50's that I don't use often enough. These included a chrome Canon 50/1.5 "Clonnar", a 50 Summarit, Zeiss's new 50/1.5 Sonnar in ZM mount and the Heliar. The first three showed a significant amount of aberration wide open (although not unpleasing -- think of them as portrait lenses for mom), but the aberration was pretty much gone by f:4. The Heliar was sharp at f:3.5, with no aberration to speak of. But when choosing among these lenses for a particular purpose, you'd really have to choose one based on the other characteristics of the lens (oof areas, contrast, flare suppression etc.) as the resolving power of the lenses at f:3.5-4 was all "good enough" for my purposes - which is generally printing to 11x14. Someone above wrote that when Stephen G. was selling these for $299 they were a steal, and I absolutely agree with that. But, you could probably find one of these other classic 50's in that price range and get a couple of extra stops to boot.

Ben Marks

 

[imush]

Can anyone here claim that they can tell Heliar 50/2 from 50/3.5 by the result, at any aperture from 3.5 down?

I do use the 50/2 from the R2M kit...

 

[raid]

Can anyone here claim that they can tell Heliar 50/2 from 50/3.5 by the result, at any aperture from 3.5 down?

I do use the 50/2 from the R2M kit...

I have been quite curious about the same thing, and that's why my upcoming lens comparison will have in it a matched comparison between the two Heliar lenses.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

There is another issue there: I have not seen any focus shift when stopping down with the 3.5 Heliar, but I have with the f:2.0 lens. By f:8 everything is ok, in terms of focus. But there is a difference in the usability, not just the results.

Ben

 

[sanmich]

supposedly one of the highest resolutions of any lens tested (by AP?)

But, what does this really mean? There are loads of lenses that are insanely sharp at 3.5 and although this heliar might have the edge, I doubt it means anything really. I have never read a single comment about its other imaging characteristics!

I suspect it is changing hands for silly money because of the 'sharpest lens ever' desirability. For shooters, I suspect it is a meaningless title, esp with 50mm lenses almost all of which perform exceedingly well.

I'm not sure...

There are not loads of LTM, collapsible lenses that are insanely sharp at 3.5...

Read, for the one that want a light and compact combo with slow film and very sharp lens (for landscapes for example) the heliar is a one of a kind thing.
I was just thinking today how I would like to see a regular production LTM heliar for a decent price.

 

[notturtle]

I'm not sure...

There are not loads of LTM, collapsible lenses that are insanely sharp at 3.5...

Read, for the one that want a light and compact combo with slow film and very sharp lens (for landscapes for example) the heliar is a one of a kind thing.
I was just thinking today how I would like to see a regular production LTM heliar for a decent price.

Thats quite a tight niche there, which is probably why a regular production Heliar probably won't happen. I suppose for those using LTM and not M mount it is fairly unique, but one has the option of shooting M mount rather than LTM, so that opens up the range of lenses enormously. A R4/3/2 is not exactly large with a 50 ZM planar on it, or heavy.

The 50 3.5 Heliar weighs about 165g, which is about 2/3 of a Mars bar less than a 50 ZM planar. In the grand scheme of things, its not much of a saving for a lens which although sharp, will not appear meaningfully sharper than the planar (I suspect) but with 1 and 2/3 stops less speed. Its not something you would notice out hiking, for example, especially when there is a 28 and a 90 alongside.

I can see the merits of this lens, but it can hardly be billed as allowing people to do things creatively that could not be done any other way. There are plenty of light weight ways of getting a 50mm lens up a mountain for example.

 

[Palaeoboy]

I can see the merits of this lens, but it can hardly be billed as allowing people to do things creatively that could not be done any other way. There are plenty of light weight ways of getting a 50mm lens up a mountain for example.

I think your taking this lens a bit out of context. It was never meant to be a common production lens. There 2000 made in LTM for the Heliar 101 kits and 500 in LHS kits. The 101 was meant to be a tribute to the anniversary of the Heliar design. It was never meant as competition against any other 50 out there. You use the 50mm plannar as an example but when this lens was released there was no ZM line! It was a limited production lens that has seen its day and a few lucky enough to own one. If I remember correctly each one was sold for less than it cost to make so it was never to be anything but a publicity test to show what Cosina was capable of producing, to which I think it succeeded. It changed the views of many who perceived Cosina to be a 2nd rate manufacturer. Look how we are still talking about it today.

 

[chris00nj]

Thanks guys. Such input is very useful indeed.
I already have a Bessa T and I do not view it as a first class camera. In my view, this is a $200 camera. If the set costs $1000, then the lens and the box and the winder plus finder cost $800. This is too much.

Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to as well. As nice of lens it is, it would be hard to stomach $800 versus what else could be acquired for $800

 

[raid]

What would be a reasonable and realistic price to shell out for a Heliar 50/3.5 these days? Is a set for $850 too expensive? Is a lens by itself for $650 too expensive?