timeUnit
Established
First:
Some of the shots looked very nice, sharp enough and giving a sense of how it felt to be there. Seems like a special occation.
I found none of the shots to be unacceptably soft, given the 1/15-1/60 shutter speed without tripod, and shooting wide open.
Second: as others have pointed out, you don't really buy the Heliar lens to get a Summicron Asph look. You want the old world look with the wild bokeh at f/2-2.5, and get a very sharp and compact lens at f/5.6 and down.
Attached is a shot on 400 ISO film devved in XTOL 1+1, f/2.8 1/125 sec. Of course, this is the Heliar we are talking about.
(BTW, what's up with the weird size limits on attachments? 150 kB for a "jpg" file but 300 kB for a "jpeg". It's same thing!)
Some of the shots looked very nice, sharp enough and giving a sense of how it felt to be there. Seems like a special occation.
I found none of the shots to be unacceptably soft, given the 1/15-1/60 shutter speed without tripod, and shooting wide open.
Second: as others have pointed out, you don't really buy the Heliar lens to get a Summicron Asph look. You want the old world look with the wild bokeh at f/2-2.5, and get a very sharp and compact lens at f/5.6 and down.
Attached is a shot on 400 ISO film devved in XTOL 1+1, f/2.8 1/125 sec. Of course, this is the Heliar we are talking about.
(BTW, what's up with the weird size limits on attachments? 150 kB for a "jpg" file but 300 kB for a "jpeg". It's same thing!)
Attachments
Joaquin
Newbie
Heliar softness at f/2
Heliar softness at f/2
I agree with the sentiment of the original post. This has been a lens that fluctuates between wowing me and greatly disappointing me.
Notably, at f/2 sharpness can be virtually impossible to obtain, especially in dim lighting conditions. I wonder if this is an issue with focus shift (something present, for example, in Zeiss sonnar 1.5 lenses for the M mount). The problem is most notable at or around the close-focus point of the lens.
At first I thought it might have something to do with my R3M's RF calibration, but now I have a Leica M6TTL and have found the same issue, and find myself having to stop down to 2.8 (at least) to get a decently sharp image.
It makes me wonder also if I am doing something wrong when focusing, but the frustration comes in when I shoot, for example outdoors in better light at a smaller aperture near close focus. Examples on Provia slide film:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/3086282326_63bbc892b6_b.jpg
As you can see, very sharp. That might have been stopped down to about 5 if I recall correctly.
An example of softness:
hard to tell here but nothing is really in focus (this was wide open):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/3059755721_f02f046cf1_b.jpg
here it is notable in these portraits:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3027482387_9db6288436_b.jpg
I suppose that one of the "Charms" of this lens is its softness in portraits, but it can be frustrating as it is an element out of one's control when shooting with available light. For this reason I've ordered the Zeiss Planar ZM as an alternative. Don't know if I'll keep the Heliar, as the Zeiss promises similar (or better) sharpness wider open than the VC, and similar (or better) out of focus.
One thing is true: this Heliar is a magnificent little lens which, like many quirky high-end glass, has its limitations. I hope to find them out precisely! And if not, 4 sale!
More images taken with this lens on a Leica M6TTL and a Voigtlander R3M:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blahgspot/tags/voigtlandercosinaheliar502/
Heliar softness at f/2
I agree with the sentiment of the original post. This has been a lens that fluctuates between wowing me and greatly disappointing me.
Notably, at f/2 sharpness can be virtually impossible to obtain, especially in dim lighting conditions. I wonder if this is an issue with focus shift (something present, for example, in Zeiss sonnar 1.5 lenses for the M mount). The problem is most notable at or around the close-focus point of the lens.
At first I thought it might have something to do with my R3M's RF calibration, but now I have a Leica M6TTL and have found the same issue, and find myself having to stop down to 2.8 (at least) to get a decently sharp image.
It makes me wonder also if I am doing something wrong when focusing, but the frustration comes in when I shoot, for example outdoors in better light at a smaller aperture near close focus. Examples on Provia slide film:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/3086282326_63bbc892b6_b.jpg
As you can see, very sharp. That might have been stopped down to about 5 if I recall correctly.
An example of softness:
hard to tell here but nothing is really in focus (this was wide open):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/3059755721_f02f046cf1_b.jpg
here it is notable in these portraits:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3027482387_9db6288436_b.jpg
I suppose that one of the "Charms" of this lens is its softness in portraits, but it can be frustrating as it is an element out of one's control when shooting with available light. For this reason I've ordered the Zeiss Planar ZM as an alternative. Don't know if I'll keep the Heliar, as the Zeiss promises similar (or better) sharpness wider open than the VC, and similar (or better) out of focus.
One thing is true: this Heliar is a magnificent little lens which, like many quirky high-end glass, has its limitations. I hope to find them out precisely! And if not, 4 sale!
More images taken with this lens on a Leica M6TTL and a Voigtlander R3M:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blahgspot/tags/voigtlandercosinaheliar502/
marty_e
Member
I hope that I am not hijacking the thread with my own inquiry but it does relate to the thread starter's observations on the Heliar. Would it be possible that the sharpness is affected by whether the lens was extended and locked, or simply extended? I did shoot a third of a roll forgetting to lock the lens in the clockwise position and everything in the frame was out of focus.
Joaquin
Newbie
I wish that were the case! From the beginning, having been made aware of that possible mistake, I have trained myself to either keep the lens extended and locked, or to verify that the letters on the hood are in the right position ( I snapped on my hood so that when locked and extended ,the "VOIGTLANDER" letters are on the very top, facing me; if I don't see them there I check the lens for proper extension).
In any event, I am trying to grow fond of this lens's softness issues. I don't know if I'll keep it or not (my Zeiss ZM Planar is due to arrive today), but after reading reviews of faster lenses, it seems that softness wide open is not easily avoided. From what I've read there are only a couple lenses that are the exception (the Zeiss planar ZM and summicron being examples, though I cannot verify from experience!).
My Best,
J
In any event, I am trying to grow fond of this lens's softness issues. I don't know if I'll keep it or not (my Zeiss ZM Planar is due to arrive today), but after reading reviews of faster lenses, it seems that softness wide open is not easily avoided. From what I've read there are only a couple lenses that are the exception (the Zeiss planar ZM and summicron being examples, though I cannot verify from experience!).
My Best,
J
Fred Burton
Well-known
You aren't going to get a very big percentage of sharp photos at those shutter speeds wide open. If you want sharp, use a tripod and get everyone to hold real still. I'm always amazed when people (not the op) buy really expensive, incredibly sharp, Leica glass and then shoot photos wide open, primarily handheld at slow shutter speeds much of the time. Kind of defeats the advantage.
Joaquin
Newbie
Fred,
I do not agree with your viewpoint. The whole attraction of the rangefinder with a fast lens, for me at least, is to not bother with a tripod. If I did not mind that bother, I would be shooting with my slow-as-molasses Hasselblad. The point of fast lenses with big apertures is, in addition to depth of field effects (an obsession of "progressive-technology" worshiping contemporary aesthetics), the ability to shoot in a discrete and simple manner, without excessive technological buttresses (eg, handheld).
As for the Heliar, yes, I should demand a certain amount of performance from it being that it is not a cheap lens. Especially considering that other fast lenses I've had have been more than capable of shooting at relatively slow speeds wide open while maintaining sharpness. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is one example; though even my Canon 24-70mm zoom gives reliably sharp images at f/2.8.
Of course, I am realistic; I do not expect sharpness in all areas of the exposure; rather, I expect something like what I can acheive with the Canon, to cite one example, with sharp focus at least for a shallow depth of field area. In that regards, the Heliar seems pretty hit or miss right now.
So in short, the suggestion to use a tripod: *that* is what really beats the advantage of fast lenses!
I do not agree with your viewpoint. The whole attraction of the rangefinder with a fast lens, for me at least, is to not bother with a tripod. If I did not mind that bother, I would be shooting with my slow-as-molasses Hasselblad. The point of fast lenses with big apertures is, in addition to depth of field effects (an obsession of "progressive-technology" worshiping contemporary aesthetics), the ability to shoot in a discrete and simple manner, without excessive technological buttresses (eg, handheld).
As for the Heliar, yes, I should demand a certain amount of performance from it being that it is not a cheap lens. Especially considering that other fast lenses I've had have been more than capable of shooting at relatively slow speeds wide open while maintaining sharpness. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is one example; though even my Canon 24-70mm zoom gives reliably sharp images at f/2.8.
Of course, I am realistic; I do not expect sharpness in all areas of the exposure; rather, I expect something like what I can acheive with the Canon, to cite one example, with sharp focus at least for a shallow depth of field area. In that regards, the Heliar seems pretty hit or miss right now.
So in short, the suggestion to use a tripod: *that* is what really beats the advantage of fast lenses!
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I must say that, with experience, 1/15 sec. with a normal or wide lens can be safe except for very large -- 20" by 30" range -- prints.
Fred Burton
Well-known
"I do not expect sharpness in all areas of the exposure; rather, I expect something like what I can acheive with the Canon, to cite one example, with sharp focus at least for a shallow depth of field area. In that regards, the Heliar seems pretty hit or miss right now."
Perhaps it's just easier for you to focus an SLR under those conditions than a rangefinder, rather than one lens being superior to another.
Perhaps it's just easier for you to focus an SLR under those conditions than a rangefinder, rather than one lens being superior to another.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Any experience shooting wide open with the new CV 28/f2 lens? love to hear from folks.
Joaquin
Newbie
This could be part of the problem, though in general I found that when manually focusing, the rangefinder is easier for me. I had a heck of a time focusing a lens like the 50/1.4 manually or even automatically due to the extremely shallow DOF.
But even then, and going back to my main point, when focusing on the wrong target with the 50/1.4, something comes out sharp; with the 50/2, often nothing does.
Again, as I suggested earlier, this could be related to the close focus issue; I know some lenses have issues at or around close focus with focus shift.
Do you have the 50/2 Heliar, Fred? Just curious.
A Zeiss 50/2 ZM should arrive tomorrow, we'll see how that goes. The Heliar's days might be numbered! Though I would hate to part with such a lovely lens!
