Ahhh but are they pixel peepingly sharp way out into the corners? Enough so that Popular Photography would write "SQF results were excellent -- on a par with the best lenses we have ever tested."
Archlich
Well-known
The more interesting part (to me) is the launch of the "vintage line" while the new 50/1.5 was marked as "classic".
There's gotta be more to come, which certainly is a good sign. Just hope not all of them use the barrels recycled from the S-mount Voigtlanders.
Really would like to see a new 28/3.5 someday...
There's gotta be more to come, which certainly is a good sign. Just hope not all of them use the barrels recycled from the S-mount Voigtlanders.
Really would like to see a new 28/3.5 someday...
WJJ3
Well-known
No doubt the improved multi-coating and internal reflections (which I assume they reduced rather than improved
maybe revised instead of improved? or inner reflection suppression instead of internal reflections?
ジョン先輩の訳し方を教えて下さい
FrozenInTime
Well-known
That's one ugly lens ... not for me
Pioneer
Veteran
To be honest, even the older Color Heliar on my folding camera (circa first half 1950s) produces quite modern looking photographs. The Heliar design was quite a good one and did a really good job of controlling most lens aberrations. Since those lens aberrations, or flaws, are the real source of that "vintage" look than the Heliar probably didn't show much of that even in the early days. Once corrected for color shifts and with modern glass and coatings I would expect any Heliar design to be quite sharp, with excellent resolution.
That is actually one of the reasons that this design became so legendary. Unlike today's photographers, our predecessors were actually more interested in sharp lenses with good corrections, with the possible exception of the pictorial crowd. They had plenty of lenses with the "vintage" look.
There is no doubt that the handling of the newer lens is certainly a bit odd, but in my humble opinion the image quality is 2nd to none. I am certain there are several leicaphiles out there who will find fault with it but it is equal to anything Leica has ever produced with regards to its image resolution and quality. Certainly an f3.5 aperture doesn't hurt and, unless you are using Ilford Delta 3200, you won't be using it in low light situations. But for typical, everyday use it is very good from f3.5 on to about f6.3. After that will be some diffraction but I seriously doubt you will notice it in most of your prints.
If you want to see how good this little lens really is, shoot it with some Adox CMS 20 II in a 1933 Leica II sometime. It will put your modern digital camera to shame.
EDIT - If you want vintage, shoot the 50/3.5 Elmar. It is pretty good in the center but, like most Tessar designs, it gets a touch soft around the edges.
That is actually one of the reasons that this design became so legendary. Unlike today's photographers, our predecessors were actually more interested in sharp lenses with good corrections, with the possible exception of the pictorial crowd. They had plenty of lenses with the "vintage" look.
There is no doubt that the handling of the newer lens is certainly a bit odd, but in my humble opinion the image quality is 2nd to none. I am certain there are several leicaphiles out there who will find fault with it but it is equal to anything Leica has ever produced with regards to its image resolution and quality. Certainly an f3.5 aperture doesn't hurt and, unless you are using Ilford Delta 3200, you won't be using it in low light situations. But for typical, everyday use it is very good from f3.5 on to about f6.3. After that will be some diffraction but I seriously doubt you will notice it in most of your prints.
If you want to see how good this little lens really is, shoot it with some Adox CMS 20 II in a 1933 Leica II sometime. It will put your modern digital camera to shame.
EDIT - If you want vintage, shoot the 50/3.5 Elmar. It is pretty good in the center but, like most Tessar designs, it gets a touch soft around the edges.
alan davus
Well-known
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder because frankly I love the look of the new lens. I won't be buying it though because I have the nickel collapsible version. I find it stunningly sharp, awkward to use yes but one gets use to the idiosyncrasies. If this is a taste of more lenses in a line to come, bring it on I say.
Interesting new product! I have the old collapsible version. Yes a bit awkward in the ergonomics department, but otherwise works very well.
If you check the RFF Gallery, do a Search and specify this lens from the handy drop-down menu. You'll see 11 great samples from this lens!
If you check the RFF Gallery, do a Search and specify this lens from the handy drop-down menu. You'll see 11 great samples from this lens!
maitani
Well-known
my nikon-s copy 50 3.5 from the R2S set on amedeo adapter looks basically same,
nice lens by voigtlander for native M mount.!
nice lens by voigtlander for native M mount.!
Jockos
Well-known
A collapsible able to focus to .7 in M-mount would be interesting, but this is a bit meh..
Identical optical formula as the screw mount Heliar 50/3.5 from 2001. Cosina took that optical formula as the base for this new lens and improved the multi coating and reduced internal reflections.
先輩と呼ばれると、頑張って私の考え方をちょっとでも説明しなくちゃって感じですね 。頑張ります！私の経験から言うと、ちょっとルースなロジックでも日本語の文は成り立つが、同じ文を英語に直訳する（または直訳に近い訳にする）と、ロジック的に成り立たなくなるケースは結構あります。例えば、今回のDC WATCHのページにある「コーティングや鏡筒内の内面反射などを見直した」という文を読んでも特に違和感はないですが、レンズの設計者の立場からロジカルに考えると、「コーティング」は改善したいモノ、「内面反射」は減らしたいモノのに、DC WATCHは「見直した」で両方ごまかしています。英語に訳すと「見直した」を単にreviseにしても間違った訳ではないがちょっとルースなロジックで違和感のある文章になると私は思います。なぜかというと、コーティングをreviseしたって何の意味？改善してないのか？内面反射をreviseしたって何の意味？反射を減らしてないのか？と文の言いたいことははっきりしないからです。なので、この場合は仕方なくフルに書くのがベストだと思います → multi coatingはimproved、internal reflectionsはreduced → Cosina improved the multi coating and reduced internal reflections。どうでしょうか？
WJJ3
Well-known
ジョンさん、さすがにプロフェショナルです！こんなに説明してくださって大変参考になります。ありがとうございました。最初にジョン先輩と呼んだんですが、それはジョン先生と呼ぶべきでした。
翻訳はやっぱり直訳すると違和感が出てしまいますね。僕は透明人間にならなきゃいけない癖があって（通訳では特に）変えちゃダメだと思ってしまいます。でも、著者が何を伝えようとしているか、そして読者はどう捉えるか、両者を考えた上で文章が多少変わってもその言葉に合った伝え方で訳さなければならないですね。しかも、ジョンさんはカメラの知識が深いので著者（この場合は記者？）がごまかしたところをはっきりさせて訳した結果 'Cosina improved the multi coating and reduced internal reflections' という文になってやっぱり読者が怪しまない自然な文章になったと感じます。
というか、RFFでこんな会話ができるのは嬉しいですね。日本語ができる方が他にいましたら参加してほしいですね。役に立つにならば日本語翻訳forumでもどうでしょうか？
これからもよろしくです！
jmilkins
Digited User
Didn't see that coming, but it makes sense when considering the VM adapter and easy use of high ISOs in digital cams. I quite like it but will stick with my heliar f3.5 & f2
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
H262 #7 The Big Cat by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr
This is with pre-production Heliar 50mm f3.5 M-mount. Just look at the wire wheels of the Jag V12 - sharp. really sharp! The lens has the same optical formula as the screw-mount version, but will focus to 0.7 m. It is a nice lens, compact, light weight and as good as you need when the light is sufficient. It is a bit odd looking, a bit like the Mountain Elmar 90mm from Leica or the Nikkor 105 f4.0 from Nikon.
The M-mount version is based on the S-Mount (Nikkor Rf) and the only fly in ointment is that the front aperture ring is too "thin" to have aperture click stops. Not a big deal with the AE cameras or digitals - but it is easy to "re-set" the aperture on a manual camera (like the M2) - but this is not a big problem - one just has to remember to check.
We are just back from Tokyo/Japan and I did get a production version of this lens - shot a fair bit with it - but wise to the consequences of developing film when suffering jet-lag - it will take a couple of days to post anything.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for your first hand experience comments on this lens. Sleep off your jet lag.
Daryl J.
Well-known
Thank you, Tom.
spaceistheplace
Established
Thanks a lot Tom, such a privilege to have you around RFF!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
C 477 2002 by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr
I have had the Heliar 50mm f3.5 since 2002 when it came as a LTM lens on the Bessa T. There is something about this lens that appeals to me - a bit of a 3D effect with amazing sharpness, even at f3.5.
This is from Florida, in 2002, Acros 100 in Xtol 1:3 17 min. The new M-version exhibits the same qualities! This was at f3.5 and 1/15s. OJ, so today it would be a bit limiting as it is North-West gloom outside, 1/8s at f3.5 - but the sun will return at some time.
horosu
Well-known
I understand this lens doesn't have aperture click stops. Not very practical
ray*j*gun
Veteran
This lens came with my Bessa R2s (historical society version) which I stupidly sold and too cheap at that. The results from that lens were excellent, sharp and great IQ overall. Also light if a little slow. I remember being told how ugly a lens it was.... how times do change lol.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Nickel version, best looking lens on a Leica-III, especially collapsed. Not so great when extended, because the Heliar is such a looooong design. Sold.
This weekend I did it again: Bought a Bessa-T-set (black) with (chrome) Heliar 50/3.5 and brightline finder for 495 USD in Japan to use it on my SONY A7ii.
Still like LTM lenses. There are close focussing adapters for cheap money.