Sonnar2
Well-known
Just give it a try. I returned my 50/3.5 not because it wasn't sharp but because I expected it to be "one of the sharpest 50's" (as some people's sayings) which it wasn't. I have a lot (no: say: some!) 50's which costed me half the money of the 50/3.5 which are sharper.
http://www.photozone.de tested the C/V 50/3.5 and some other M-mount lenses (Leica Summarit-M, Zeiss Planar). Although it was done on APS-C with a SONY NEX it's interesting. I use this camera too and my experiences are that sharpness is the same thing on film as on the APS-C (with M4/3 it might be completely different). The only thing is that some lenses which are *very* week in the edges with film can be quite usefull on APS-C, as long as center resolution is good enough an no CA present - which is the case i.e. with the vintage Canon 35/1.5. With the Heliar 50/3.5, center performance (of course) *was* good. But for a landscape lens I just expect no blurry twigs on the egdes at f/4. Otherwise, I can use my CANON 50/1.4 RF, which is crisp all to the edges, has 2 stops reserve and is cheaper to buy.
And, sorry to say, that edge blurryniss is quite typical for quite some C/V lenses. They are too much pushed for center sharpness and contrast and don't qualify for work whereas resulotion is critical. If you want a sharp lens for landscapes made by C/V you probably better take a Nokton 50/1.5...
http://www.photozone.de tested the C/V 50/3.5 and some other M-mount lenses (Leica Summarit-M, Zeiss Planar). Although it was done on APS-C with a SONY NEX it's interesting. I use this camera too and my experiences are that sharpness is the same thing on film as on the APS-C (with M4/3 it might be completely different). The only thing is that some lenses which are *very* week in the edges with film can be quite usefull on APS-C, as long as center resolution is good enough an no CA present - which is the case i.e. with the vintage Canon 35/1.5. With the Heliar 50/3.5, center performance (of course) *was* good. But for a landscape lens I just expect no blurry twigs on the egdes at f/4. Otherwise, I can use my CANON 50/1.4 RF, which is crisp all to the edges, has 2 stops reserve and is cheaper to buy.
And, sorry to say, that edge blurryniss is quite typical for quite some C/V lenses. They are too much pushed for center sharpness and contrast and don't qualify for work whereas resulotion is critical. If you want a sharp lens for landscapes made by C/V you probably better take a Nokton 50/1.5...
Last edited:
philosomatographer
Well-known
I am sorry for your poor experience - there must certainly have been something wrong with your lens, or osme other part of your imaging chain. The Heliar 50mm f/3.5 is the highest-resolution, and most abberation-free 50mm lens available for 35mm rangefinder cameras, period. This is confirmed, not only in tests (even by Leica pundit Erwin Puts, who would usually never admit to any lens besting the Leica equivalent) but in my own (and others') experience as well.
Have a look, for example, at some of these images (original size, large) on Flickr, taken with the lens wide open on a digital sensor (M8 - but this lens resolves > 100 lp/mm in the corners on film, so pointing out that an M8 has a cropped sensor is a moot point):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90094587@N00/4094114028/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90094587@N00/4094120850/sizes/o/in/photostream/
(Note: Of course, shooting wide open, depth-of-field is shallow, so please constrain your resolution examination to the in-focus areas.)
The resolution and freedom from abberration of the lens is extraordinary beyond belief - just look at the second image I linked to. With just this lens, and an M9, you can finally leave that Mamiya 7 in the closet for hand-held, colour landscape work, in my opinion.
Sonnar2
Well-known
These pics are pretty close distance. The grass of the first image is pretty sharp, but on the other hand, grass hasn't much contrast either, so no chance to see CA's, flare and stuff. What's about twigs in the light sky, of trees about 300 feet away? That's how I test for a landscape lens.
Resolution is a thing easy to test with a sensor powerful enough. At Photozone they also said the Heliar isn't unsharp. I just say the same. It may be "the sharpest 50" of your bunch of lenses, but not of mine. That's it, and you don't need to be sorry if someone don't lost money but just an illusion. i don't want to steel your belief, or evaluation, whatsoever
Resolution is a thing easy to test with a sensor powerful enough. At Photozone they also said the Heliar isn't unsharp. I just say the same. It may be "the sharpest 50" of your bunch of lenses, but not of mine. That's it, and you don't need to be sorry if someone don't lost money but just an illusion. i don't want to steel your belief, or evaluation, whatsoever
philosomatographer
Well-known
These pics are pretty close distance. The grass of the first image is pretty sharp, but on the other hand, grass hasn't much contrast either, so no chance to see CA's, flare and stuff. What's about twigs in the light sky, of trees about 300 feet away? That's how I test for a landscape lens.
Resolution is a thing easy to test with a sensor powerful enough. At Photozone they also said the Heliar isn't unsharp. I just say the same. It may be "the sharpest 50" of your bunch of lenses, but not of mine. That's it, and you don't need to be sorry if someone don't lost money but just an illusion. i don't want to steel your belief, or evaluation, whatsoever
I don't have any "belief" to be stolen, since I do not have "faith" in my photographic gear, I only interpret the results that I see.
I get the feeling you are underplaying the two images (not mine) that I linked to. I challenge you to show me any 50mm lens that displays this resolution or complete and utter lack of chromatic aberration at maximym aperture. Especially in the out-of-focus areas (twigs, sky, as per the second sample I linked to), where almost all lenses have strong CA, the Heliar has none whatsoever.
The heliar design is optimised for infinity (like most designs dating from 1899!), so your argument of these being somehow unfair because they are "close up" is an even bigger compliment to the Heliar.
The Photozone review is a joke IMHO - please compare their poor results with the samples I have linked to. They are using a lens on an amateur camera system for which it was not designed, with an adaptor that we know nothing about, with a (very soft, in my opinion) sensor with characteristics different to film (for which the 50/3.5 was designed) or the M8/M9, which was designed specifically to render good results with "film" lenses. The same goes for their review of the ZM Planar 50/2.0. This is a lens that on many fronts challenges the Leica Summicron - which can be proved by many other's images - yet it fared only "so-so" in their tests.
Let's face it - if a 50mm lens is going to cost $700, and have a maximum aperture of f/3.5, and is constructed from five glass elements with the latest in coating and manufacturing expertise, from a passionate company, it's got to be pretty spectacular, no?
The 50/3.5 doesn't do many things very well, as it is so limited by aperture. At least admit the possibility that, because of this, it's optically superior to any other 50mm lens commercially available.
I can certainly admit that sample variation is possible, though I hate to (this lens is so well finished, and is the only CV lens tested so far with perfect centering).
Again, I am truly sorry to hear your experience with this lens was different, but there are many others who have had a completely one. This lens is in a class of it's own, in my opinion, likely eclipsed only by the performance of the Coastal Optics UV-VIS-IR 60mm f/4, but that is not a rangefinder lens.
sanmich
Veteran
Just saying.
Hey Roland.
Is this Johan's former lens?
How does it compare to the Elmar-M or cron DR??
ferider
Veteran
Michael, no it's not Johan's former lens. Corner to corner, it's the sharpest lens I ever used - the only 50 I have where the negatives show more than what I saw with the naked eye. The DR Summicron is weaker in the corners at the same fstops. So is the Elmar-M. The 50/2.4 is a modern Planar design, very well coated and flare resistant. Also, all Hexanons I've tried have beautiful bokeh and quite moderate contrast - less so than a v4 Summicron, for instance, which is good in my book. 40.5mm filter size, Jon. 0.8m min. focus. And here is my favorite shot I took with it:
I love that film/developer combo (RR/APX100, Rodinal 1:100), but the 50/2.4 clearly out-resolves it.
And regarding the 3.5 Heliar: I love my CV lenses, but sample variation would be too big a risk factor for me to count on getting a super performing 50/3.5. Plus, 3.5 is quite slow.
You won't be disappointed, Jon.
Cheers,
Roland.
I love that film/developer combo (RR/APX100, Rodinal 1:100), but the 50/2.4 clearly out-resolves it.
And regarding the 3.5 Heliar: I love my CV lenses, but sample variation would be too big a risk factor for me to count on getting a super performing 50/3.5. Plus, 3.5 is quite slow.
You won't be disappointed, Jon.
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Michael, no it's not Johan's former lens. Corner to corner, it's the sharpest lens I ever used - the only 50 I have where the negatives show more than what I saw with the naked eye. The DR Summicron is weaker in the corners at the same fstops. So is the Elmar-M. The 50/2.4 is a modern Planar design, very well coated and flare resistant. Also, all Hexanons I've tried have beautiful bokeh and quite moderate contrast - less so than a v4 Summicron, for instance, which is good in my book. 40.5mm filter size, Jon. 0.8m min. focus. And here is my favorite shot I took with it:
I love that film/developer combo (RR/APX100, Rodinal 1:100), but the 50/2.4 clearly out-resolves it.
And regarding the 3.5 Heliar: I love my CV lenses, but sample variation would be too big a risk factor for me to count on getting a super performing 50/3.5. Plus, 3.5 is quite slow.
You won't be disappointed, Jon.
Cheers,
Roland.
Very nice shot, Roland
There is one thing that I am sure the Heliar does better, and it's size, specially since it is LTM. put it on a barnack and you have a really nice small thing to hike/bike or just carry with you.
About speed, I have reached the conclusion that assuming that there is nothing significantly better (at the cost of speed) than delta 100, 3.5 is enough for most daylight situations/landscape.
I do agree though that QC is too much an issue with VC and really can't understand why it is so.
ferider
Veteran
Agree, Michael, both about speed and size - the L-Hex is not really small, in particular with hood.
Most people here don't care about this, but for me the additional stop helps in using yellow and red filter .... I was looking for a landscape 50 and did consider the Heliar; then a friend was selling the L-Hex and I grabbed it.
What the CV sample variation means for me is that I sometimes have to go through several copies. A pain, really. My DSLR friends however tell me it's pretty normal. The good thing about an LTM lens is that it can be collimated by grinding the adapter; when used on an M-body, of course.
Roland.
Most people here don't care about this, but for me the additional stop helps in using yellow and red filter .... I was looking for a landscape 50 and did consider the Heliar; then a friend was selling the L-Hex and I grabbed it.
What the CV sample variation means for me is that I sometimes have to go through several copies. A pain, really. My DSLR friends however tell me it's pretty normal. The good thing about an LTM lens is that it can be collimated by grinding the adapter; when used on an M-body, of course.
Roland.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Well we are agreeing back and forth
By collimation, do you mean "calibration"?
I'm not sure. but I think collimation has something to do with the axis of the elements (concentric?)
Also, if you never did it, may I advise you to try an orange filter for your landscapes?
I found it to be just the right amount of sky darkening for my taste. It gives a natural rendering to the shot.
And you are right again: put a filter on a 100 ISO film, and you are back to an equivalent of 25 ISO (I'm calculating based on the orange), and here, the extra speed is useful.
In MF, I use 400 ISO for that reason (TX grain a non issue for me on a 6x7)
kshapero
South Florida Man
Am I getting old? I can not tell the difference. They both look awesome to me, dare I say, equally.
Heliar 50/2 at 4.0
-------------------------
Heliar 50/3.5 at 4.0
tomalophicon
Well-known
Are any of these 3.5 Heliars still available?
ferider
Veteran
KEH has one.
raid
Dad Photographer
My guess: If people use tripods, then images come out sharp ... by almost any lens.
raid
Dad Photographer
Akiva: Notice the "mystery" in the two images that I posted.
Both are 50mm lenses, and both lenses show the same portions of the person, and both lenses were at aperture 4.0, but the 50/3.5 has more depth of field. The chair appears to be sharper.
Both are 50mm lenses, and both lenses show the same portions of the person, and both lenses were at aperture 4.0, but the 50/3.5 has more depth of field. The chair appears to be sharper.
sanmich
Veteran
649$ at cameraquest.
This time, KEH seems to have missed their pricing (616$) ...
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I regularly use a deep red filter when backpacking, so the extra stop of the Hex will definitely be useful there. Also should be useful when shooting Velvia 50 for sunrise/sunset...
Thanks for the tip, Roland. Amazing how that all came together in a flash of timing and inspiration.