Pop Photo Raves about 50/2 Heliar

CameraQuest

CameraQuest

Head Bartender
Staff member
Local time
9:19 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
6,600
the Voigtlander 50/2 Heliar is really unusual for an f/2 lens because it has only five elements. the two fewer lens surfaces in the five element Heliar designed compared to the standard 6 element 50/2 translates to higher contrast and increased flare resistance. Take a look at the just released December 2006 issue of Popular Photography, page 59. Burt Keppler's article is essentially about the 50/2 Heliar. Quoting "The Heliar turned out to be incredibly good, comparable at all apertures to the 50mm f/2 Leica Summicron-M we'd tested in 1996."

Cosina did it with "Newly developed super high-index glass (that) reduces all aberrations." Keep in mind the only two camera makers in Japan that produce their own glass are Cosina and Nikon. When Tom Abrahamasson and I discussed a new Heliar at the factory with Mr. K in 2004, he was not not at all sure a satisfactory modern 50/2.8 Heliar could be produced. It would not surprise me if Mr K had this high index glass developed just for the new Heliar.

Something else about the Voigtlander Heliars. Both are the classic five element Heliar design and give a look which seems more three dimensional (at least in some shots) than traditional six element designs. Why? beats me. But that is part of the reason the classic Heliar optical design was so prized.

Stephen
 
It was actually a pretty interesting article about the evolution of optical design with definitions and diagrams of some lens' designs. There was a significant couple of paragraphs about the CV Heliar.

There was also an article making the case for shooting film - it was a better issue this month than it has been in the past several months.
 
Last edited:
Nice!

Nice!

CameraQuest said:
the Voigtlander 50/2 Heliar is really unusual for an f/2 lens because it has only five elements. the two fewer lens surfaces in the five element Heliar designed compared to the standard 6 element 50/2 translates to higher contrast and increased flare resistance. Take a look at the just released December 2006 issue of Popular Photography, page 59. Burt Keppler's article is essentially about the 50/2 Heliar. Quoting "The Heliar turned out to be incredibly good, comparable at all apertures to the 50mm f/2 Leica Summicron-M we'd tested in 1996."

Cosina did it with "Newly developed super high-index glass (that) reduces all aberrations." Keep in mind the only two camera makers in Japan that produce their own glass are Cosina and Nikon. When Tom Abrahamasson and I discussed a new Heliar at the factory with Mr. K in 2004, he was not not at all sure a satisfactory modern 50/2.8 Heliar could be produced. It would not surprise me if Mr K had this high index glass developed just for the new Heliar.

Something else about the Voigtlander Heliars. Both are the classic five element Heliar design and give a look which seems more three dimensional (at least in some shots) than traditional six element designs. Why? beats me. But that is part of the reason the classic Heliar optical design was so prized.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Nice lens,
been thinking about getting one,
it's on my considered list . . .
but then it's not available separately here in Hong Kong.
It's bundled with the R3m, R2m.
Pity.

R3m is nice too, won't mind getting the whole set,
but now that we have the R4m coming.
 
Canon gets their glass from Ohara but process it in-house.

Schott makes glass for Zeiss and Leica. However all three process those lenses, lens elements, and housing.

Only a handful of companies make glass, then that glass is shipped around to the other companies who will shape and process (like Canon uses Flourite in their high end lenses, Nikon in a couple of lenses have microcrystals).

Edit: I am sorry Nikon does have their own glass works, however their lowest end lenses might contain Hoya glass
 
Last edited:
Keppler's hat is also my reason to read the Popular Photography magazine. My december issue is on the way yet.
 
IGMeanwell said:
Edit: I am sorry Nikon does have their own glass works, however their lowest end lenses might contain Hoya glass
Click to expand...

Schott is not Leica's sole supplier -- like "Nikon's lowest end lenses", they use Hoya also. :D
 
You know, the Heliar is very interesting. I keep bouncing between it, the Zeiss Planar and a used Summicron... very hard choice with all of them in the same price range.:(
 
NoTx said:
You know, the Heliar is very interesting. I keep bouncing between it, the Zeiss Planar and a used Summicron... very hard choice with all of them in the same price range.:(
Click to expand...

I'm not a super-technical person and don't know diddly about why I like the Heliar. I have all 3 of the lenses you mention and I like the Heliar the most. Impossible to see differences on computer but even with humble 4x6 colour prints it seems noticeably best (whatever best means). It's all qualitative but there's a difference. I've gone through a few rolls with the Heliar now and it's not a fluke. It might not be better if you did all that weird lens measuring they do, but it renders images in a way I like better than the other two lenses.

Anyway that's my 2-cents.
 
Leica also uses some glass from Corning. It is amazing how much performance is in the basic Heliar design, as it is more than 100 years old.
 
In my comparison to the Zeiss C-Sonnar the Heliar 2.0/50mm slides turns out noticeable warmer in color. In some architectural pictures (white structures) the red-tint was slightly bothering. Maybe effected by the blue coating color which was common in the 1950's but not nowadays.
Whereas in color definition the Heliar slides looks excellent to me. Excellent green, excellent blue, nice skin tones. Very similar to the famous classic Apo-Lanthar MF lens - the last 5 elements high performance lens developed at Voigtlaender in Braunschweig - but in opposite (at least with the shade) better flare control. Although with no access to MTF-lab equipment I would guess the color-correction is at least nearly apochramatic.
Bokeh, well, here the Heliar isn't everyones taste. Kind of "swirly". Similar like the last "highspeed Heliar" Takumar 2.4/58 (1957) shows it.
When compared to the 1950's Voigtlaender "Color-Heliar" the 2006 Classic-Heliar in superior in each aspect, except soft-focus usage. Every person who criticises the new Heliar performance at f/2.0 is entitled to use the 1950's Color-Heliar at f/3.5 and to compare.

Cheers Frank
 
can someone post a link to the Pop Photo review of the 50/2

can someone post a link to the Pop Photo review of the 50/2

I seem to be web challenged. Can't find it on popphoto.com.

Thanks.
 
IGMeanwell said:
I haven't been able to find any info on Olympus for some reason...

it might be super secret or contractual
Click to expand...
Secret factory in Wyoming. (OM inside joke)
 
mich8261 said:
I seem to be web challenged. Can't find it on popphoto.com.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Only in print....it's not really a review rather than part of an article.
Better go you your local newspaper stand for a quick read.
Kiu
 
mich8261 said:
I seem to be web challenged. Can't find it on popphoto.com.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I was re-reading this old thread & took a shot at www.popphoto.com. I managed to find the article. Here's the link:

http://keppler.popphoto.com/blog/2006/11/inside_straight.html

There are several paragraphs toward the end of the article which discuss the Heliar as an exception to the rule of 6 elements for an f/2 lens & 7 for one at f/1.4 or 1.5. Check the diagrams below for a cutaway of the Heliar design. He missed the 6-element Zeiss C-Sonnar as another modern exception to the rule.

Enjoy the article. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom