Some Comparison of the Two Heliar 50mm Lenses

[raid]

I posted 8 images taken with the Heliar lenses:

1. Heliar 50mm 2.0 @2.0
2. Heliar 50mm 2.0 @2.8
3. Heliar 50mm 2.0 @4.0
4. Heliar 50mm 2.0 @5.6
5. Heliar 50mm 2.0 @8.0

6. Heliar 50mm 3.5 @4.0
7. Heliar 50mm 3.5 @5.6
8. Heliar 50mm 3.5 @8.0

I tried to get resolution and sharpness measures with the sheet of paper in the front, while I had a light source in the back for OOF for indoor shots at night.

The smugmug link:http://raid.smugmug.com/Photography/Heliar-Lenses/9500922_aUrb5#638120636_vbbka

What do you thing about the images? Is any lens somehow different from the other?


Images 3 and 6 show that the Heliar 3.5 has more DOF ... or is sharper@ 4.0?



I added four more imaged for Dana.

9. Heliar 2.0 @ 2.0
10. Heliar 2.0 @ 2.8
11. Heliar 2.0 @ 4.0
12. Heliar 3.5 @ 4.0

Images 11 and 12 display unqual amounts of DOF. The 3.5 Heliar has more DOF. Is this possible?


I used a heavy Gitzo tripod and Kodak 100UC.
Both lenses are great, but the 2.0 is better for dark scenes due to the larger max aperture. This is obvious.

I was after differences ...

 

[Robin Harrison]

Images 11 and 12 display unqual amounts of DOF. The 3.5 Heliar has more DOF. Is this possible?

Certainly doesn't seem possible. It looks more like a difference in DOF than a simple difference in rendering style. But maybe some more tests with simpler OOF areas might help (maybe just a simple black surface next to a white surface) and at known focus distances?

Also to consider is the focussing accuracy of these two lenses. Perhaps one is slightly out, and in fact the Heliar f/2 is focussing slightly in front of the target. The target might still be in reaches of the depth of field, but it cause everything else to be progressively more out of focus.

I'd try a test at infinity @ f4 - do both lenses show optimal focus at infinity, or does the f2 lens show objects nearer to say 10m or 30m as being in prime focus?

If that checks out ok, then maybe we're looking at a focus shift issue?

Anyway - interesting stuff, Raid! I have the f3.5 version and am wondering whether to keep it or not. It's attached to a 101 Bessa T at the minute but not seeing any use.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

I don't think it's impossible, I mean the DOF of a lens does marginally depend on other things within its construction characteristics than the focal length, doesn't it? take a bunch of different 50mm lenses (with different max. speeds) and compare the scales, then the shots at same distance and aperture. I'm with raid here, I don't have either of the two heliar 50s, but I certainly think it's possible.

 

[Matus]

Raid, thank you for this work. Interesting.

A few of my comments:

From the images 9 - 12 (portraits of your daughter)
- Shot with H/3.5 @ 4.0 has larged DOF than the shot with H/2.0 @ 4.0 . But this could also be that the H/2.0 is front focused (or the H/3.5 back focused) - look at the detail in the chair. But as your daughters' face appears to be always in focus - I am wondering whethe she moved (front/back) when you were changing the lenses

Comparing image 1 (H/3.5 @ 4.0) & 7 (/2.0 @ 4.0)
- the H/3.5 seems to have less defocused background than the H/2.0 - again -again a possible fornt focusing of H/2.0 (or back focusing with H/3.5). Some hint can be gained from the rendition of the green lid in the very left of the picture.

Comparing sharpness at different F/stops:
- @ 4.0: the '#' symbol on the top of the paper is obviously sharper on the H/2.0. However - looking at the bottom right part of the page - the letters are much sharper on the H/3.5 shot - a different focus point?. Actually

- @ 5.6 - the same impression as with f/4.0,

- @ f/8 - the H/2.0 shot has an obvious vertical shake. The H/3.5 shot does not change much

- I would guess - once you have focused a particular lens, than in subsequent shots you didi not change the focus anymore only the f/stop and the shutter speed.
- was the plane of the paper parallel with the film plane? The shots with H/2.0 @ f/4.0 and f/5.6 show very good (great!) sharpness at the top right corner of the paper (the '#' symbol) but not down the page. Also - the sharpness (readability) of the letters closest to the light source is worse with the H/2.0, but this could be dues to other problems like flare etc..

Last comment
- photo 11 is just great 🙂

So - what do you think?

 

[ljsegil]

I am very impressed with the "glow" and tonality of the lovely picture of you daughter with the 3.5@4.0. To my eye, it is the clear winner of the set in a most unexpected type of shot, one in which I would have expected the 2.0 to outshine the slower lens. I am now more impressed than ever with the special quality of the 50/3.5 and most grateful to the Head Bar Master for enabling me to purchase one in the days of yore (S mount). I have posted several of my shots (no portraits) on another of your threads, Raid, that I hope help to further demonstrate the quality of this lens in outdoor conditions. Your shots have convinced me that I need to expand the sort of shooting I have been doing with this lens even further.
Thanks on behalf of your appreciative audience for your always fine work.
Larry

 

[raid]

Certainly doesn't seem possible. It looks more like a difference in DOF than a simple difference in rendering style. But maybe some more tests with simpler OOF areas might help (maybe just a simple black surface next to a white surface) and at known focus distances?

Also to consider is the focussing accuracy of these two lenses. Perhaps one is slightly out, and in fact the Heliar f/2 is focussing slightly in front of the target. The target might still be in reaches of the depth of field, but it cause everything else to be progressively more out of focus.

I'd try a test at infinity @ f4 - do both lenses show optimal focus at infinity, or does the f2 lens show objects nearer to say 10m or 30m as being in prime focus?

If that checks out ok, then maybe we're looking at a focus shift issue?

Anyway - interesting stuff, Raid! I have the f3.5 version and am wondering whether to keep it or not. It's attached to a 101 Bessa T at the minute but not seeing any use.

Hi Robin,

I am not testing any more lenses for a while except actual photos taken for the fun of it. Maybe there is just a focus shift, as several people here have said.

As for you Heliar 3.5, better sell it while it's hot or use it. I like mine so much that it made selling off a few 50mm lenses much easier than I thought it would be.

 

[raid]

I don't think it's impossible, I mean the DOF of a lens does marginally depend on other things within its construction characteristics than the focal length, doesn't it? take a bunch of different 50mm lenses (with different max. speeds) and compare the scales, then the shots at same distance and aperture. I'm with raid here, I don't have either of the two heliar 50s, but I certainly think it's possible.

Hi Simon, This is not a crucial point, but I thought that the images diplayed different areas to be more OOF than in the other lens.

 

[raid]

I am very impressed with the "glow" and tonality of the lovely picture of you daughter with the 3.5@4.0. To my eye, it is the clear winner of the set in a most unexpected type of shot, one in which I would have expected the 2.0 to outshine the slower lens. I am now more impressed than ever with the special quality of the 50/3.5 and most grateful to the Head Bar Master for enabling me to purchase one in the days of yore (S mount). I have posted several of my shots (no portraits) on another of your threads, Raid, that I hope help to further demonstrate the quality of this lens in outdoor conditions. Your shots have convinced me that I need to expand the sort of shooting I have been doing with this lens even further.
Thanks on behalf of your appreciative audience for your always fine work.
Larry

Hi Larry,

The 3.5 lens is somehow "special" while the 2.0 lens is faster and gives more options. I am still using on loan the Heliar 50mm 2.0, and I am shooting the two Heliar lenses side by side. In one instance, I took indoor photos, and the 3.5 was useless while the 2.0 lens was used at 1/15. The 3.5 is a Sunny-Day-Lens, and since I live in sunny Florida, it is a good lens for me to use outdoor or at window light.

 

[raid]

Raid, thank you for this work. Interesting.

A few of my comments:

From the images 9 - 12 (portraits of your daughter)
- Shot with H/3.5 @ 4.0 has larged DOF than the shot with H/2.0 @ 4.0 . But this could also be that the H/2.0 is front focused (or the H/3.5 back focused) - look at the detail in the chair. But as your daughters' face appears to be always in focus - I am wondering whethe she moved (front/back) when you were changing the lenses

Comparing image 1 (H/3.5 @ 4.0) & 7 (/2.0 @ 4.0)
- the H/3.5 seems to have less defocused background than the H/2.0 - again -again a possible fornt focusing of H/2.0 (or back focusing with H/3.5). Some hint can be gained from the rendition of the green lid in the very left of the picture.

Comparing sharpness at different F/stops:
- @ 4.0: the '#' symbol on the top of the paper is obviously sharper on the H/2.0. However - looking at the bottom right part of the page - the letters are much sharper on the H/3.5 shot - a different focus point?. Actually

- @ 5.6 - the same impression as with f/4.0,

- @ f/8 - the H/2.0 shot has an obvious vertical shake. The H/3.5 shot does not change much

- I would guess - once you have focused a particular lens, than in subsequent shots you didi not change the focus anymore only the f/stop and the shutter speed.
- was the plane of the paper parallel with the film plane? The shots with H/2.0 @ f/4.0 and f/5.6 show very good (great!) sharpness at the top right corner of the paper (the '#' symbol) but not down the page. Also - the sharpness (readability) of the letters closest to the light source is worse with the H/2.0, but this could be dues to other problems like flare etc..

Last comment
- photo 11 is just great 🙂

So - what do you think?

Hi Matus,

You make a good point regarding the possibility that my daughter moved and then I refocused the lenses. Even if she moved a little, it should not make such a difference in DOF, or should it?

The plane of the paper was [supposedly] parallel to the film plane, but human error is possible.
You are right about the image taken at 8.0 with the Heliar 2.0. It is unacceptable. Maybe there was some camera move? No clue.

In general, I am just after differences between these two fine lenses, and in the end, maybe there are just fine differences.

 

[Tom A]

I like the slight "glow" in the portrait with the Heliar 50f2 @f2. My experience with these two lenses is that the f3.5 is just plain sharp across the board, with an interesting 3D rendition - DOF seems a bit more than the f3.5 f-stop should be.
The 50f2 is just a very nice lens, slightly "flary" at f2 - great for flattering portraits and the rest of the time - it is a very good 50f2!
I have both and use them too - different feel to the images - variety is good.

 

[fergus]

Raid,

Both lenses are giving you good results. I like the 50/3.5 shots, and also the 50/2 especially the shots at f2.

You have reminded me why I liked this lens after I bought it! Although the weight difference as measured in your other thread a few weeks back makes me wonder about the 50/3.5.

 

[raid]

I like the slight "glow" in the portrait with the Heliar 50f2 @f2. My experience with these two lenses is that the f3.5 is just plain sharp across the board, with an interesting 3D rendition - DOF seems a bit more than the f3.5 f-stop should be.
The 50f2 is just a very nice lens, slightly "flary" at f2 - great for flattering portraits and the rest of the time - it is a very good 50f2!
I have both and use them too - different feel to the images - variety is good.

Tom,

I also like both lenses. Maybe one day I will get the Heliar 50 2.0. I am using a loaner lens from Fergus. 🙂

 

[raid]

Raid,

Both lenses are giving you good results. I like the 50/3.5 shots, and also the 50/2 especially the shots at f2.

You have reminded me why I liked this lens after I bought it! Although the weight difference as measured in your other thread a few weeks back makes me wonder about the 50/3.5.

Hi Fergus,
The 3.5 Heliar is very light indeed. Some would claim that the other Heliar is built stronger.

At 2.0, the portrait looks very nice to my eyes.

 

[Tom A]

The good news is of course that both the f2 and the f3.5's will be available "on their own" as a limited production later this year. I have seen the finish on them - great "nickel" plated look to them. Same formula as the T 101 and the "250 Year" Bessa versions. Screw-mount too - haul out that old IIIc or f - or even a Canon 7!!

 

[raid]

I would like to use my Heliar 50mm 3.5 on my Leica IIIf or Canon IVsb. They look nice together. A good match.

 

[MaxElmar]

The lens test was interesting and well done - and no surprise the 3.5 is sharper. At least it looks that way to me.

Raid - I was actually completely distracted by the the photography - photo 17 of 19 on page two is just a wonderful photograph! (Several of them are.) I note that you don't specify which lens was used. Who cares. It's great. Just had to say it.

 

[raid]

The lens test was interesting and well done - and no surprise the 3.5 is sharper. At least it looks that way to me.

Raid - I was actually completely distracted by the the photography - photo 17 of 19 on page two is just a wonderful photograph! (Several of them are.) I note that you don't specify which lens was used. Who cares. It's great. Just had to say it.

Thanks, Max.
This was the only photo where I forgot to add a caption. It was taken with the Heliar 2.0 at 2.0.

 

[ljsegil]

Too many lenses, too many choices, none of them bad (but wait, is it possible that there could ever be too many lenses? (probably yes, see below)). Raid, you have so nicely demonstrated the quality of both of these CV offerings, in particular offering up what I think is one of the loveliest portraits I have ever seen with the 3.5, suggesting to me that I have inappropriately limited my usage of that lens up until now and that it has more capabilities than I have wrung from it as yet, opening up all new avenues of fun for the future. I am curious, however, as to whether the CV Heliar 50/2.0 and the Zeiss Sonnar ZM 1.5/50 might be quite close in their imaging character at large apertures, and carrying both lenses is redundant, particularly when I already have and under utilize (does one ever find time to over utilize?) a collection of vintage 50mm lenses that includes a Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 Opton (as well as the current ZM) for the Contax IIa, the Nikkor 50/1.4 in the S mount (vintage and Millenium versions), a Leitz Summar 50/2.0, both collapsible and rigid Summicrons 50/2.0, with an ASPH Summilux 50/1.4 thrown in should I ever feel more contemporary (as I myself get less contemporary by the day) . I think this is already an embarrassment of riches and someone more deserving and talented than I should be able to enjoy the few new Heliar 50/2.0 lenses that will be available, while I ought best concentrate on more and better use of the bounty I already (undeservedly perhaps) have on hand. So I think for me a Tums for the GAS is the answer.

I am curious about a side issue, never having seen a schematic diagram for either of the CV lenses: Are these two lenses in fact of a true Heliar/Dynar design type, or are they perhaps of a different optical formula (if so what, and which lens?) that Cosina, now owning the rights to the Heliar name from Voigtlander, chose to label as Heliar? Just wondering. And are the Nikkor 50/1.4 lenses also Sonnar derivatives as I believe I have read in the past?

Raid, as always, your threads abound with information, interest, and fun for the rest of us. Long (and many) may they continue.

Best to all,
Larry

 

[raid]

Thanks, Larry.
I have read somewhere that not all modern "Heliar" branded lenses are of a Heliar design. Suppsoedly, some are of a Planar design. I cannot state anything about the two Helair 50mm lenses with respect to their optical designs though. Maybe the optics gurus could help us out here. I just take photos with the lenses.

I also thought about the decision between the two Heliar 50mm lenses before I bought the 3.5 version. It was sold at an attractive price, with a Bessa T 101 OLIVE in need of repair thrown in for free.

The 2.0 Heliar seems to be stunning for portraits in open shade and at window light.

 

[FPjohn]

Is the f3.5 Heliar a Tessar-like design? or other?

yours
FPJ