Heliar: coated or uncoated?

[Ari]

Hi,

I've lately been considering the purchase of a Heliar.

Having heard so much about the Heliar's image quality, I have a question for you Heliar aficionados:
Is there any difference in sharpness, OOF look, or contrast, between an earlier uncoated Heliar and a later coated version?
I mean outside of the usual caveats about coated vs uncoated lenses.

I'm thinking specifically on B&W film, and of a lens that will cover 8x10, so the 30cm or 36cm is what I have in mind.

Thanks in advance.

[Ken Lee]

Given 2 Heliars in the same focal length where the only apparent difference is coating, there will likely be a difference in age.

Both may have the same name but there's a chance that the actual designs will differ, since they changed over time.

To read more about the changes to Heliars over time, see http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

[Ari]

Thanks for the link, Ken.

[Harold_4074]

As I just found out, an uncoated 42 cm Heliar is terrible at 1:1 with only backlight on the subject. Not sure how much of this is due to lens corrections, how much to internal reflections, and how much it would improve with cleaning. But this is definitely the wrong lens for the application!

[anachromatic]

Uncoated with proper sunshade will be sweet.....very sweet!

[Ari]

Most of my lenses are terrible at 1:1, and they're modern & coated.
But that's a pretty impressive amount of bellows extension, Harold!

[tangyimail]

As I just found out, an uncoated 42 cm Heliar is terrible at 1:1 with only backlight on the subject. Not sure how much of this is due to lens corrections, how much to internal reflections, and how much it would improve with cleaning. But this is definitely the wrong lens for the application!

You are doing a 1:1 with a 42CM lens? Wow......

[Riise]

Here's a comparison between a coated and an uncoated 30cm Heliar.
Earlier this year I helped a friend to clean his early (95xxx) uncoated lens. I did a fast test to compare it to my late (6xxxxxx) coated Heliar, a Tessar and a Plasmat. In total four exposures. Unfortunately only one exposure per lens so perfect focus is not guarantied.

Test conditions:

All four 4x5 exposures taken in sequence without model moving.

Lighting: Profoto D1 Monolight with 2x3' softbox. Lenses wide open - exposure controlled by the flash.

Camera on tripod. Rear standard untouched. Refocused wiht front standard after lens change.

Focused on left eye. (right from camera)

All four Fomapan 100 film sheets developed at the same time.

All films scanned with the same fixed scanner settings. No auto exposure etc.

The same small levels and curves correction in Photoshop for all images. No other post-processing.



Uncoated Heliar 30cm (ca1908) @ f/4.5


Coated Heliar 30cm (ca1963) @ f/4.5


Docter Wetzlar Tessar 5.6/300mm @5.6 (+0.7EV power added to flash)


Symmar (convertible) 5.6/300mm @5.6 (+0.7EV power added to flash)

The contrast and transmission is slightly higher on the coated Heliar compared to the uncoated. They are equally sharp.

[Ari]

Thank you, Riise, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

[Tracy Storer]

Nice "taste test". I frequently an uncoated 11.75" Heliar on 8x10, but you do need to watch for light sources in the image to avoid flare.