Advice on Heliar

[F64]

I had to return a 180 heliar (uncoated 1950-sh) because of a bad separation of the rear lens. As I liked it very much, I am looking for another one.
A couple of questions:
1. Is there an actual difference in rendition between the original heliar and the post-ww1 dynar? Can somebody who owns both elaborate? I do not care much for coverage and coating. Much more for color and tonal rendition.
2. Are less expensive alternative worth considering, or it is better to stick with the real mcCoy? Any suggestions?
Thanks a lot.

[DrTang]

I've not really found anything better than the real ones

don't know anything about the dynar versions though

[Jim Noel]

Yes, there is a difference between the early Heliars and the later models. As for less expensive alternatives, I have no experience with them.

[Tim Meisburger]

Meopta Meopar are supposed to be heliar-type lenses, but I've never used one. If anyone has one, and a heliar, might be nice to compare.

[DrTang]

Meopta Meopar are supposed to be heliar-type lenses, but I've never used one. If anyone has one, and a heliar, might be nice to compare.

I believe those are enlarging lenses some people stick into shutters

how they work as taking lenses I do not know

[F64]

Thanks.
I was thinking of the Meopar, in fact. I do not need a shutter. But can someone compare it with the real stuff?
@jim noel: what exactly is the difference? Or, better, which one do you prefer and why?

[Jim Noel]

I prefer the early models and wish I had one. I have used ones belonging to friends and they have a smoother transition from sharp focus to the edges of the images. M more modern one does transition, but not as smoothly in my opinion.

[F64]

Thanks, exactly what I wanted to know. What about color?

[Emil Schildt]

As I understand it the Dynar is a very early design - the original Heliar from 1902 and the Dynar as soon as 1903... (as an "improved" Heliar) They made it slower not to compete with the Heliar brand... in ca 1925 they then decided to call all versions for Heliar as that name was so popular...

All Heliars from then on was actually Dynar design except the famous Universal Heliar (sf lens)

I have a 300 mm Dynar - and an Universal Heliar.. but unfortunately I havn't gotten around to use the Dynar.. (I really should)...

[F64]

What I understand is that post ww1 heliars have really a dynar scheme, except the universal heliar. Also, Voigtlander changed to a dynar scheme, because it was better. What I do not understand it is better in what sense? It apparently has more coverage, not very important for me. What else? According to Jim, the old version is smoother, which is quite important for me.