Holy Crow, is a Heliar 15cm f4.5 worth $627?

[Armin Seeholzer]

How much will I then get in the future when I sell my Universal Heliar 360mm uncoated and get even the better Heliar look then the coated ones!
But I sell it not so fast!
Armin Seeholzer

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon, that's the main difference. The Heliar drops off less quickly - it's designed with a smooth transition.

Another difference is that the Heliars have better coverage. Lots of sources say that the Heliar has less coverage - which in a way is also correct: Voigtländer made two very similar designs, the Heliar and the Dynar. After a very short time, the Heliar design was dropped in favor of the Dynar design, but the Heliar name was retained. So most Heliar lenses, except "Universal-Heliars", are actually Dynars. And the Dynar has better coverage than a Tessar, whereas the original Heliar has less.

Interesting . . . though I would think there are advantages to either characterist, depending upon what subject matter or scenes were being photographed. On smaller 35mm and medium format cameras, I like the quick fall-off of focus for people shots. Though I suppose if I wanted to do more landscape imaging then a gentle (or slow) fall-off of focus might be more desireable. Was this the idea?

On the coverage aspect, it would seem that Heliar type designs would make better short focal length lenses. Of course more modern optics tend towards double Gauss type designs; does any company make a large format Heliar or Dynar design currently? On Tessar type designs, there is that Nikkor 200mm, though offhand I cannot think of any others. Thoughts?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Dan Fromm]

Um, not to be too disagreeable or anything, but after I shot my 105/3.7 Ektar (heliar type) against my 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) I sold the 105. The 101 just plain shoots better at the apertures I use. This is consistent with Chris Perez' results; he found the 101 to be sharper than the 105, center and edges, from f/8 down.

Since poorer edge resolution usually indicates less coverage, Ole's generalization seems a little weak.

Gordon, I shoot a couple of f/10 Apo Saphirs, all heliar type process lenses, on 2x3. Just love the 180, which is the shortest Apo Saphir that might cover 4x5.

And, Gordon, I think you're confusing "double Gauss" with what the rest of us know as plasmat types. There are few double Gauss types for 4x5; the 150/2.8 and nearly mythical 210/2.8 Xenotars are nearly all that come to mind. 150/1.9 and 200/2.0 Super Sixes, now that I think of it, too. I used to think that the 200/1.9 Saphir would cover 4x5 too, but Boyer's fiches techniques, whose coverage claims can be optimistic, say that it covers 6x9.

Cheers,

Dan

[Christopher Perez]

Indeed.

Looking at images taken with a 21cm Heliar f/4.5 and a 210mm Xenar f/6.1 in the "real world" at 40x magnification (as opposed to a 2D USAF Resolution Test Chart) I can see a difference.

The Heliar almost feels like a soft focus lens in the way it transitions between dark and light areas. This, regardless of aperture.

The Xenar, by direct comparison, shows a very sharp contrasty transition. This, even from wide open all the way through f/32.

The subtle details and local contrast that the tessar formula Xenar delivers are smudged with a lower contrast between highlight and shadow areas with the Heliar.

Without shooting Xenars against Heliars side by side I can get very pleasing images out of the Heliars, uncoated or coated. A person needs to be somewhat neurotic to tell the difference between these lenses. I guess I shoot the Heliars just because they're "cool", or something.

Humph. Maybe I should sell the Heliars anyways... the Xenars are truly spectacular, even compared with a modern multi-coated plasmat wonder optic.

... after I shot my 105/3.7 Ektar (heliar type) against my 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) I sold the 105. The 101 just plain shoots better at the apertures I use. This is consistent with Chris Perez' results; he found the 101 to be sharper than the 105, center and edges, from f/8 down...

[Sheldon N]

I believe it's sheer nuttiness that a 150mm Heliar would sell for that price. A 210mm is a little more understandable in that range, since it's a more appropriate portrait focal length for 4x5.

And for those who were paying attention, the pristine 300mm Heliar in working shutter sold as part of that estate sale on Ebay two days ago for well under $300.

[rob]

And for those who were paying attention, the pristine 300mm Heliar in working shutter sold as part of that estate sale on Ebay two days ago for well under $300.

Because it's sooooo old (from the '20s) and in alphax shutter. If it were in BIG compound shutter than it will be more desirable. IMHO, $284 IS too expensive for this particular lens.

[Vivek Iyer]

the difference between heliar and tessar is the doublet front element in heliar. I don't have a tessar, does tessar/xenar give similar "pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp"?

I better hang on to my 241mm Wollensak Raptar. It behaves unusually for a Tessar.

[Philippe Grunchec]

Ole/Dan, do you know if a 4.5/105 Heliar covers 4x5 with(out) movements?

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Ole/Dan, do you know if a 4.5/105 Heliar covers 4x5 with(out) movements?

No, it doesn't cover. It does cover 6x9cm with possibly a little movement, but not 4x5".

//Björn

[Brian Ellis]

How come none of these kinds of buyers ever show up for my listings?