heliars whats the big deal

[sgelb]

please enlighten me why everyone loves these lenses so much..

[Emil Schildt]

please enlighten me why everyone loves these lenses so much..

maybe you should make this into a thread called "post your heliar images", and then see for your self?

I don't know what the big deal is.
I only have about 10 of them

[CCHarrison]

My experience with pre WWII Heliars is that they produce very "smooth" images with a 3-D quality that has to do with the way Heliars render tonal gradations. The bokeh is usually, smooth - like budda.....

Please read my article on Heliar Lens History here:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html




Dan

[Ken Lee]

Among the vintage designs, they have wider coverage than some others like Tessars. Like Tessars, they have comparatively wide apertures(f/4.5), which means that on large format, you can get pretty shallow depth of field, and a strong blur - especially when shooting close, or with lenses of long focal length. Some people prefer the way that Heliars render blur, compared to other lenses. Some also prefer old lenses for their many-bladed diaphragms, which result in round-shaped openings at all settings.

At wide apertures, Heliars seem to have some uncorrected aberrations which result in a slight halo. It is not as strong as the halo given by special "portrait" lenses, but is noticeable. The halo goes away as you stop down.

At normal apertures, Heliars are very sharp: this photo was shot on 4x5, using old 210mm Heliar at f/8: small enough to get sufficient depth of field, but wide enough to keep some blur.

Jim Galli shares some portraits done on 8x10 with a 360mm and 480mm Heliar here and here.

David Goldfarb shows one here.

[Dan Fromm]

Ken, I can't agree with your statement that all heliar types have more coverage than the corresponding tessar type or that all heliar types are very sharp stopped down.

Case in point, 101/4.5 Ektar and 105/3.7 Ektar. The first is a tessar type, the second a heliar type; both were sold as normal lenses for 2x3. In my tests the 101 gives better image quality in the corners than the 105. Also in the center. Tests run from f/5.6 to f/22. Yet the 105/3.7 Ektar is peddled as a cult lens and the 101/4.5 isn't.

About sharpness stopped down. Most lenses are sharper stopped down than wide open, and the field covered with good sharpness usually grows on stopping down. This because aberrations that are sensitive to aperture aren't always fully corrected, so stopping down reduces them. That heliars are sharper stopped down than wide open isn't surprising.

My test results are consistent with Eric Beltrando's calculations. See http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f5.HTM , where the heliar types are hidden and http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f4.HTM , http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f4-1914.HTM , and http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f4-1930.HTM , where the tessar types are hidden.

Stephen, don't take this personally but you're an ignorant barbarian. So am I, welcome to the club. I don't understand the heliar cult either, or the dagor cult for that matter.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ken Lee]

Thanks for the correction Dan - makes me appreciate Tessars even more !

[Mark Sawyer]

Having a simple mind, I have a nice, simple view of it...

Heliars (and dagors) are very nice lenses. Some very nice photographers made some very nice images with them, and said, "gee, these are very nice lenses." Other photographers thought to themselves, "if I had very nice lenses, I could make very nice images too." And soon the lenses started getting very nice prices, and still do.

Tessars are also very nice lenses, but they don't get so much respect, as there are soooo many tessars out there. There are exceptions, like the tessar-type Commercial Ektar, since a very nice photographer (initials A. A.) said it was a very nice lens. Now that lens gets a very nice price. He also said dagors, protars, and Cooke triple convertables are very nice lenses, so those get very nice prices too.

Everybody wants a very nice lens so they can be very nice photographers and make very nice photographs. I've come to the conclusion that all lenses are very nice lenses. The problem is in the photographers and their photographs.

[sgelb]

thats what I thought. i mean at the end of the day, its a tessar no?

what about cooke lenses? I mean they are really nice.. but I am having trouble seeing the difference between an ektar and one of these beyond the extra stop of speed.

[Ken Lee]

. i mean at the end of the day, its a tessar no?

Could you please explain ? Do you mean that the best lens design is Tessar ? Or that at the end of the day, a Heliar is just a Tessar ?

[Dan Fromm]

thats what I thought. i mean at the end of the day, its a tessar no?

what about cooke lenses? I mean they are really nice.. but I am having trouble seeing the difference between an ektar and one of these beyond the extra stop of speed.

Stephen, if you keep this up you're going to give us ignorant barbarians a bad name.

Write "A heliar is not a tessar" on the board 100 times. Five elements in three groups, outer groups cemented doublets and central group a biconvex singlet, is not the same as four elements in three groups, one outer group a cemented doublet.

Write "Cooke is a brand and a trade name, not a design type" on the board 100 times. Cooke Optics is a successor to Taylor, Taylor & Hobson; Cooke's brand is Cooke. TTH applied the Cooke name to a number of lenses, some but not all Cooke (the name of the company that owned the original triplet patent) triplets.

TTH made some very fine lenses. One of my better normal lenses for 2x3 is a 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat (2 1/4 x 2 1/4); it is better than all of the tessar types I have that cover 2x3.

Mark, further to your point, I've acquired a few nice lenses. I'm still a so-so photographer; the nice lenses don't improve my photography very much. There is, though, a discernable difference between shots taken with lenses I've classed "not good enough to use" and those I've decided were "good enough to use." The better ones don't improve focus, composition, or exposure, but when I get focus right they take sharper pictures than the clinkers do.

Cheers,

Dan