Voigtlander Heliear 240 v. 300 for portraits & still life

[Colin D]

I'm wondering what the best choice is for indoor portraits and still life with a 4x5, the Heliar 240 or 300mm? I already have the Dynar 180mm which is one hell of a lens that only appeared briefly in the early 1900's, but I am considering adding a longer focal length to the kit. I also have a Fuinon 250mm f6.7, but for portraits I find it too contrasty so I thought a Heliar would be better

I shoot b&w and C-41 and process my own negs and prints.

Any thoughts please.

Colin

[Steven Tribe]

Later Heliars are, of course, really Dynars! The later Dynars (F5.5 - 1923-26) were made in 21, 24and 30cm versions - but I have never seen any for sale!

Are you a Copal/Sinar shutter person? These would make a better range of older Heliars/Heliar Universal available to you. Remember that a Universal performs as an ordinary Heliar in the 0 position.

[coisasdavida]

I have both postwar heliars (24cm and 30cm) on shutter.
On 8x10", at close range, I prefer the longer one.



Heliar 30cm f/4.5 on Ektascan BR/A developed on diluted Dektol

[Emil Schildt]

Later Heliars are, of course, really Dynars! The later Dynars (F5.5 - 1923-26) were made in 21, 24and 30cm versions - but I have never seen any for sale!

Are you a Copal/Sinar shutter person? These would make a better range of older Heliars/Heliar Universal available to you. Remember that a Universal performs as an ordinary Heliar in the 0 position.

I have a 10" Dynar, but according to the serial number it is rather old... (?) (63163)

[Steven Tribe]

Well Emil - it may not be quite as early as you think, as this is a US sold Dynar and they used serial numbers "donated" from Braunschweig.

But the fact that 63163 is higher than the donated number range suggested (up to 61,000) so this was made before they took the extra numbers into use.

Lens VM mentions as well :

"No62,43x No2 Voigtlaender Dynar 4 3/4inch in a Wollensak automatic shutter USPat. 765 006"

US patent no. would give the earliest date possible for this one!
The patent is, in fact from 1904 - application was by Hans Harting, himself! So the same time the German patent was registered.
This size appears only have been sold in the US.

[Ken Lee]

Consider depth of field and how it relates to aperture, subject distance, film speed, shutter speed and bellows draw.

All things being equal, a 300mm lens requires a bit less than 1 extra f/stop to get the same depth of field as a 240mm lens.

A close portrait with 4x5 film is approx. 1/3 magnification. For 1/3 magnification with a 240mm lens, we need 320mm bellows draw. For 1/3 magnification with a 300mm lens, we need 400mm of extension. Depending on our camera, this may not be an issue.

When the focal length is 240mm and the bellows draw is 320mm, we need 1.3 stops of exposure compensation. The same is true with a 300mm lens and bellows extension of 400mm. If we have lots of available light or a good setup with bright illumination, then it's less of a problem. Otherwise, we're down to some pretty slow shutter speeds if we want to get anything in focus except the eyes or tip of the nose.

[Tim Deming]

Well Emil - it may not be quite as early as you think, as this is a US sold Dynar and they used serial numbers "donated" from Braunschweig.

But the fact that 63163 is higher than the donated number range suggested (up to 61,000) so this was made before they took the extra numbers into use.

Lens VM mentions as well :

"No62,43x No2 Voigtlaender Dynar 4 3/4inch in a Wollensak automatic shutter USPat. 765 006"

US patent no. would give the earliest date possible for this one!
The patent is, in fact from 1904 - application was by Hans Harting, himself! So the same time the German patent was registered.
This size appears only have been sold in the US.

I know this is a bit off the OP's topic (by the way, I like 240mm Heliar on 4x5, 300 requires too much bellows draw), but following up on Steven's comments:

The early f6 Dynars are fairly common in the US (you dont hear too much since most people ignore them!) and apparently were nearly all sold in the US, with US/New York serial numbers. The US numbers I've seen, range from about 57000 to 70000. I've seen non-US marked Voigtlander lenses with numbers in this range, which suggests the US numbers are separate from the German list. Also, I've seen some US marketed lenses (focal length in inches) with Ser# from the German list in the range of 110000 to 125000. Based on types of lenses, shutters used, and engravings, I think some of these samples pre-date the separate US numbers. So, my guess for the "dates" of US numbered lenses is around the same as german marked lenses of ser # ~ 100000 to 120000.

I've also seen a few 12", 10" and 9.5" f6 dynars over the years (for sale in the US). Much less common are the larger f.5.5 dynars, but I have also seen a 24cm f5.5 in barrel.

cheers

Tim

[Colin D]

Thanks all. Because I have a Technicka III with limited belows draw it sounds like the 240mm would be more practical.

Just on the Dynar, my 180 f6 came from Poland, it's number is 80090, but according to the Antique Camera and Lens site I thought this put it about 1907. In any case it is small and I love its look.

[Lachlan 717]

Thanks all. Because I have a Technicka III with limited belows draw it sounds like the 240mm would be more practical.

I've got a Fujinon 240mm A, a G Claron 240mm and a Computar 240mm you can try to see their results. Not fast lenses, but there to test if you'd like!

[SergeiR]

I'm wondering what the best choice is for indoor portraits and still life with a 4x5, the Heliar 240 or 300mm? I already have the Dynar 180mm which is one hell of a lens that only appeared briefly in the early 1900's, but I am considering adding a longer focal length to the kit. I also have a Fuinon 250mm f6.7, but for portraits I find it too contrasty so I thought a Heliar would be better

I shoot b&w and C-41 and process my own negs and prints.

Any thoughts please.

Colin

Which format? 4x5 or 5x7 you might go with 240 and for 8x10 with 300, just to keep projection angles a bit more natural.