Cooke vs Heliar vs Zeiss

[ScottPhotoCo]

With all of the lens comparison threads happening I thought I'd share a recent test I did using three lenses on my Graflex RB SLR (handheld).

I was comparing three lenses all at f4.5:
1. Cooke 10.5" Series II Portrait Lens (no soft focus used for this test)
2. Voigtländer 240mm Heliar
3. Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm

This was a completely unscientific test for my own personal reference to see how each lens worked using the Graflex SLR handheld for portraits.

Other pertinent info:
Film: Ilford FP4+
Processing: XTOL 1:1. 10:30 at 68 degrees
Scanning: Epson v750pro with all settings identical for consistency. No sharpening applied.
No post processing.


Set 1: Cooke 10.5" Series II Portrait Lens (no soft focus)

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/605/23509429081_d2395fb2f8_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BPrYda)Lens Test (https://flic.kr/p/BPrYda) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/756/23223915639_5d6bfcc8fb_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BodD1B)Lens Test (https://flic.kr/p/BodD1B) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr


Set 2: Voigtländer 240mm Heliar

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/695/22964772243_155e3c6482_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/AZjsH2)Lens Test (https://flic.kr/p/AZjsH2) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5785/23509428771_1c8a96e24a_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BPrY7P)Lens Test (https://flic.kr/p/BPrY7P) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr


Set 3: Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm

See below as there is a 4 image max per thread.


General observations

The Cooke and the Heliar seemed to render very similarly. If I am not mistaken they are a similar lens design so this makes sense.
The Zeiss Tessar is uncoated and didn't handle the bright background as well as the Heliar and the Cooke. I believe that all are uncoated so this seems odd.
The focal length of the Cooke (10.5") is perfect for closer portraits.

I love doing 4x5 handheld portraits so any of these lenses will work. HOWEVER, the Cooke will not fit in the camera when closed. Both the Zeiss and the Voigtländer will.

I hope that this is helpful for you all.


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[ScottPhotoCo]

Set 3: Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm (just missed focus)

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5784/23296130740_3b7bc5147e_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BuAL3y)Lens Test (https://flic.kr/p/BuAL3y) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

[DrTang]

yeah..the cooke and the heliar are very similar.. the tessar is just too mushy for me.. maybe because the focus is just off a bit though.it does look better on the hair next to her ear

[goamules]

The focus on the Tessar is back too far, that's why her eyes look soft, they are way out of focus. Otherwise, it would have been the sharpest of the three.

[Ken Lee]

To compare lenses, it's helpful when we repeatedly photograph a subject that doesn't move or change in any way.

[ScottPhotoCo]

I always find comments on this stuff interesting. Personally, I do "tests" in ways that are helpful for me. Everyone has their processes and mine is less scientific and more visual. I share because I figure that people who visualize stuff like I do might find it helpful. If not, feel free to ignore it. While not "perfect" this test did what I needed it to do for me.

Hugs,


Tim

[thomasfallon]

It was a mistake doing the "test" handheld. The dof is razor thin. Any movement of the camera throws off the focus plane. Hard to make much out of this since the eyes are not consistently in focus.

[ScottPhotoCo]

It was a mistake doing the "test" handheld. The dof is razor thin. Any movement of the camera throws off the focus plane. Hard to make much out of this since the eyes are not consistently in focus.

Actually, it was a mistake posting this thread at all. This is one of the reasons I have stopped coming here very often. People who have to comment one every single thread (you know who I'm talking about) and people who always have to find fault if things weren't done the way THEY would do it. It was free for you to look. If you want something different do it yourself.

Moderators, if you would kindly remove this entire thread I would appreciate it and I will be sure to not post any further content.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Tim, I for one find it very helpful. Sorry that some didn't get it.

[richardman]

Please do not remove the thread. It would be nuts to make major decisions based on web sized pics, regardless of the methodology. Nevertheless, the images are useful for whatever the viewers deem them to be.

[Ken Lee]

The forum is here for us to share images and information: it's a rare post that gets no comments or replies.

We should anticipate a certain amount of discussion - even disagreement - as long as it's polite.

I really admire Jim Galli's comparison of vintage lenses, like his Japanese Lantern (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/JapaneseLanterns/The_Japanese_Lanterns_7_Portrait_Lenses.html) series. He shot the same old shoe and flower with 7 different lenses.

Here's another one called Apricot Blossoms (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Apricot_Blossums/Apricot_Blossums.html), where he compares 8 lenses.

[Pete Oakley]

I'm in the UK and I can't see any of the images.
Possibly the reason for a lack of replies.
Pete.

[Emil Schildt]

me neither

[Peter De Smidt]

Same here.

[Ken Lee]

The OP likely withdrew them after requesting that the thread be removed.

[ScottPhotoCo]

The forum is here for us to share images and information: it's a rare post that gets no comments or replies.

We should anticipate a certain amount of discussion - even disagreement - as long as it's polite.

I really admire Jim Galli's comparison of vintage lenses, like his Japanese Lantern (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/JapaneseLanterns/The_Japanese_Lanterns_7_Portrait_Lenses.html) series. He shot the same old shoe and flower with 7 different lenses.

Here's another one called Apricot Blossoms (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Apricot_Blossums/Apricot_Blossums.html), where he compares 8 lenses.

Mr. Lee,

I agree with your assessment. The forum IS here to share images and information. Content and conversation is what make a community. What destroys communities are people who feel that they have to force their perspectives and ways on everyone else. I'm not interested in that. I try to positively share and comment only on things that I believe in and always try to be constructive and supportive or I stay out of the conversation.

There are people here with many different goals, varying creative processes and with differing levels of knowledge. Hopefully people are adult enough to form their own opinions and find use of different posts as is relevant to them and their needs. I have received emails and PM's from people asking to keep this information alive as people, as I do, find this kind of demonstration helpful.

Personally, I have learned a lot from you and reading through your detailed web site posts has helped a lot of people. For that I offer a sincere thank you(!). I share things here that I find helpful to my process so I hope that others may find them helpful as well, no matter how "imperfect" the process may be. We all have our own path and process. If every time someone posts they get non-productive comments then they will cease to share which would be a loss for this community. I personally know of several persons who abstain just for this reason, and that is sad.

Please know that I am responding to your post directly simply because I respect you and know that we can have a dignified discussion of things without evolving to pettiness, and that is what I believe that this forum is all about. I have met, and now call friends, many people on this forum and I am thankful for that. I would love to meet and talk photography in person with you someday as well.

Respectfully,


Tim

[Ken Lee]

Hi Tim -

Thanks for being tolerant and for re-posting your photos.

I for one will be more mindful the next time I provide unsolicited advice and comments.

Best wishes,

Ken

[Colin D]

Hi Tim,

I would love to see the test photos, your knowledge and insights are worth reading. Plus I own a Cooke now and am always keen to see how other people get it to perform.

Cheers

Colin

[Nodda Duma]

I opened this thread with interest in seeing the differences. It's unfortunate that the OP saw scorn in the responses when obviously they were little more than idle discussion.

A wise engineer once said "Constructive criticism is not personal. It is a professional courtesy." I think that saying applies here.

As a professional lens designer I would have liked to see the comparison. Even if the OP thinks the comparison is unscientific, there is still value to be obtained. There was no mistake in posting the comparison.

In the future, please post for those interested to learn, and don't automatically assume that responses are posted with ill intentions.

[Tim Meisburger]

I saw the photos and I have to say I still like the heliar and the tessar more than the cooke. Don't know why. Its entirely subjective I'm sure.

Thanks Tim.

Cheers, Tim

[ScottPhotoCo]

As I have received requests to repost images and I don't have access to the original post I'll add them here.

With all of the lens comparison threads happening I thought I'd share a recent test I did using three lenses on my Graflex RB SLR (handheld).

I was comparing three lenses all at f4.5:
1. Cooke 10.5" Series II Portrait Lens (no soft focus used for this test)
2. Voigtländer 240mm Heliar
3. Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm

This is a completely unscientific experiment for my own personal reference to see how each lens worked using the Graflex SLR handheld for portraits.

Other pertinent info:
Film: Ilford FP4+
Processing: XTOL 1:1. 10:30 at 68 degrees
Scanning: Epson v750pro with all settings identical for consistency. No sharpening applied.
No post processing.


Set 1: Cooke 10.5" Series II Portrait Lens (no soft focus)

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/686/23008724273_5fbe87f37f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/B4cJ7D)10.5Cooke_f4.5_IlfordFP4+_2 (https://flic.kr/p/B4cJ7D) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/639/23340093960_60f475a18b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Byu5M7)10.5Cooke_f4.5_IlfordFP4+_1 (https://flic.kr/p/Byu5M7) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

Set 2: Voigtländer 240mm Heliar

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/689/23553371701_ec17af75e9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BTkbPx)240Heliar_f4.5_IlfordFP4+_2 (https://flic.kr/p/BTkbPx) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/721/23635805725_c65ddd1386_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/C1BFzP)240Heliar_f4.5_IlfordFP4+_1 (https://flic.kr/p/C1BFzP) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

Set 3: Carl Zeiss Tessar IIa 210mm

See below as there is a 4 image max per thread.


General observations

The Cooke and the Heliar seemed to render very similarly. If I am not mistaken they are a similar lens design so this makes sense.
The Zeiss Tessar is uncoated and didn't handle the bright background as well as the Heliar and the Cooke. I believe that all are uncoated so this seems odd.
The focal length of the Cooke (10.5") is perfect for closer portraits.

I love doing 4x5 handheld portraits so any of these lenses will work. HOWEVER, the Cooke will not fit in the camera when closed. Both the Zeiss and the Voigtländer will.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT A PERFECT SCIENTIFIC TEST but I share it anyway in hope that it is helpful for some of you.


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[ScottPhotoCo]

Image with the Zeiss Tessar. Obviously missed focus.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/612/23267851529_cfa3f3cc50_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Bs6PBX)210ZeissTessar_f4.5_IlfordFP4+_1 (https://flic.kr/p/Bs6PBX) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

[ScottPhotoCo]

Additional thoughts as gleaned from this experiment...

To me, I actually like each of the lenses tested for different reasons.

The Cooke and the Heliar both have a similar signature/look. The Cooke has a soft focus option that I haven't experimented with yet and is a longer focal length for tighter shots. The Heliar is a slightly shorter focal length and smaller/lighter. And added bonus to the Heliar is that is will fit in the camera (4x5 Graflex D SLR) when it is closed. The Cooke will not.

The Zeiss is a Tessar design and beautifully sharp. When that is what I am after it is the lens I will reach for.

[Peter De Smidt]

Thank you, Tim!

[Robert Oliver]

What you should have done... is presented them across a table in print form with friends! either over a pint of beer or cup o' coffee

Ha!

I get pretty frustrated on these boards when I ask a question and then get a lecture how I did it wrong... which is why I check out for awhile, forget how frustrating the board can be and then come back for another dose !

[ScottPhotoCo]

What you should have done... is presented them across a table in print form with friends! either over a pint of beer or cup o' coffee

Ha!

I get pretty frustrated on these boards when I ask a question and then get a lecture how I did it wrong... which is why I check out for awhile, forget how frustrating the board can be and then come back for another dose !

Damn, Robert. You are so high maintenance. :)

[ScottPhotoCo]

Thank you, Tim!

No problem Peter. Hope it's helpful.

[Colin D]

Additional thoughts as gleaned from this experiment...

To me, I actually like each of the lenses tested for different reasons.

The Cooke and the Heliar both have a similar signature/look. The Cooke has a soft focus option that I haven't experimented with yet and is a longer focal length for tighter shots. The Heliar is a slightly shorter focal length and smaller/lighter. And added bonus to the Heliar is that is will fit in the camera (4x5 Graflex D SLR) when it is closed. The Cooke will not.

The Zeiss is a Tessar design and beautifully sharp. When that is what I am after it is the lens I will reach for.

Many thanks for posting those photos Tim, you're right, they each have a different signature, which is neither good or bad, each to their own. My Cooke is actually the series VI f5.6 variety, it probably has a different look to the series II as well, once I get back into doing some photos I'll find out and post them.

Cheers

Colin

[Ari]

I agree the Cooke and Heliar do look similar, I'm kind of surprised. Every Cooke shot I've seen, here & elsewhere, has a wonderful, vivid quality all its own.
And I always saw others getting great results with Heliars.
But every time I bought a Heliar, it turned out such flat, mushy, contrast-less photos; I eventually gave up on them.
Yes, I do wonder if it was operator error.

[Ari]

I agree the Cooke and Heliar do look similar, I'm kind of surprised. Every Cooke shot I've seen, here & elsewhere, has a wonderful, vivid quality all its own.
And I always saw others getting great results with Heliars.
But every time I bought a Heliar, it turned out such flat, mushy, contrast-less photos; I eventually gave up on them.
Yes, I do wonder if it was operator error.

Thanks for posting these, Tim.

[mdarnton]

I have a nice 12" f6.3 Ilex Paragon (coated, a modernish commercial Tessar, basically) that used wide open is not worse than my ancient uncoated Heliar; in fact, I prefer it to anything else I have:

Paragon 12" on 5x7, wide open @ f/6.3:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3847/14690979160_10ee14c2fd_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9)

Eric (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr
(Click through for a creamy larger version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14690979160/sizes/h/)
The Paragon habitually has this lovely quality in my studio portraits.


Heliar 36cm on 8x10 at f/6.3:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8778/16513196694_b9d9522f8f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rads4Q)

Michel S (https://flic.kr/p/rads4Q)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr
(Click through if you want, but it's just painfully sharp with no particular creaminess: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/16513196694/sizes/h/)

The Paragon started me on a Tessar buying spree. I have a 38cm or so f/4.5 B&L Tessar landed for my 8x10, but haven't set it up yet. Then it will be interesting to compare it to the Heliar.

Here's the Paragon, again, but at f/11 or so: there's something really luminous about the shadows that the Heliar doesn't have: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14889996913/sizes/h/

I don't have a Cooke, but if someone wants to give me one I'll be happy to use it. :-)

[ScottPhotoCo]

Many thanks for posting those photos Tim, you're right, they each have a different signature, which is neither good or bad, each to their own. My Cooke is actually the series VI f5.6 variety, it probably has a different look to the series II as well, once I get back into doing some photos I'll find out and post them.

Cheers

Colin

Thanks Colin. Post some images when you have a chance!

[ScottPhotoCo]

I agree the Cooke and Heliar do look similar, I'm kind of surprised. Every Cooke shot I've seen, here & elsewhere, has a wonderful, vivid quality all its own.
And I always saw others getting great results with Heliars.
But every time I bought a Heliar, it turned out such flat, mushy, contrast-less photos; I eventually gave up on them.
Yes, I do wonder if it was operator error.

Thanks for posting these, Tim.

Hello Ari,

I was surprised with the similarities as well. Not disappointed, as they're both really nice, but I didn't expect them to be so alike. Personally, I was looking for lenses without super modern contrast. I prefer a bit flatter negative to work with as highlights are less likely to blow out and I can expose easier for the shadows. I can then dodge and burn to achieve what I want. It just suits my process. What Heliars did you try? Any examples?

[ScottPhotoCo]

I have a nice 12" f6.3 Ilex Paragon (coated, a modernish commercial Tessar, basically) that used wide open is not worse than my ancient uncoated Heliar; in fact, I prefer it to anything else I have:

Paragon 12" on 5x7, wide open @ f/6.3:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3847/14690979160_10ee14c2fd_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9)

Eric (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr
(Click through for a creamy larger version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14690979160/sizes/h/)
The Paragon habitually has this lovely quality in my studio portraits.


Heliar 36cm on 8x10 at f/6.3:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8778/16513196694_b9d9522f8f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rads4Q)

Michel S (https://flic.kr/p/rads4Q)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr
(Click through if you want, but it's just painfully sharp with no particular creaminess: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/16513196694/sizes/h/)

The Paragon started me on a Tessar buying spree. I have a 38cm or so f/4.5 B&L Tessar landed for my 8x10, but haven't set it up yet. Then it will be interesting to compare it to the Heliar.

Here's the Paragon, again, but at f/11 or so: there's something really luminous about the shadows that the Heliar doesn't have: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14889996913/sizes/h/

I don't have a Cooke, but if someone wants to give me one I'll be happy to use it. :-)

Thanks for posting these Michael. You're right, the Paragon is really nice. Personally, I do like the Heliar image as well. But that's just personal taste.

[goamules]

...I was surprised with the similarities as well...

There is a reason the Cooke triplet and Heliar look so similar, their design. Both are triplets, the Heliar design just adding an element on each end. The Heliar on the left:

http://lensbeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/heliar_sheme.jpg http://www.cookeoptics.com/imgs/cooke-cooketriplet-text-history/cooketriplet-text.png

[goamules]

Since we're showing just representative shots, I also don't want to leave out the Tessar design! It can take fantastic portraits. They were made by Zeiss, B&L, Wollensack, and many others in both F4.5 and F6.3 versions. This is an F4.5 Velostigmat version of a Tessar:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8161/6986524276_f070953c6f_c.jpg

[Ari]

Hello Ari,

I was surprised with the similarities as well. Not disappointed, as they're both really nice, but I didn't expect them to be so alike. Personally, I was looking for lenses without super modern contrast. I prefer a bit flatter negative to work with as highlights are less likely to blow out and I can expose easier for the shadows. I can then dodge and burn to achieve what I want. It just suits my process. What Heliars did you try? Any examples?

Hi Tim,
I tried the Heliar 30cm f4,5 lens - twice.
I must have had bad luck both times as the images were, as I said, very soft and completely lacking any contrast; quite different from what I had seen online, which motivated me to try them in the first place.
Do I have the shots taken with them? I threw them out, that's how bad they were.
With such poor examples, it was hard to see the fine tonal gradations and smooth transitions for which they are famous.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Hey Garrett,

Thanks for sharing. I agree with you, the Tessar can be a wonderful lens. One of my absolute favourite lenses is an early 1900's B&L Tessar f4.5 4x5. This was the standard lens that came on my 1910ish Auto Graphic and it is absolutely wonderful. Sharp and soft at the same time. The way it resolves to the OOF areas I absolutely love. Here are a few samples.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5637/23385543110_6a0572ec32_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BCv2e9)HuntingtonProject_WaterFountain_2015_ScottPhotoCo_MWF (https://flic.kr/p/BCv2e9) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5677/23385540440_08bc858b4c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BCv1r7)HuntingtonProject_Library1_2015_ScottPhotoCo_MWF (https://flic.kr/p/BCv1r7) by Tim Scott (https://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/), on Flickr

[Greg]

Since we're showing just representative shots, I also don't want to leave out the Tessar design! It can take fantastic portraits. They were made by Zeiss, B&L, Wollensack, and many others in both F4.5 and F6.3 versions. This is an F4.5 Velostigmat version of a Tessar:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8161/6986524276_f070953c6f_c.jpg

So gratifying to see that someone else is also using a 12" f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat on their 8x10. I have a 305mm G-Claron and a 12 3/4 “ B&L Protar V11, but in the end almost always opt to using the 12" Velostigmat. G-Claron a bit "too sharp" with no Bokeh. The B&L Protar truly a wonderful optic but image projected from it, I have found to have no distinctive character. Almost always use the 12" Velostigmat at either wide open at f/4.5 or at f/64. To me they seem to be the 2 "sweet spots" for this optic.
Greg

[Serge S]

I am also a Tessar fan for portrait work, love the smooth look and bokeh
I use the 12" commercial ektar & Fuji 210L