36cm Heliar, preferred years of manufacture?

[Dustyman]

I was wondering if there are years of production that are generally consider "prime" years that are sought after, specifically for portraiture. If so, feel free to elaborate.
36cm and/or 42cm focal lengths. Not necessarily the Universal, but your answers may encompass those as well, although I understand that the Universals did come out later.
I understand that this is a very subjective question (some prefer coated, others don't etc.). I am curious, though, of individual preferences and thoughts.

[mdarnton]

I think it depends on what you want. I have a 1933 version 36cm that I bought based on the Heliar mystique, and for my taste it's too harsh, a rendering I'd call squeaky clean, for lack of a better set of words. I've come to prefer the softer tonal (not a lack of sharpness at all!) rendering of Tessars, and have bought a 10x12 B&L Tessar (375mm/4.5) of about the same vintage that I have not yet set up, but hope to compare with the Heliar, sooner or later. Here's my Heliar, https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/16979231405/ and there are several other examples on my Flickr page. Most of them are "scanned" with my Nikon D300, so they're not as sharp as the actual lens, but you can see the edgy tonality, anyway. I gather that Heliars are recognized for their out of focus rendering, but I prefer the Tessar there, too. Notice the consistent double-imaging of the Heliar behind focus, on things like ears and lapels. Frankly, I'm starting to think the whole Heliar thing is based on the pre-internet unobtanium component--you can't find them, so they must be great. Long ago I had a 30cm, similar vintage, 1929, I think, and it really wasn't that different, so I don't think the problem is my specific lens.

For contrast, the more creamy rendering of a 30cm/6.3 Ilex Paragon (Tessar): https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14690979160/in/dateposted-public/
Or for that matter, the 14-3/4 Caltar, though the focus here is on a string sticking out of the violin head--that will give you a good idea of the imaging beyond focus, though: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/26177694432/ I think the Heliar would have actually ruined this shot.

[Dustyman]

Thank you, Michael. Nice work on your Flicker page.
I do see what you mean via your examples displaying crisp, clean rendering, but the lens does seem to transition from focus to out-of-focus in a nice way. I wonder if yours is a coated lens that would contribute to the harder look. Do you suppose earlier versions of the lens would render a bit softer, or less contrasty?
I am of the understanding that the lens design was modified over the years. I am curious of what people have to say as to how these modifications added to, or detracted from, their personal ideal of image rendering.



I think it depends on what you want. I have a 1933 version 36cm that I bought based on the Heliar mystique, and for my taste it's too harsh, a rendering I'd call squeaky clean, for lack of a better set of words. I've come to prefer the softer tonal (not a lack of sharpness at all!) rendering of Tessars, and have bought a 10x12 B&L Tessar (375mm/4.5) of about the same vintage that I have not yet set up, but hope to compare with the Heliar, sooner or later. Here's my Heliar, https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/16979231405/ and there are several other examples on my Flickr page. Most of them are "scanned" with my Nikon D300, so they're not as sharp as the actual lens, but you can see the edgy tonality, anyway. I gather that Heliars are recognized for their out of focus rendering, but I prefer the Tessar there, too.

For contrast, the more creamy rendering of a 30cm/6.3 Ilex Paragon (Tessar): https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14690979160/in/dateposted-public/

[mdarnton]

Mine is uncoated. I think it's the archetypal modern version that existed for most of the run from 1906 or so onwards.

I wonder when someone who likes Heliars is going to show up. :-)

[CCHarrison]

My Heliar lens article

http://antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Great images takens with Heliar lenses https://www.flickr.com/photos/johanbiilmann/sets/72157641018029674/

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but are there enough on the market for purchasing by vintage to be practical?

[Tin Can]

Yes

[Steven Tribe]

I agree there are lots of 30 and 36cm around. Especialy from the pre-Dynar era. They were a popular choice for standard portrait studios' set-up.

By the way, looking through the early 20th century Voigtlander catalogues this morning, it looks like the F3.5 Heliar was "born" with the Dynar structure.

[CCHarrison]

Yes Steven - if you read my article, the 3.5 version was a Dynar based lens...

149413


149414

http://antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

[Emil Schildt]

I wonder when someone who likes Heliars is going to show up. :-)

:D LOVE mine to bits....

A Heliar thread here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?58622-HELIAR-here-they-are&highlight=heliar

[.nomadia.]

Yes Steven - if you read my article, the 3.5 version was a Dynar based lens...

149413


149414

http://antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Can you technically take the lens elements of the dynar and rehouse it to a faster barrel? Or is it more complicated than that? Sorry for the thread hijack.

[Steven Tribe]

It is the lens and aperture that decide speed. You get a little more speed if you mount it in a barrel without an iris. I have done this with a late model Dallmeyer 3B where the iris was alreadt beyond repair (Missing in fact!). Note that triplets are very sensitive to incorrectly positioned central concave lenses.

[DrTang]

:D LOVE mine to bits....

A Heliar thread here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?58622-HELIAR-here-they-are&highlight=heliar

Oh man..me too..I have them in 150, 240 and 300.. and am now looking for a 420

the 240 I use the most and dang if it just nails every shot..if the pix comes out bad..it's my fault for getting in the way of the lens

I like paragons..but I find them too...gritty for what I am shooting now..but maybe n the future I'll be using that grittiness