1907 Voigtlander Heliar 4.5/360mm

[Cameron Cornell]

October 27, 2016

Greetings,

I shoot portraits on a 1944 8x10 Ansco Studio No. 5 that uses 9" lens boards. I've just bought and am awaiting delivery of a Voigtlander Heliar 4.5/360mm. The lens is apparently in excellent condition with no cleaning marks, separation, haze, fungus, or scratches. The cosmetic condition is also excellent. Zbyszek Marczewski in Chicago is making a new lens board for me and Reno Farinelli at the Packard Shutter Company in Fiddletown, CA is building a new 4" No. 6 shutter that I'll attach to the back of the lens board.

My inquiry on this forum is whether anyone has experience shooting the original 1900 patent Voigtlander Heliars. I've read the history, and I am aware that a second patent was secured in 1902 that changed the lens from a symmetrical to an asymmetrical design. But in spite of the fact that my lens is Serial No. 97993, which dates it right at the very end of 1907, The D.R.P. (German Patent Number) is 124934, which is the original 1900 patent. That leads me to believe that the lens I have purchased is the symmetrical design from the original patent.

I have read that the asymmetrical design was considered an improvement over the original design because it reduced the coma and Petzval sum. That's fine, but I'd love to hear from those of you out there who have actually made photographs with a D.R.P. 124934 Voigtlander Heliar who could tell me what qualities they found in them. It would also be great to see some images. I'd be happy to read any other thoughts you would like to share on the early Voigtlander Heliars.

I've read this forum for a while, but I just joined and this is my first post. I'm glad to be here.

Cameron Cornell
www.analogportraiture.com

[cowanw]

Had both. Can't tell the difference.
welcome

[mdarnton]

I have the same setup, but with a 30s vintage Heliar, so it will be interesting to see what you do. It's not a combination that has appealed to me much after the initial buzz because the lens has a sort of squinchy sharpness that I find irritating, so when I get the time, I will be replacing it with a similar FL Tessar that I bought, and see if that suits me better.

I find the Heliar hanging off the front of my Ansco to be downright frightening, there being quite a bit of weight hanging out there, far from the center of the standard. It's almost enough to rip the front right off the camera. When the fear hits you, I'll show you how I deal with it, but not for a month or so until my studio, which currently moving, is back out of storage..

[mdarnton]

Just realized you use the studio camera---I have the view. Well, it won't be too much weight for you, then!

[Mark Sawyer]

I have read that the asymmetrical design was considered an improvement over the original design because it reduced the coma and Petzval sum...[/url]

Bear in mind that "improvement" is a very subjective term. If "improvement" is what we all wanted, vintage lenses would be worthless and we'd all be craving the most modern multi-coated Stepford lenses. The beauty of the old lenses is in the imperfections.

[Steven Tribe]

I think the OP is mixing up the later gradual conversation of the Heliar construction to the Dynar optical design. The real Dynar came around 1905, but the Heliar was unchanged until much later. The F3.5 Heliar series was introduced in the 1920's with the "Dynar" layout. And the Universal Heliar remained as a "proper" Heliar throughout it's production.

The use of DRP patent numbers can be confusing in some cases as they were often used on derived designs that were somewhat different that the original patent. This is best illustrated by the original patent used for the Zeiss anstigmatic which appeared on many protar designs.

I currently have a 360mm no. 99910 and had another 9xxxx a few years ago. They sold extremely well as they gave a image which was different from the old Petzvals that Studios were still using as their mainstream lens.

Voigtlander were very late in entering the anstigmatic era and knew it! They licensed both the Zeiss Protar series and the TT&H Cooke triplet in the 1890's before developing the Heliar/Dynar from the Cooke triplet.

[Emil Schildt]

have to check how old mine is - but I love to use it...

[Cameron Cornell]

Bear in mind that "improvement" is a very subjective term. If "improvement" is what we all wanted, vintage lenses would be worthless and we'd all be craving the most modern multi-coated Stepford lenses. The beauty of the old lenses is in the imperfections.

Mark, I agree- improvement is a subjective measurement. It was Kingslake who stated unequivocally in his history that the second design patent for an asymmetrical layout was an improvement. I'd just like to see how that plays out in the actual images. That's why I'd love to see examples of images made with the 1900 patent Voigtlander Heliars versus the 1902 patent and later asymmetrical Voigtlander Heliars, or hear from people who have shot both types. Another fellow here said that he has used both and can't see any difference. Maybe that's the final answer. In any case, I'm looking forward to using this lens when it comes.

Cameron Cornell
www.analogportraiture.com

[Cameron Cornell]

I think the OP is mixing up the later gradual conversation of the Heliar construction to the Dynar optical design. The real Dynar came around 1905, but the Heliar was unchanged until much later. The F3.5 Heliar series was introduced in the 1920's with the "Dynar" layout. And the Universal Heliar remained as a "proper" Heliar throughout it's production.

The use of DRP patent numbers can be confusing in some cases as they were often used on derived designs that were somewhat different that the original patent. This is best illustrated by the original patent used for the Zeiss anstigmatic which appeared on many protar designs.

I currently have a 360mm no. 99910 and had another 9xxxx a few years ago. They sold extremely well as they gave a image which was different from the old Petzvals that Studios were still using as their mainstream lens.

Voigtlander were very late in entering the anstigmatic era and knew it! They licensed both the Zeiss Protar series and the TT&H Cooke triplet in the 1890's before developing the Heliar/Dynar from the Cooke triplet.

Here is a quote from Antique & Classic Cameras:
"In 1902, Harting filed another patent for an updated of the Heliar lens. This version Heliar, as shown below, is no longer symmetrical in design. According to Rudolph Kingslake's "History of the Photographic Lens," the reason for the update may have been that the first version suffered from excessive astigmatism and a large Petzval Sum (curvature of field). Others mention that coma was also quite pronounced in this design."

This and a reading of Kingslake is where I gather that there was an original (1900) symmetrical layout and a later (1902 patent) asymmetrical layout. The Dynar patent came in 1903, one year after the redesign of the original Heliar.

Kingslake includes the D.R.P. German Patent #'s, and the lens I bought that is en route from Germany has the D.R.P. of the original 1900 patent. Do you think that the D.R.P. Number doesn't necessarily indicate the layout used for a particular lens? Your No. 99910 is really close to my No. 97993. Have you determined what the layout was used in your lens? Would you be willing to share some images that you've made with your lens? I really appreciate your input.

Below are a couple of images of the lens I purchased.

Cameron Cornell
www.analogportraiture.com

156706156707

[Steven Tribe]

Here is mine. It is completely identical to yours.

There is no sign of your earlier Heliar in the Prochnow book. I have checked Hasselblads (Yes they started as retail outlet in Gothenburg) 1905 catalogue and they have our version for sale. I have seen a brass version (instead of our brittle aluminium), perhaps with a different iris position, but didn't notice the serial number.

[cowanw]

Here is an second version example
post 16
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?109110-Soft-Focus-Lens-Examples

[Cameron Cornell]

Superb portraits on that other thread, Bill. Thank you for sharing. I'm glad to see what these lenses can achieve.

[Cameron Cornell]

Wow, Emil- thank you for sharing these. Both of these have that gradual shift from focus to background that I am craving. That first image is especially striking.

[Cameron Cornell]

I have one more question about this lens that maybe someone can help me with. Obviously the glass is uncoated, which in my understanding increases flare and reduces the amount of light that reaches the film to a certain extent, yielding an image with less contrast.

A lens hood and possibly a yellow filter are the fixes that occur to me. What type of lens hood what I use with this old thing? The lens has no threads. I'm not sure of the precise diameter. I was looking into a compendium hood, but I've never seen one in person and just looking at the B & H website, I can't figure out how they attach to the lens. My kit I bought from a collector who bought it from a portrait studio in Victoria, BC that closed down in the 70s. The only hood I've ever used came with the 10 inch Commercial Ektar that came with this camera.

Steven, have you had any trouble with excessive flare? Your lens and mine are like brothers.

Thank you guys for your input.

[Xipho]

The Heliar design as well as a tessar has only three groups, so there is not too much flare.
With BW you can compensate it in positive process or scanning/Photoshop.
Sure a lens hood helps.
Color would be different, there the color saturation suffers without coating.

Important with such an old lens it that you clean the inside lens surfaces if they have haze.

[Dan Fromm]

Xipho, I have a number of uncoated tessar types including real CZJ Tessars. And I'm an ignorant barbarian insensitive to the fine points. I shoot reversal film whose color saturation is very sensitive to overexposure. I've had occasional color saturation problems with these lenses, also with coated lenses, some also tessar types, others with more air-glass interfaces. I blame the shutters, not the lenses, and my shutter tester agrees with me.

Still waters run deep, old shutters run slow.

[Cameron Cornell]

How does a compendium hood attach to a lens?

I have not been able to find this information online. I am wondering if it would be a good system for this Heliar lens.

If not, does anyone have suggestions for another lens hood that would work with an unthreaded lens that has an almost four inch diameter?

My 8x10 Ansco is the studio model with double bellows. Would attaching my lens to the center standard and using the front bellows as a hood be the best approach for this lens, assuming I don't need all 40 inches of bellows draw?

Thank you.

Cameron Cornell
www.analogportraiture.com

156874

[Steven Tribe]

Doesn't seem to me like a very good idea!

I think I have a drawing of what the old Studio Cameras had mounted to the sides of the front standard to control light around the lens opening. I'll have a look tomorrow. There may be Screw holes which show where the fixture was mounted, but most did not bother.

[Jim Andrada]

I believe a lot of compendium lens shades attached to the camera and not to the lens. How they attach is a different question - the compendium shade that came with my Linhof Kardan Bi attaches to a sort of flash shoe on the front standard. The compendium for my Technika has pins that fit in small holes in the top of the front standard.

On the other hand the Mamiya RB67 adjustable hood does attach to the lens. These are the only ones I have personal experience with. And I have on occasion used a 4 x 5 bellows supported by an auxiliary frame as a compendium bellows on older cameras

[Steven Tribe]

I believe a lot of compendium lens shades attached to the camera and not to the lens. How they attach is a different question - the compendium shade that came with my Linhof Kardan Bi attaches to a sort of flash shoe on the front standard. The compendium for my Technika has pins that fit in small holes in the top of the front standard.


Voigtlander's post WW2 studio camera supplied a smart Compendium that fitted on the front standard. The bellows matched the camera bellows.
I enclose some solutions from the UK catalogue (1934) from Kodak.

[plaubel]

How does a compendium hood attach to a lens?



Since our cameras have movements, and for avoiding vignetting, , it would be better to fix a flexible compendium ( with movements, too) to the front standard or to the camera body.

Old studio cameras didn't use a compendium which came later in time; with some rods and a large cloth instead of a hood or a compendium, I believe everything should be done fine.

On the other hand, from time to time I find flares as a useful tool to reduce contrast, and as an artistic add, too.

Ritchie

[Cameron Cornell]

Thank you fellows for your help with this. The lens is in export customs in Germany. It should be here in a week or so. I'll rig something up to deal with lens flare if it arises, but it doesn't sound like a compendium hood is the thing.

As to my original question about whether this is a 1900 patent or 1902 patent lens layout (symmetrical vs. asymmetrical), that remains unclear. Maybe it doesn't matter. I'll see if I can figure it out for myself when I actually have the lens in my hands.

In any case, I can't wait to start using the thing. I'll have the lens board made as soon as I receive the lens, but the shutter won't be built for another month (the fellow at the Packard Shutter Company has a long backlog. I am stunned and pleased that he's still in business at all).

I'll come back and post some images on the image forum after it all comes together.

Cheers!

Cameron Cornell
www.analogportraiture.com

Oh and please forgive my skeleton of a website. I just knocked it together a couple of months ago. It is very much a work in progress. I have dozens of negatives I want to print scan and upload, but I keep using my darkroom Sundays to process new film or print portraits for friends or people who've ordered prints and the backlog just GROWS.

[Steven Tribe]

If you want to recreate the original "German" atmosphere, you might want to think about getting a silent Grundner shutter which Europeans much prefered over the Packard.

[Cameron Cornell]

Thank you, Steven. I've never heard of a Grundner shutter. I will look into it.

[Tim Meisburger]

Steven, if you took a couple of those shutters and mounted them on a stereo camera, then fixed a red light inside the camera, then mounted a long tube for your bulb; you could set it by your front door on Halloween, then hide in the bushes, then when the little tykes came looking for candy you could pop those eyelid shutters, revealing the glowing eyes, and scare hell out of those kids. Might save big on candy...

[Steven Tribe]

I know that the eyelid design of these shutters invokes mirth to the uninitiated - but they really are fantastic in use!

I have about 4 of them and have sold 3 others to buyers of big lenses from me who were sceptic about them at first, but they became very impressed.

They were made in a size up to 6" free opening and can fit into a restricted space, like the back of a dedicated lens board or mounted on a plywood board screewed into the rear of the front standard.

The ad shown, doesn't give much of an idea of what they look like, so I also enclose a size suitable for the 360mm Heliar and a large one on a support for a 40cm Petzval. They never found their way across the Atlantic!

[Cameron Cornell]

159942

Here is the first photograph made with the Heliar I was asking about in this thread. I had a new Packard Shutter fabricated, so that didn't come in until a couple of weeks ago. I made this portrait of my daughter on Saturday.

To answer the somewhat esoteric question I posed in the original post: I do believe upon examination that this lens, which was manufactured in 1907, has the asymmetrical design of the 1902 patent even though the 1900 patent number is inscribed on the lens.

In any case, I'm happy to have it.

Cheers-

Cameron Cornell
Washington State

[Steven Tribe]

Congrats!

Certainly worth the wait.

I have had another look through the x sections of the Heliar glass through the decades. There is no sign of a "Symmetrical" Heliar in production early on. In fact, I find it hard to imagine what a symmetrical triplet would look like. The only explanation I can give is that Voigtlander made an F4.5 triplet anastigmat just before they released the first Heliar. This is based on, but quite different from, the Cooke designs they produced under licence from T,T & H. This triplet has a layout quite similar to the Heliar, where the central double concave lens is close to the rear lens.

The change in the Heliar design (to the Dynar system) came around 1923. The Universal Heliar never had this change. It looks like the F3.5 Heliar always had the "Dynar" optical design.