PDA

View Full Version : Holy Crow, is a Heliar 15cm f4.5 worth $627?



Vick Ko
28-Jan-2007, 17:15
Holy Crow, is a Heliar 15cm f4.5 worth $627?

Is this another case of "previously inexpensive lens" elevated into the stratosphere of prices due to collector frenzy?

Recent 'bay auction ended at $627: item 130071824841

For those who have used this lens, what are it's better qualities?

TIA
Vick

rob
28-Jan-2007, 17:22
the 240 one ended at $1000+. I'm so happy I got my late heliar 36cm for a mere $166.

Ole Tjugen
29-Jan-2007, 00:32
Even uncoated ones go for $200+...

I'm glad I got mine a lot cheaper than that, attached to a Voigtländer Begheil 9x12cm plate camera!

The Heliar has a little uncorrected spherical aberration, which gives it a particularly pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp. That's what the sales literature said in the 103+'s, and I find I do agree with that. But not to the price of $627!

Christopher Perez
29-Jan-2007, 09:15
Geez. That's silly money! I couldn't give my 15cm in recently CLA'd shutter away for $225. Maybe it's time to relist it and it's 21cm sister?

Jim Galli
29-Jan-2007, 09:55
That $$ used to buy you a Lanthar with change. Mercy. I just sold a great 36cm for about half that! Guess I better hoarde the rest. :D

rob
29-Jan-2007, 11:30
The Heliar has a little uncorrected spherical aberration, which gives it a particularly pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp.

the difference between heliar and tessar is the doublet front element in heliar. I don't have a tessar, does tessar/xenar give similar "pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp"?

Christopher Perez
29-Jan-2007, 11:37
Yes.

But in my case, it's even more "pleasing" when coupled with a round shaped aperture. :)


the difference between heliar and tessar is the doublet front element in heliar. I don't have a tessar, does tessar/xenar give similar "pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp"?

Gordon Moat
29-Jan-2007, 12:00
the difference between heliar and tessar is the doublet front element in heliar. I don't have a tessar, does tessar/xenar give similar "pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp"?

Since I have recently mounted up a Zeiss Tessar 21cm f4.5 on my 4x5, I can at least comment on that. Looking at the ground glass it certainly seems that the in focus to out of focus drops off quickly. There is definitely a good separation of subject from background, even noticable at f8.0 and closer focusing distances. As for the round aperture shape, the 18 blade aperture helps quite a bit.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Ole Tjugen
29-Jan-2007, 12:11
the difference between heliar and tessar is the doublet front element in heliar. I don't have a tessar, does tessar/xenar give similar "pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp"?

The difference is more than that, and so is the design philosophy. The Heliar (or Dynar, which is a more correct name for most Heliars) are more related to triplets than to Tessars. Since I happen to have all three types of lens (Tessar / Xenar /Skopar, Heliar / Apo-Lanthar, and Triotar, all in 150mm f:4.5) I shot a comparison a while ago. There is a definite difference in the "bokeh" with the Heliar/Apo-Lanthar coming out as the winner in my opinion. BTW all those lenses are in Compur #1 shutters, of differing vintage but similar number of aperture blades.

Ole Tjugen
29-Jan-2007, 12:17
Since I have recently mounted up a Zeiss Tessar 21cm f4.5 on my 4x5, I can at least comment on that. Looking at the ground glass it certainly seems that the in focus to out of focus drops off quickly. There is definitely a good separation of subject from background, even noticable at f8.0 and closer focusing distances.

Gordon, that's the main difference. The Heliar drops off less quickly - it's designed with a smooth transition.

Another difference is that the Heliars have better coverage. Lots of sources say that the Heliar has less coverage - which in a way is also correct: Voigtländer made two very similar designs, the Heliar and the Dynar. After a very short time, the Heliar design was dropped in favor of the Dynar design, but the Heliar name was retained. So most Heliar lenses, except "Universal-Heliars", are actually Dynars. And the Dynar has better coverage than a Tessar, whereas the original Heliar has less.

Armin Seeholzer
29-Jan-2007, 12:25
How much will I then get in the future when I sell my Universal Heliar 360mm uncoated and get even the better Heliar look then the coated ones!
But I sell it not so fast!
Armin Seeholzer

Gordon Moat
29-Jan-2007, 13:00
Gordon, that's the main difference. The Heliar drops off less quickly - it's designed with a smooth transition.

Another difference is that the Heliars have better coverage. Lots of sources say that the Heliar has less coverage - which in a way is also correct: Voigtländer made two very similar designs, the Heliar and the Dynar. After a very short time, the Heliar design was dropped in favor of the Dynar design, but the Heliar name was retained. So most Heliar lenses, except "Universal-Heliars", are actually Dynars. And the Dynar has better coverage than a Tessar, whereas the original Heliar has less.

Interesting . . . though I would think there are advantages to either characterist, depending upon what subject matter or scenes were being photographed. On smaller 35mm and medium format cameras, I like the quick fall-off of focus for people shots. Though I suppose if I wanted to do more landscape imaging then a gentle (or slow) fall-off of focus might be more desireable. Was this the idea?

On the coverage aspect, it would seem that Heliar type designs would make better short focal length lenses. Of course more modern optics tend towards double Gauss type designs; does any company make a large format Heliar or Dynar design currently? On Tessar type designs, there is that Nikkor 200mm, though offhand I cannot think of any others. Thoughts?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Dan Fromm
29-Jan-2007, 15:40
Um, not to be too disagreeable or anything, but after I shot my 105/3.7 Ektar (heliar type) against my 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) I sold the 105. The 101 just plain shoots better at the apertures I use. This is consistent with Chris Perez' results; he found the 101 to be sharper than the 105, center and edges, from f/8 down.

Since poorer edge resolution usually indicates less coverage, Ole's generalization seems a little weak.

Gordon, I shoot a couple of f/10 Apo Saphirs, all heliar type process lenses, on 2x3. Just love the 180, which is the shortest Apo Saphir that might cover 4x5.

And, Gordon, I think you're confusing "double Gauss" with what the rest of us know as plasmat types. There are few double Gauss types for 4x5; the 150/2.8 and nearly mythical 210/2.8 Xenotars are nearly all that come to mind. 150/1.9 and 200/2.0 Super Sixes, now that I think of it, too. I used to think that the 200/1.9 Saphir would cover 4x5 too, but Boyer's fiches techniques, whose coverage claims can be optimistic, say that it covers 6x9.

Cheers,

Dan

Christopher Perez
29-Jan-2007, 17:15
Indeed.

Looking at images taken with a 21cm Heliar f/4.5 and a 210mm Xenar f/6.1 in the "real world" at 40x magnification (as opposed to a 2D USAF Resolution Test Chart) I can see a difference.

The Heliar almost feels like a soft focus lens in the way it transitions between dark and light areas. This, regardless of aperture.

The Xenar, by direct comparison, shows a very sharp contrasty transition. This, even from wide open all the way through f/32.

The subtle details and local contrast that the tessar formula Xenar delivers are smudged with a lower contrast between highlight and shadow areas with the Heliar.

Without shooting Xenars against Heliars side by side I can get very pleasing images out of the Heliars, uncoated or coated. A person needs to be somewhat neurotic to tell the difference between these lenses. I guess I shoot the Heliars just because they're "cool", or something.

Humph. Maybe I should sell the Heliars anyways... the Xenars are truly spectacular, even compared with a modern multi-coated plasmat wonder optic.



... after I shot my 105/3.7 Ektar (heliar type) against my 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) I sold the 105. The 101 just plain shoots better at the apertures I use. This is consistent with Chris Perez' results; he found the 101 to be sharper than the 105, center and edges, from f/8 down...

Sheldon N
29-Jan-2007, 20:39
I believe it's sheer nuttiness that a 150mm Heliar would sell for that price. A 210mm is a little more understandable in that range, since it's a more appropriate portrait focal length for 4x5.

And for those who were paying attention, the pristine 300mm Heliar in working shutter sold as part of that estate sale on Ebay two days ago for well under $300.

rob
29-Jan-2007, 21:05
And for those who were paying attention, the pristine 300mm Heliar in working shutter sold as part of that estate sale on Ebay two days ago for well under $300.

Because it's sooooo old (from the '20s) and in alphax shutter. If it were in BIG compound shutter than it will be more desirable. IMHO, $284 IS too expensive for this particular lens.

Vivek Iyer
30-Jan-2007, 12:18
the difference between heliar and tessar is the doublet front element in heliar. I don't have a tessar, does tessar/xenar give similar "pleasing transition from sharp to unsharp"?

I better hang on to my 241mm Wollensak Raptar. It behaves unusually for a Tessar.

Philippe Grunchec
7-Mar-2010, 07:58
Ole/Dan, do you know if a 4.5/105 Heliar covers 4x5 with(out) movements?

Bjorn Nilsson
7-Mar-2010, 08:12
Ole/Dan, do you know if a 4.5/105 Heliar covers 4x5 with(out) movements?

No, it doesn't cover. It does cover 6x9cm with possibly a little movement, but not 4x5".

//Björn

Brian Ellis
7-Mar-2010, 10:04
How come none of these kinds of buyers ever show up for my listings?

searover
6-Nov-2012, 20:36
No, it doesn't cover. It does cover 6x9cm with possibly a little movement, but not 4x5".

//Björn

Sorry B, my Voigtlander Heiler 1:3.5 f=10,5cm sn 665714 (1930s?) covers 4x5 at infinity all day long. I really love it, now is it the older Heliar design or the Dynar I don't know and would like to.

John

Emil Schildt
7-Nov-2012, 04:53
Sorry B, my Voigtlander Heiler 1:3.5 f=10,5cm sn 665714 (1930s?) covers 4x5 at infinity all day long. I really love it, now is it the older Heliar design or the Dynar I don't know and would like to.

John

serialnumber would help you...

Sevo
7-Nov-2012, 05:19
Sorry B, my Voigtlander Heiler 1:3.5 f=10,5cm sn 665714 (1930s?) covers 4x5 at infinity all day long.

Coverage is rather a elastic term - just about any lens type common for LF will illuminate 90° or more unless blocked by an internal baffle, at least when stopped down past f/11 - so that a 100mm will just about shine to the edges of 4x5". But that is merely a by-product of the relation between barrel depth and aperture location on the common lens types. Except for wides, the circle of illumination generally is much bigger than the circles of acceptable aberration, even illumination and flatness of field. Voigtländer themselves initially did not consider the 15cm their 4x5" normal - it was their 9x12cm lens, while 4x5" is roughly the same as the European 10x15cm "postcard" format for which they made a 16.5cm.

Two23
7-Nov-2012, 23:27
Is this a sign that LF is truly coming back, or that suddenly an old Heliar is thought to be a "hot" lens and there is a stampede? I think I paid <$200 for a vintage 1922 Heliar 150mm in compound last year. It's at Flutot's at the moment.



Kent in SD

goamules
8-Nov-2012, 06:34
Is this a sign that LF is truly coming back, or that suddenly an old Heliar is thought to be a "hot" lens and there is a stampede? ...

No, this post was started in 2007. But Heliars are always popular.

Steven Tribe
9-Nov-2012, 04:03
Sorry B, my Voigtlander Heiler 1:3.5 f=10,5cm sn 665714 (1930s?) covers 4x5 at infinity all day long. I really love it, now is it the older Heliar design or the Dynar I don't know and would like to. .

It was always a Dynar design (construction of the rear element).

I enclose photos of the original Heliar F4.5, the Heliar F3.5, the Dynar F5.5 and the Universal Heliar (this was always the Heliar design).

Voigtländer turned the Heliar F4.5 into a Dynar version - but I don't know exactly when - although the catalogue from 1923 shows the Dynar rear cell.

Tim Deming
9-Nov-2012, 11:50
.
Voigtländer turned the Heliar F4.5 into a Dynar version - but I don't know exactly when - although the catalogue from 1923 shows the Dynar rear cell.

There's another thread here from a few years back that discusses when the switch took place in detail (started by Ole, IIRC). In my experience, I dont think they switched all at once, but started switching the smaller Heliars first. I have early small (150mm and down) that are Dynar design, and later larger heliars (300mm and up) that are the old Heliar design

cheers

Tim