New Article on Heliar Lenses

[CCHarrison]

See


http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/heliar.htm


Dan

[Wimpler]

Nice collection of usefull ifnormation. Thank you.

[Ken Lee]

Excellent !

[Arne Croell]

Very nice overview. There is one error I see: it is true that Voigtländer showed the f/4.5 Heliar as the original Heliar design in their advertisements until the late 1960's, but this was not the reality. Both the post-WWII 4.5 Heliars and at least the ones from the 1920's and 30's (e.g. from the Bergheil) use the Dynar design. This can be checked by looking at the movements of reflections of a flashlight in the front element. Its easier to see if the center negative element is removed, which is usually quite easy to do as it unscrews or a retaining ring for it unscrews. The dim reflection from the cemented interface moves opposite to the reflection in the front surface when moving the flashlight, so it has the opposite curvature. The Universal-Heliar, on the other hand, always employed the original Heliar design and this can be seen in the reflections, too.
Arne

[CCHarrison]

Hello Arne

I do have some notes in my research that agrees with what you are saying, but I couldnt confirm it with advertisements. Did they just keep advertising the old layout ?

thanks
Dan

PS - I have taken out the one sentence you are referring to. Thanks

[Arne Croell]

Dan, yes they kept using the old layout in the ads, even into the 1960's. Its actually correct for the Universal-Heliar, and often they had that on the same page, so this may be a reason.
And I have checked several Heliars and a post-WWII Universal-Heliar that I own. In addition, the ads for the Apo-Lanthar show the Dynar design, and if you compare reflections the movements are nearly identical for a Heliar and the same focal length Apo-Lanthar, so they must be the same basic design.

[CCHarrison]

I did notice that about the Lanthar. In fact, is it only the low dispersion/radioactive glass type that differs b/t the color heliar and the apo lanthar ?

[Arne Croell]

Well the curvatures and distances of the lens elements are slightly different between the Heliar and the Apo-Lanthar, but not a lot. However, it was newly calculated by Albrecht W. Tronnier, not a reused design. If you want to compare, the US patent no. for the Apo.Lanthar is 2,645,154, and the German one 880,802.

I actually own a barrel prototype Voigtländer 21cm f/4.5 lens that is labeled "Color Heliar". It turned out that this is actually an Apo-Lanthar - I measured the lens curvatures with a spherometer and they are identical to the Apo-Lanthar, but different from a 21cm Heliar, and the front lens is radioactive. It appears that they originally intended to sell it as an improved Heliar, but then decided for a completely different name, and the other version for smaller format lenses (which was also developed by Tronnier) was called "Color-Heliar".

[CCHarrison]

Thanks for the insights & conversation. Have you read Prochnow's Voigtlander 3 book ? I am wondering if there is any new Heliar information contained.

Thanks
Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

Well done, Dan!

Comparing a Heliar (1934) and an Apo-Lanthar (1968), both 150mm f:4.5, shows that the curvatures and spacings are slightly different - as is to be expected since the lanthanum crown glass element has a very different refractive index and dispersion. But the basic design is Dynar in both cases.

[Arne Croell]

Thanks for the insights & conversation. Have you read Prochnow's Voigtlander 3 book ? I am wondering if there is any new Heliar information contained.

Thanks
Dan

Dan, not yet, but its on my list of books to get - I own the 1st one, it has a short biography of Tronnier in it. As I'm heading for the US tomorrow that has to wait until October.

Arne

[Ole Tjugen]

Book ordered from Lindemanns.de.

I'll see if I get to read through it if work allows, during my next stint at work. ;)

[Bernard Kaye]

How close and to and to which Heliar is the Kodak 100mm. f 3.5 Ektar made for the 620 (120) Kodak Medalist? I have used the Lumenized version and will forever be impressed by its color rendition, overall look and sharp enough for a great 24 x 36" and larger enlargement, wide open. Bernie

[CCHarrison]

The Ektar 105 has a nearly identical layout to the 1925-60's Dynar-type, Heliar.

Dan


Ektar layout attached

[Ole Tjugen]

The "problem" with all triplet and triplet-derived lenses is that the construction is extremely sensitive to small changes in spacing. This lets the lens designers vary the target specifications very easily, but also leads to it being impossible to say anything sensible about the performance of one lens based on experience with a different seemingly indistinguishable lens.

So knowing what a Heliar does is no help in assessing the performance of an Ektar, and vice versa. Voigtländer seem to have been consistent in their target specifications, so that an Apo-Lanthar is very much like an even better Heliar.

[Ken Lee]

Here (http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/HeliarAltman.htm) are some more Ektar/Heliars.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Very nice overview. There is one error I see: it is true that Voigtländer showed the f/4.5 Heliar as the original Heliar design in their advertisements until the late 1960's, but this was not the reality. Both the post-WWII 4.5 Heliars and at least the ones from the 1920's and 30's (e.g. from the Bergheil) use the Dynar design."

Let's run this one to ground. All of my Heliars are Heliars, NOT Dynars, by reflection and actual inspection. The oldest would be #64940, 14" from about 1905. The latest would be #820808, 15cm from about 1930. When did they change over?

[CCHarrison]

In the mid to late 1920's, the Dynar design came into being with the f/3.5 lens. I assume that the f/4.5 design didnt switch over to Dynar for some years later - perhaps to sell out the old stock, before updating the 4.5 with the Dynar design.... I would love to try and nail down when the 4.5 switched.... any help out there ?

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

My f:4.5 Heliars, 120mm and 150mm, both on late-model Bergheil cameras (1933-1934), are both Dynars. And so is my 1922-ish 24cm f:4.5 Heliar!

[Dan Fromm]

Folks, you might want to wander over to www.dioptrique.info and look at Eric's cross-sections and calculations for Voigtlaender lenses, including an f/10 "heliar," Boyer's Apo-Saphir, and some Ektars.

[Tim Deming]

Dan-

check out this post on heliars:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=20571

There is a big difference on when the design switched over depending on whether you are talking about short or long focal lengths. It (generally) appears that the short focal lengths (f3.5 and f4.5) switched to the dynar design much earlier than the larger focal lengths. I agree it would be interesting to get more data on this!

cheers

Tim

p.s. I have Claus Prochnow's 3rd Voigtlander book. Lots of lens information and highly recommended. I just wish my german was better to get more out of it.

[Tim Deming]

I actually own a barrel prototype Voigtländer 21cm f/4.5 lens that is labeled "Color Heliar". It turned out that this is actually an Apo-Lanthar - I measured the lens curvatures with a spherometer and they are identical to the Apo-Lanthar, but different from a 21cm Heliar, and the front lens is radioactive. It appears that they originally intended to sell it as an improved Heliar, but then decided for a completely different name, and the other version for smaller format lenses (which was also developed by Tronnier) was called "Color-Heliar".

Arne-

do you happen to know anything about the design of the 105mm f/2.8 Color Heliar? I have this prototype, it fits into a compur 1 shutter. I'm pretty sure it's meant as a fast med. format lens, but there is no other direct comparison to Voigtlander lenses. It's a post WW2 lens.

thanks

Tim

[Dan Fromm]

Tim, are you sure your lens is f/2.8? I ask because Brandt mentions an f/3.5 Color Heliar for 6x9, not an f/2.8. f/2.8 is quite fast for a heliar type regardless of how we interpret Heliar.

Would you please report back that it really is engraved f/2.8, and would you count reflections to verify that it is a heliar type? I make the second request because Voigtlander used trade names somewhat loosely and because the typical ~100/2.8 lens that covers 6x9 is a 6/4 or 5/4 double Gauss type.

This has been an interesting discussion but leaves me wondering why I should want a Heliar type. Any comments on how well they shoot?

I ask these questions in part because the two 105/3.7 Ektars I've had have been disappointments. In this they're consistent with Chris Perez' test of the same lens. Given his and my results, I'm puzzled by the good word-of-mouth these lenses get. Feel free to tell me that I'm an insensitive clod.

Interestingly, the 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars (same patent as the 105/3.7, I think) I've tried out are very fine macro lenses. Perhaps nature abhors a fast heliar.

My f/10 Apo-Saphirs have not been disappointments, but to the extent I've been able to shoot them against f/9 dialyte type Apo Nikkors of around the same focal length, the Apo Saphirs have been noticeably worse at apertures larger than f/16. Not, y'understand, to say that they aren't fine lenses at all apertures, just that the Apo-Nikkors are finer.

Cheers,

Dan

[W K Longcor]

Sorry if I'm re-hashing old stuff, but too many charts confuse me, I'm afraid. I don't see much listed on the charts for Heliars much longer than 42cm. Were longer ones rare or special order? I have a (Beautiful and near mint -- just bragging!) 48cm heliar -- by way of the serial # - it must have been made around 1926 or 1927. Barrel mount and made for only the strongest of studio cameras (heavy!!!!) I even have the original lens cap and tubular box with the Voigtlander script logo on the top. All of this is in the original brown cardboard shipping box. I got it from the son of the original owner ( the son was in his eighties at the time). :)

[Pat Hilander]

What about the Dallmeyer Pentac's, aren't they Heliar designs?

[Arne Croell]

Tim,

I don't know anything about a 2.8 version, sorry. And Dan is right, Voigtländer was not always straight in its naming. An example is the Oxyn -originally it was the hybrid between the original Heliar and the Dynar, but I have a post-WWII prototype engraved with that name that is clearly a Plasmat! Obviously, that one never made it to the market.

[Jan Pedersen]

What about the Dallmeyer Pentac's, aren't they Heliar designs?

The Pentac is a Heliar and comparing reflections from my Pentac to my 210 3.5 Heliar they are completely identical.
Reading the literature it appears that the 3.5 is a modified Dynar so this perhaps explains why the reflections are similar to the Universal and older Heliars.

[CCHarrison]

Dan F.

Attached are the Lens Collectors Vade Mecum notes on the 2.8 Heliar(s)...note incorrect spelling of Prochnow.


-Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Dan C., note the VM's comment about astigmatism.

Eric Beltrando's computations (see www.dioptrique.info) give the very strong impression that the faster the heliar type (doesn't matter which of the several layouts mentioned in this thread and in threads referred to here), the worse its astigmatism is. In other words, the less (relatively) it covers. Slow heliars, e.g., the f/10 Apo-Saphir and f/8 and f/9 Apo-Skopars, are nearly aberration free over a relatively narrow (typically around 45 degrees) field.

Re the Apo-Skopar, trade names don't always have much to do with design type.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ken Lee]

This has been an interesting discussion but leaves me wondering why I should want a Heliar type. Any comments on how well they shoot?

They are superb for portraits and close work. I have also tested my old 150 Heliar against a 150 APO Sironar-S, and it beats the Sironar, not only in terms of blur or bokeh, but also in terms of sharpness at a distance. I bought the 150 Heliar from Christopher Perez, so perhaps it has his special mojo - but when I mentioned to him that it beat the Sironar, he was not surprised. I have been reluctant to post the sample images, not wanting to provoke a fire-storm.

I have a brief and humble discussion of Heliar lenses, with sample images, here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/tech.html#Vintage).

Here are a few additional sample images:
http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/index.html?2 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/index.html?2)
http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/index.html?18
http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/index.html?2 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/index.html?2)
http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/flowers/index.html?51

These were all made with either a 150 or 210 Heliar, both quite old.

[Bernard Kaye]

Dan F. How did the two 105mm. f 3.7 Ektars disappoint you? Bernie

[Tim Deming]

Hi Dan F.,

yes, it is a 105mm f2.8 Color Heliar (see picture). As far as I can tell, it has the dynar construction (same reflections as a dynar, apo-lanthar, apo-skopar, or late heliar lens). It is a prototype.

Dr. Neil Wright (of vade mecum fame) mentioned to me that the lens was likely intended for a 6x9 Linhof or similar, but was not put into production due to Zeiss' take-over of Voigtlander and this lens would have competed with the 100mm f2.8 Planar.

I haven't shot much with it, as I dont have a 6x9 press-type camera and it doesnt cover on my 4x5 Speed graphic.

cheers

Tim

[Tim Deming]

Sorry if I'm re-hashing old stuff, but too many charts confuse me, I'm afraid. I don't see much listed on the charts for Heliars much longer than 42cm. Were longer ones rare or special order? I have a (Beautiful and near mint -- just bragging!) 48cm heliar -- by way of the serial # - it must have been made around 1926 or 1927. Barrel mount and made for only the strongest of studio cameras (heavy!!!!) I even have the original lens cap and tubular box with the Voigtlander script logo on the top. All of this is in the original brown cardboard shipping box. I got it from the son of the original owner ( the son was in his eighties at the time). :)

IIRC, the f4.5 heliars were made up to 60cm pre-WW2, and the f3.5 heliars made up to 30cm. the F6 Dynar was also made up to 30cm.

cheers

Tim

[Dan Fromm]

Dan F. How did the two 105mm. f 3.7 Ektars disappoint you? BernieThey were both softer centrally and in the corners than my uncoated 1946 101/4.5 Ektar at the apertures that matter to me. f/8 and smaller. That's how they disappointed me.

You might want to look at Chris Perez' lens tests. The 105/3.7 is, confusingly, on his LF page because he shot it for test on 4x5 film in a 4x5 camera; he says that the middle and edge readings are relative to a 2x3 frame. The 101/4.5 is on his medium format tests page.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Dan F.,

yes, it is a 105mm f2.8 Color Heliar (see picture). As far as I can tell, it has the dynar construction (same reflections as a dynar, apo-lanthar, apo-skopar, or late heliar lens). It is a prototype.

Dr. Neil Wright (of vade mecum fame) mentioned to me that the lens was likely intended for a 6x9 Linhof or similar, but was not put into production due to Zeiss' take-over of Voigtlander and this lens would have competed with the 100mm f2.8 Planar.

I haven't shot much with it, as I dont have a 6x9 press-type camera and it doesnt cover on my 4x5 Speed graphic.

cheers

Tim

Tim,

Thanks very much for taking the trouble. Sounds like an interesting lens. You really should try it out, in the interests of, um, science.

Cheers,

Dan

[Charles Hohenstein]

Would I be correct in assuming that the 105mm f/3.5 Color Heliar available as an option on the Bessa II folder behaves like other Heliars--soft at wide apertures, sharp on stopping down? Why does the Bessa II with Color-Heliar sell at such a premium over the model with the Skopar? Is it just a question of rarity?

[Really Big Cameras]

Dan,

Nice article on the classic Heliar lenses. I have one additional data point for you.


"In 1932, yet another Heliar lens was born, the f/4.5 "Universal-Heliar." This lens is identical to the 1902 f/4.5 version Heliar, however it features the ability of the central lens element to be adjusted by the user, thereby introducing varying amount of spherical aberrations. The lens has a ring which can select settings from zero to five. Zero to denote, no softness with "full definition," out to as much as five with the greatest possible softness added. The lens was apparently only sold in 3 sizes; 300mm, 360mm and 420mm. An internet search of "Universal-Heliar" will reveal talk of a 480mm Universal-Heliar, but I have not confirmed its existence."

I can confirm the existence of the 48cm Universal-Heliar (well, one of them anyway). I have one sitting right here next to me. Based on the serial number, it would have been manufactured around 1936. I"ll try to post a photo or two of it in the next few days.

I purchased it from a Lithuanian eBay seller several years ago. It came in the original burgundy leather case with the original front lens cap. Other than an internal bubble, the glass is flawless, as is the barrell. It looks like it's never been used. It's a big, heavy lens (lots of heavy brass and glass). My postage scale only goes up to 10 lbs. So, using the less accurate bathroom scale, it looks to weight between 13 and 14 lbs.

Unfortunately, it's missing the mounting flange. And while the seller put plenty of packing material around the case when he shipped the lens, he didn't put any packing material inside the case. Without the flange in place, this permitted the lens to rattle about inside it's case during shipping. As a result, two (of four) of the little thumb screws used to assist with turning the aperture ring and softness setting ring broke off during shipping. I don't suppose anyone knows of a source for geniune Voigtlander replacement thumb screws. I've installed the two good thumb screws on the softness setting ring as is it requires more force to turn than the aperture setting ring. It works fine as is, and I know I can get generic thin thumb screws from a number of sources, but as the rest of the lens is in near mint condition, it would be nice to have genuine replacement parts.

The 48cm f4.5 Universal-Heliar must have been a very rare lens. I've never seen it mentioned in any Voigtlander literature and this is the only sample I've ever seen or heard of. The only reference to it I can find online are past posts I made about this particular sample. I wonder if it was a special order item. It must have been insanely expensive when new.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras (http://www.reallybigcameras.com/)

[Tim Deming]

Hi Kerry,

A number of books on Voigtlander (including Afalter and Prochnow) list the Universal Heliar being available in focal lengths of 30, 36, 42 and 48cm pre-WW2. Prochnow's book states this data is from a 1938 advertisement. The 48cm looks like it was a catalog item, at least pre-war, but I'm sure you are right in that very few were made. I recall seeing one a few years ago, in a ebay.de listing, but this was probably yours!

too bad yours was damaged, especially in such a careless way

Tim

[Really Big Cameras]

Hi Kerry,

A number of books on Voigtlander (including Afalter and Prochnow) list the Universal Heliar being available in focal lengths of 30, 36, 42 and 48cm pre-WW2. Prochnow's book states this data is from a 1938 advertisement. The 48cm looks like it was a catalog item, at least pre-war, but I'm sure you are right in that very few were made. I recall seeing one a few years ago, in a ebay.de listing, but this was probably yours!

too bad yours was damaged, especially in such a careless way

Tim

Tim,

Thanks for the additional information on the 48cm Universal Heliar. My is definitely pre-WWII.

Yes, the lens you saw on ebay.de was probably the one I purchased. The seller was from Lithuania, but he listed the lens on the German eBay site.

Thankfully the damage was minor and only affected the two small thumb screws. The glass and lens barrel were not affected. If I can ever find two replacement thumb screws it will look like new.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras (http://www.reallybigcameras.com)

[CCHarrison]

Tim, Kerry et al,

thanks for all the notes and comments..I have updated the page with the new information contained in this thread...

thanks
Dan

[Really Big Cameras]

Tim, Kerry et al,

thanks for all the notes and comments..I have updated the page with the new information contained in this thread...

thanks
Dan

Dan,

You're welcome. Thanks for posting the article. It's a great read and a valuable contribution to the large format community.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras (http://www.reallybigcameras.com)

[Arthur Nichols]

Hi,
I posted a question about the possiblity of using a fast 360mm lens wide open and getting sharp results. One of the answers stated that I should use a Heliar. Can someone with defenitive experience with this let me know if this is true. Don't worry about depth of field, I am photographing a flat plane and don't need any, but do need sharpness wide open at 4.5 or 5.6.
Thanks
Art

[CCHarrison]

AM - I'd ask Jim about some of his real world results in using antique lenses.....

see http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/

Dan

[Ken Lee]

Hi,
I posted a question about the possiblity of using a fast 360mm lens wide open and getting sharp results. One of the answers stated that I should use a Heliar. Can someone with defenitive experience with this let me know if this is true. Don't worry about depth of field, I am photographing a flat plane and don't need any, but do need sharpness wide open at 4.5 or 5.6.
Thanks
Art

My vintage 150 Heliar tests sharper than my modern 150 APO Sironar S. It may not match in terms of color, flare, and coverage, but those guys did very well over 100 years ago, with little more than a slide rule.

[Dan Fromm]

Ken, I think they used tables of logarithms. Slide rules aren't accurate enough.

Here's a slide rule story. In 1964 I took a linear programming course. The instructor, a PhD in economics, had begun life as an engineer and carried a 12" log-log decitrig slide rule everywhere. He once did a numerical example that filled three slates. At the end, the answer came down to 4/2. He whipped out his slide rule and announced the result. 1.99

Cheers,

Dan

[Bernard Kaye]

A well tuned slide rule in experienced hands is more accurate than a digital calculator or my f--- PC's computer:

eg.: The answer to 2 x 2 is accepted as "4" in many circles of the uninitiated & unwashed; all us log, log, decitrig types know deep down that it is anywhere from 1.99 to 2.01, depending on several factors such as relative humidity and ambient light. The Marine Corps taught me. Bernie

[Ole Tjugen]

Everyone knows that 2 x 2 can be anything from 2 to 6, depending on the size of the 2's. Even 2.0 x 2.0 is only approximately 4.

[Maris Rusis]

I can sympathise with Ole's experience of the number 2. Years ago I wandered through the Mathematics Department at the University of Queensland and saw written in the corner of a blackboard "Three is always greater than two, even for very large values of two."

[Paul Fitzgerald]

The mystique continues, please check the price, condition and serial #

Universal Heliar 360/4.5 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180271725707&ssPageName=STRK:MEDW:IT&ih=008)

Oh well, can't win them all.

[Ole Tjugen]

Dan,

I just got my hands on a little booklet called "Die beiden Seelen des 'Heliar'", which mentions the use of the rear cell of the Heliar alone as a macro lens.

I've seen that mentioned before too, in "der Satrap", some 1934 issue...

[CCHarrison]

Dan,

I just got my hands on a little booklet called "Die beiden Seelen des 'Heliar'", which mentions the use of the rear cell of the Heliar alone as a macro lens.

I've seen that mentioned before too, in "der Satrap", some 1934 issue...

Ole - cool, I'd love to see any illustrations the booklet may have....

Dan

[wfwhitaker]

Dan,

AOL has apparently pulled the plug on Hometown. Are you going to find another host for your Heliar page?

[CCHarrison]

Yes, everything has moved to antiquecameras.net

the Heliar article is here: http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Dan

[Songyun]

Is there a serial number vs. year table on Heliar lens? I see ppl talking about based on the serial number this lens is made between ** and ##, but I can not find such a table online.

[Dan Fromm]

Beg, borrow, or buy a copy of the VM or of P-H Pont's little book. Both have Voigtlaender chronologies. Or search for Voigtlaender and chronology, not for heliar and chronology.

[resummerfield]

Is there a serial number vs. year table on Heliar lens?......
Try http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/voigtlaender_SN.jpgthis link (http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/voigtlaender_SN.jpg)

[Songyun]

Beg, borrow, or buy a copy of the VM or of P-H Pont's little book. Both have Voigtlaender chronologies. Or search for Voigtlaender and chronology, not for heliar and chronology.


Try http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/voigtlaender_SN.jpgthis link (http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/voigtlaender_SN.jpg)

Thanks!
Also I found this link

http://motamedi.info/serial.htm

[Songyun]

One more question, is the heliar easy to dissemble? There are five element in 3 groups, total 6 surfaces, is it easy to get access to the 2nd and 3rd surface?

[Arne Croell]

One more question, is the heliar easy to dissemble? There are five element in 3 groups, total 6 surfaces, is it easy to get access to the 2nd and 3rd surface?
It depends - especially on the age, and on the focal length. Obviously, 4 surfaces are easily accessible by unscrewing the lens cells from the shutter. The inner biconcave element is usually connected to the front cell. For older Heliars that I've seen (pre-WWII and from the 1950's - serial numbers like 3xxxxxx) it is either mounted in its own metal mount which directly unscrews from the front cell (has a serrated edge), or is held in the front cell mount by a retaining ring which unscrews. Which version and what kind of retaining ring (slots or not) depends on focal length. In later versions (serial nos. 4xxxxxx to 7xxxxxx) it seems to be glued in or it uses a burnished mount covered by black paint. My assumption is its the latter. In that case, one can remove the retaining ring of the front element which then comes out the front to access the 2nd and 3rd surface. Since these usually do not have slots one needs a friction tool such as a rubber stopper to get them out, like the ones from Micro-Tools: http://www.micro-tools.com/store/item_detail.aspx?ItemCode=LR14

[CCHarrison]

There is a Voigtlander Serial # date chart right at the bottom of my article.....see
http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Dan

[Songyun]

There is a Voigtlander Serial # date chart right at the bottom of my article.....see
http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

Dan
Dan, Now I have a puzzle for you. :D
according to the chart, the Heliar lens bellow should be made in 1860 :confused:

[Arne Croell]

Well, its not only Dan's chart. I have the "Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik Voigtländer" (in German) by H. Thiele which lists all the known serial nos from the production books in Braunschweig. Not many numbers have survived in that range, but Thiele places that number a little after 1862, too. That is of course not possible since the Heliar was developed much later. I think some worker just forgot to engrave an additional number somewhere. Assuming the real no. is in the 100000 range that places it between 1909 and 1923, which is in line with the Heliar production time, the mount style and the script style. Further assuming the last digit is missing it would be 1909.

[Songyun]

Well, its not only Dan's chart. I have the "Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik Voigtländer" (in German) by H. Thiele which lists all the known serial nos from the production books in Braunschweig. Not many numbers have survived in that range, but Thiele places that number a little after 1862, too. That is of course not possible since the Heliar was developed much later. I think some worker just forgot to engrave an additional number somewhere. Assuming the real no. is in the 100000 range that places it between 1909 and 1923, which is in line with the Heliar production time, the mount style and the script style. Further assuming the last digit is missing it would be 1909.

That is interesting, is it common to have the serial number missing one digit?

[CCHarrison]

I agree that the lens perhaps had a repair or something strange happen to the serial number. The lettering doesnt seem very crisp to me.... having said that, the font is typical of the 1902-1912 period.

[Arne Croell]

having said that, the font is typical of the 1902-1912 period.
Yes; also the fact that the focal length is given in mm, not cm, points to a manufacturing date before WW I.

[Songyun]

Ok, there was a 360 Universal Heliar on Ebay ended a moment ago, from it's serial number it was made in 20's, according to the article, Universal heliar was made from 1932. Any comments?

[cwe001]

Is there possibility of a fake Heliar ,the fonts look abnormal for Voigtlander barrels?

[Sevo]

A fake is extremely unlikely - Heliars aren't exactly cheap, but still way below the cost of individual production, and there are no cheap Heliar type lenses which might be dressed up as the real thing with little effort.

In any case, Voigtländer built Heliars in a variety of mounts, and only the brass barrel mounts have a fairly consistent design, with a rather oldfashioned font and looking electrically eroded rather than directly engraved. My 1916 Heliar in AlMg alloy mount has a comparatively modern, technical font, probably because they had to use different engraving gear, and the small camera Heliars used yet another font (or, on some Bessa 6x6es, a Bakelite front with glued-on label).

Sevo

[Steve Hamley]

More likely a "fake" list; an error or omission in the list numbers.

Cheers, Steve