About heliar 210mm f4.5 lens

[seanwang]

I bought a heliar 210mm lens recently, it can cover 8X10?:confused:

[Peter K]

The Heliar 1:4.5/210mm is a lens for 4x5" with an angle of view of 54°.

[Peter K]

With 54° angle of view and 210mm focal lenght one gets an image circle of 214mm.
(54° / 2 = 27°, tang 27° = 0.5095 x 2 = 1.019 x 210mm = 214mm) So 5x7" can be illuminated with it's image circle of 210mm, but 8x10" needs 312mm. This doesn't mean the image is bright and sharp up to the corners.

[CCHarrison]

Take a look at my HELIAR LENS article:

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


Voigtlander advertised this lens to cover 5x7

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

With 54° angle of view and 210mm focal lenght one gets an image circle of 214mm.
(54° / 2 = 27°, tang 27° = 0.5095 x 2 = 1.019 x 210mm = 214mm) So 5x7" can be illuminated with it's image circle of 210mm, but 8x10" needs 312mm. This doesn't mean the image is bright and sharp up to the corners.

The image circle is 214mm with an angle of view of 54°. The circle of illumination is much larger, and at small apertures the 210mm f:4.5 Heliar will come close to covering 18x24cm. 8x10" is just enough larger that it will be soft in more than just the outer 10mm of the corners. But in my experience the 150mm Heliar illuminates 5x7", and the 240mm Heliar will cover 18x24cm at small stops.

But still, a 210mm f:4.5 Heliar will not cover 8x10" for any "normal" definition of "cover".

[Paul Fitzgerald]

seanwang,

Voigtlander was a bit conservative with they recommendations, pre-war Voigtlander recommended the 210 for 4X6, post-war they recommended 5x7. For 8x10 they recommended the 420 but the 360 will just cover the corners at f/32.

Have fun with it, the 210 Heliar is one of the nicest 4x5 portrait lenses made.

[Ole Tjugen]

Voigtländer were not only conservative with their recommendations, they seem also to have been consistently inconsistent in which "Heilar" they gave data for. The Dynar-Heliar seems to have better coverage than the original Heliar-Heliar; and the f:4.5 version of the Dynar-Heliar has better coverage than the f:3.5 Dynar-Heliar or the Heliar-Heliar Universal-Heliar.

If this seems confusing, you are beginning to understand Heliars. :)

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Ole,

"If this seems confusing, you are beginning to understand Heliars. "

I know, so I cheat. I just mount the lens on the camera and focus at inf., then I stop down until I can see a full round, un-obstructed iris from the corners (clipped glass). The 360mm Heliar will just show this at f/32, the 300mm and smaller will not, mechanical vignetting from the barrel.

[Ole Tjugen]

That's interesting Paul, I was sure the 240 I have shows full round iris at f:22 on a 18x24cm camera!

I believe there are different barrel types as well, and that the 300mm and up may have smaller angle of view?

[Maris Rusis]

My Heliar 210 f4.5 gives me a complete picture on 8x10 film for infinity subjects BUT with no movements at all, not even 1 millimetre. Actually it does not cover 8x10 but it does cover (just) what is left of the 8x10 format after the film holder rebates have bitten into the film area.

Is it usable? Only if you are desperate. I got sick of occasionally missing an image corner and acquired a 159mm Wolly; cheap and much nicer to use.

[seanwang]

oh~ Thanks everyone! :)

I just mount it on my 810 camera, it seems cover 8x10 with blurry corner, and almost no movements. But I think it will be better if use the smallest aperture(F32), tomorrow I'll test it with film.