heliars whats the big deal

[sgelb]

please enlighten me why everyone loves these lenses so much..

[Emil Schildt]

please enlighten me why everyone loves these lenses so much..

maybe you should make this into a thread called "post your heliar images", and then see for your self?

I don't know what the big deal is.
I only have about 10 of them :rolleyes:

[CCHarrison]

My experience with pre WWII Heliars is that they produce very "smooth" images with a 3-D quality that has to do with the way Heliars render tonal gradations. The bokeh is usually, smooth - like budda.....

Please read my article on Heliar Lens History here:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html




Dan

[Ken Lee]

Among the vintage designs, they have wider coverage than some others like Tessars. Like Tessars, they have comparatively wide apertures(f/4.5), which means that on large format, you can get pretty shallow depth of field, and a strong blur - especially when shooting close, or with lenses of long focal length. Some people prefer the way that Heliars render blur, compared to other lenses. Some also prefer old lenses for their many-bladed diaphragms, which result in round-shaped openings at all settings.

At wide apertures, Heliars seem to have some uncorrected aberrations which result in a slight halo. It is not as strong as the halo given by special "portrait" lenses, but is noticeable. The halo goes away as you stop down.

At normal apertures, Heliars are very sharp: this photo (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/still3.html) was shot on 4x5, using old 210mm Heliar at f/8: small enough to get sufficient depth of field, but wide enough to keep some blur.

Jim Galli shares some portraits done on 8x10 with a 360mm and 480mm Heliar here (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/405Kodak18PlastigEtc042907/WeekendsWork.html) and here (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/JustusPortraits/Justus.html).

David Goldfarb shows one here (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/12/large-format-re.html).

[Dan Fromm]

Ken, I can't agree with your statement that all heliar types have more coverage than the corresponding tessar type or that all heliar types are very sharp stopped down.

Case in point, 101/4.5 Ektar and 105/3.7 Ektar. The first is a tessar type, the second a heliar type; both were sold as normal lenses for 2x3. In my tests the 101 gives better image quality in the corners than the 105. Also in the center. Tests run from f/5.6 to f/22. Yet the 105/3.7 Ektar is peddled as a cult lens and the 101/4.5 isn't.

About sharpness stopped down. Most lenses are sharper stopped down than wide open, and the field covered with good sharpness usually grows on stopping down. This because aberrations that are sensitive to aperture aren't always fully corrected, so stopping down reduces them. That heliars are sharper stopped down than wide open isn't surprising.

My test results are consistent with Eric Beltrando's calculations. See http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f5.HTM , where the heliar types are hidden and http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f4.HTM , http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f4-1914.HTM , and http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f4-1930.HTM , where the tessar types are hidden.

Stephen, don't take this personally but you're an ignorant barbarian. So am I, welcome to the club. I don't understand the heliar cult either, or the dagor cult for that matter.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ken Lee]

Thanks for the correction Dan - makes me appreciate Tessars even more !

[Mark Sawyer]

Having a simple mind, I have a nice, simple view of it...

Heliars (and dagors) are very nice lenses. Some very nice photographers made some very nice images with them, and said, "gee, these are very nice lenses." Other photographers thought to themselves, "if I had very nice lenses, I could make very nice images too." And soon the lenses started getting very nice prices, and still do.

Tessars are also very nice lenses, but they don't get so much respect, as there are soooo many tessars out there. There are exceptions, like the tessar-type Commercial Ektar, since a very nice photographer (initials A. A.) said it was a very nice lens. Now that lens gets a very nice price. He also said dagors, protars, and Cooke triple convertables are very nice lenses, so those get very nice prices too.

Everybody wants a very nice lens so they can be very nice photographers and make very nice photographs. I've come to the conclusion that all lenses are very nice lenses. The problem is in the photographers and their photographs.

[sgelb]

thats what I thought. i mean at the end of the day, its a tessar no?

what about cooke lenses? I mean they are really nice.. but I am having trouble seeing the difference between an ektar and one of these beyond the extra stop of speed.

[Ken Lee]

. i mean at the end of the day, its a tessar no?

Could you please explain ? Do you mean that the best lens design is Tessar ? Or that at the end of the day, a Heliar is just a Tessar ?

[Dan Fromm]

thats what I thought. i mean at the end of the day, its a tessar no?

what about cooke lenses? I mean they are really nice.. but I am having trouble seeing the difference between an ektar and one of these beyond the extra stop of speed.Stephen, if you keep this up you're going to give us ignorant barbarians a bad name.

Write "A heliar is not a tessar" on the board 100 times. Five elements in three groups, outer groups cemented doublets and central group a biconvex singlet, is not the same as four elements in three groups, one outer group a cemented doublet.

Write "Cooke is a brand and a trade name, not a design type" on the board 100 times. Cooke Optics is a successor to Taylor, Taylor & Hobson; Cooke's brand is Cooke. TTH applied the Cooke name to a number of lenses, some but not all Cooke (the name of the company that owned the original triplet patent) triplets.

TTH made some very fine lenses. One of my better normal lenses for 2x3 is a 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat (2 1/4 x 2 1/4); it is better than all of the tessar types I have that cover 2x3.

Mark, further to your point, I've acquired a few nice lenses. I'm still a so-so photographer; the nice lenses don't improve my photography very much. There is, though, a discernable difference between shots taken with lenses I've classed "not good enough to use" and those I've decided were "good enough to use." The better ones don't improve focus, composition, or exposure, but when I get focus right they take sharper pictures than the clinkers do.

Cheers,

Dan

[benrains]

I really like Zeiss Tessars, and I also really like pretty much any rapid rectilinear lens I've ever met. I'm glad no particularly famous photographers have said nice things about those lenses because being able to buy them for very little money makes me very happy.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I have 101/4.5 and 105/3.7 (Heliar clone) Ektars and I agree with Dan. The Heliar clone is not the best lens I ever used. In fact, despite it's cult status, I was quite disappointed with it. I just finished a shoot with a 135.4.5 Zeiss Novar, a cheap consumer level lens that nobody thinks is any good, and it even outperformed the 105 Ektar. In fact, I was stunned at the sharpness and contrast of the much maligned "piece of crap". I never owned a "real" Heliar, but I can assure you it's more the photographer than the gear that makes a prize winning picture.

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, further to your point, I've acquired a few nice lenses. I'm still a so-so photographer; the nice lenses don't improve my photography very much. There is, though, a discernable difference between shots taken with lenses I've classed "not good enough to use" and those I've decided were "good enough to use." The better ones don't improve focus, composition, or exposure, but when I get focus right they take sharper pictures than the clinkers do.

Cheers,

Dan

Agreed, Dan. There are clinkers, and some clink louder than others. Some outright clunk, and louder than a teenager's fifteen inch subwoofer. But the teenager's love their subwoofers, and the lowest barbarians among us find a perverse love for our clunkers. After all, if line pairs per millimeter is our measurement of lens quality, what is a Verito or Varium or Vitax? (Listen, you can almost hear it... "CLUNK!" )

That look is not for everybody, and it shouldn't be. But it has its charms. I think in the Heliar's case, it has just a subtle touch of that sometimes-overwhelming look, 95% plasmat, 5% pictorial doublet. And for some people, that's just about right.

I'm an unrepentant glassaholic, and I have some of the worst clunkers anywhere. But if I could live up to half the potential of lenses one can buy two-for-ninety-nine-cents, brand new from the manufacturer, I'd be happy...

Geez, talk about your barbarians! :D

[sgelb]

Ive been a very bad photographer havent I!!!

so there is a signifigant difference between a heliar and a tessar. thanks! I had an f/2.7 165mm tessar not too long ago. sadly I had to sell it.. hollis made some banging images with it!

I know cooke is solely a brand.. Im curious to know what cooke's design was. I have a sweet f/3.5 158mm cooke for my 3x4 graflex slr.



Stephen, if you keep this up you're going to give us ignorant barbarians a bad name.

Write "A heliar is not a tessar" on the board 100 times. Five elements in three groups, outer groups cemented doublets and central group a biconvex singlet, is not the same as four elements in three groups, one outer group a cemented doublet.

Write "Cooke is a brand and a trade name, not a design type" on the board 100 times. Cooke Optics is a successor to Taylor, Taylor & Hobson; Cooke's brand is Cooke. TTH applied the Cooke name to a number of lenses, some but not all Cooke (the name of the company that owned the original triplet patent) triplets.

TTH made some very fine lenses. One of my better normal lenses for 2x3 is a 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat (2 1/4 x 2 1/4); it is better than all of the tessar types I have that cover 2x3.

Mark, further to your point, I've acquired a few nice lenses. I'm still a so-so photographer; the nice lenses don't improve my photography very much. There is, though, a discernable difference between shots taken with lenses I've classed "not good enough to use" and those I've decided were "good enough to use." The better ones don't improve focus, composition, or exposure, but when I get focus right they take sharper pictures than the clinkers do.

Cheers,

Dan

[Mark Sawyer]

Ive been a very bad photographer havent I!!!

so there is a signifigant difference between a heliar and a tessar. thanks! I had an f/2.7 165mm tessar not too long ago. sadly I had to sell it.. hollis made some banging images with it!

I know cooke is solely a brand.. Im curious to know what cooke's design was. I have a sweet f/3.5 158mm cooke for my 3x4 graflex slr.

I'd say there's some difference, but not a lot. There's more variation among tessars than there is difference between, say, a Bausch and Lomb tessar and a heliar. The adjustable-diffusion Velostigmat is a tessar, as is the 14" Commercial Ektar, the Nikkor M-Series, the Boyer Saphir, the Dallmeyer Dalmac, Perfac and Serrac, the Xenar... And then there are Apo-tessars, Aero-tessars, process tessars, macro-tessars, enlarging tessars, wide-angle tessars, bio-tessars...

Cooke made tessars too, the Apotal and Ental, but most of their best known designs were triplets. Don't know what yours is, though...

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, Stephen, until fairly recently Cooke was a trade name, not a manufacturer. TTH owned the name, made a wide variety of lenses of many design types. Dialytes (Aviar was the trade name), 4/4 double Gauss (Cooke Ser. VIIb was the usual trade name), 6/4 double Gauss (no generally used trade name), telephoto lenses in a variety of designs and with many trade names, ... , and, yes, triplets. They also made many cine lenses, some of quite complex designs, with a variety of trade names. They probably made the first inverted telephoto (retrofocus is an Angenieux trade name, inverted telephoto is the design type) lens.

Stephen, there is no "Cooke" design. Cooke is a trade name, like Ektar or Nikkor or Fujinon or ...

Mark, Saphir is a trade name that includes a number of design types, including 6/4 plasmats, 6/4 double Gauss, and tessar types. See http://www.galerie-photo.com/optiques_boyer_en-2008.pdf for a discussion. I don't understand why you say there's less difference between a particular tessar and a heliar than among tessars.

Cheers,

Dan

[IanG]

Dan, of course there is a Cooke design, and it wasn't designed by TTH either, it's the Cooke Triplet, designed by Dennis Taylor, of Cooke in York, but the company weren't interested in manufacturing camera lenses and allowed Taylor to take the design to TTH in Leicester.

TTH's Cooke brand name is a result of that action.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, of course there is a Cooke design, and it wasn't designed by TTH either, it's the Cooke Triplet, designed by Dennis Taylor, of Cooke in York, but the company weren't interested in manufacturing camera lenses and allowed Taylor to take the design to TTH in Leicester.

TTH's Cooke brand name is a result of that action.

IanThanks, Ian. But y'know, TTH made a number of lenses that weren't triplets but were engraved "Cooke." For example, I have a little 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens that is in fact a tessar type.

[Pete Watkins]

There is no doubt that Taylor, Taylor & Hobson were and are the best British / English lens manufacturers of all time. Avairs were a legend, not debatable, don't think about it!
I have a sweet little, and I mean little, 9" TT&H, Cooke Series V process lens from the 1920's that appears to cover 8x10.
My 330 Series VB projects a superb image on my 8x10 ground glass, I'm going to try it on the 11x14.
T.T.&H are one of the few successful companies in this country that we can shout about. I can't afford their modern lenses.................but I can dream!
Best wishes,
Pete.

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, Saphir is a trade name that includes a number of design types, including 6/4 plasmats, 6/4 double Gauss, and tessar types.

Ah, well... my Saphir is a tessar, and a nice one at that! Those sneaky French lens manufacturers! :o Thank you muchly for the Boyer link. Fascinating reading, at least for a lens-nerd!



I don't understand why you say there's less difference between a particular tessar and a heliar than among tessars.

Cheers,

Dan

Having used both, I'd say negatives and prints from a 12" Heliar and a same-period 12" Bausch & Lomb Tessar would be fairly similar, whether both were at f/4.5 or both were at f/32. I'd expect more difference detween an early 12" Series II Wollensak Velostigmat and a late-model Nikkor 300-M, even though both are tessars.

Cheers!

[Kerik Kouklis]

I've come to the conclusion that all lenses are very nice lenses.

So, I guess that means you're gonna start cleaning out that shrine cabinet of brass and glass that you've got? After all, if they're all just "very nice" who needs more than one? :D

[Mark Sawyer]

Sorry, Kerik... they're all so nice, I want even more! I think "Verito, Petzval, Tessar" the same way Hugh Hefner thinks "blonde, brunette, red-head". :D

[Jim Graves]

Ah, yes Hefner gets a triple-King bed and you get a floor-to-ceiling display case ... I'll take the case and lenses ... given the choice ... a heck of a lot cheaper, quieter, and certainly a lot less demanding!

[Lynn Jones]

Tessars are the highest contrast lenses (contrast often means visual sharpness) but usually with just a bit of astigmatism. The world champions of LF were Kodak Commercial Ektar, and the f 6.3 Caltars (these included all of the identical lenses from Ilex Optical, Paragon,and renamed as BBOI Acu-Tessar and B&J Acutar). In 1965 Manny Kiner Pres/GM of Ilex ray traced the Com Ektars, computer re-designed them using new optical glasses not previously available for the Caltars and for his own company use.

The Heliar were from H. Harting of Voightlander (1901) and a few years later Dallmeyer made them as Pentac (about 1919). These were truly fine lenses although coating made a huge difference after about 1937. If you have any old uncoated but self coated, please don't touch them, camel hair broush or air only.

During WWII several makers produced excellent aerial camea lenses of the Heliar/Pentac.

Kodak easily produced the best of this genre, their Micro apos for the graphic arts, the best of all were the 101 f3.5 for the Medalist cameras based primarily on the first use of rare earth glasses. Kodak also made these lenses as enlarging lenses for the Precision A enlargers in 50mm f4.5 and 75mm f4.5, truly encridible lenses.

Lynn

[Dan Fromm]

Come, on, Lynn, I've tried a couple of 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars as macro lenses. They're good but not the best at their focal lengths. The 50 wide open doesn't come close to a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor at f/4, and stopping down hurts both.

The Medalist's lens is a 100/3.5, not a 101/3.5 (don't feel bad, we none of us can type accurately) and is essentially the same lens as the 105/3.7 Ektar. I've shot two of those against a good 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) and both were worse at all apertures but (surprise!) f/3.7.

[Bernard Kaye]

Just 2 cents worth: it takes a nut (lens nut) to have read this from start to finish, as I just did.
One lens comment: the Kodak Medalist was an exercise in film flatness with roll film; the heavy cast aluminum body structure and helix focusing lens mount may help the 100mm. f 3.5 Ektar produce at its best. As I tell it, the separator at Chrome in Washington, D C came out to meet me when he enlarged my Kodacolor negatives; I thought that he was going to tell me that his professional lab did not dabble with 120 roll film and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4inch negatives; he wanted to know what I was shooting; I told him Kodak Medalist; he told me that he heard about it but had never seen one. I asked if he could make a 14 x 20inch or so? He told me that he could make a wall sized enlargement and that it rivaled an 8 x 10inch negative. It wasn't me, still isn't me; it is that film flatness and accurate focusing if the rangefinder is calibrated, particularly with focus at almost infinity and say f 8.
Bernie Kaye

[CCHarrison]

To be more precise, the Ektar lenses were Dynar types, not the original Heliar design.

Dan

http://www.antiquecameras.net/images/698_hel8.jpg

[Mark Sawyer]

To be more precise, the Ektar lenses were Dynar types, not the original Heliar design.


But just to clarify, the Ektar line did include other designs. The prized 14" Commercial Ektar was a tessar design.

[Mark Sawyer]

Ah, yes Hefner gets a triple-King bed and you get a floor-to-ceiling display case ... I'll take the case and lenses ... given the choice ... a heck of a lot cheaper, quieter, and certainly a lot less demanding!

But dust in the film-holder will still break your heart... :(

[CCHarrison]

Yes Mark - I was just referring to the Fred Altman designed Ektars that are referred to as "Heliar" types, like the one the Medalist and the 105mm f/3.7...

thanks
Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, its been a while since he's said much about it, but Ole Tjugen has often stated that the majority of Voigtlander lenses badged "Heliar" were made to the Dynar layout.

[Ole Tjugen]

That is correct - the switch happened around WWI. Post WWI "Heliars" are Dynar design, with the exception of the Universal-Heliar.

[CCHarrison]

Thanks Dan F. I do know all about the Heliar vs Dynar designs, I wrote the following Heliar Article:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html


thanks!
Dan

PS - the Dynar was patented in 1904, only about 2 years after the original Heliar design ! http://www.google.com/patents?id=7rp9AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=harting&as_drrb_ap=q&as_minm_ap=0&as_miny_ap=&as_maxm_ap=0&as_maxy_ap=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1902&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1905&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.antiquecameras.net/images/475_hel6.jpg

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

All of my Heliars are heliars NOT dynars, up to #475641 (1928) 36cm/4.5. I think Voigtlander kept the larger sizes as heliars all the way through production.

"The Medalist's lens is a 100/3.5, not a 101/3.5 (don't feel bad, we none of us can type accurately) and is essentially the same lens as the 105/3.7 Ektar."

Not quite, I do have the uncoated Medalist I and the late model coated Medalist II, they have the same reflection pattern. The 105/3.7 has a different reflection pattern, actually I cannot see the minor reflection in the front cell and it may be a tessar. If it is a dynar style, it is definitely a different design from the Medalist lenses.

[CCHarrison]

If you read my article http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html, the f/3.5 Heliars changed to the Dynar design well before the f/4.5 Heliars. It wasnt until about 1925-1930 that the f/4.5 Heliars switched to the Dynar design, while the f/3.5 Heliars went to the Dynar design much earlier.

With all due respect, Ole: "That is correct - the switch happened around WWI. Post WWI "Heliars" are Dynar design, with the exception of the Universal-Heliar." Is just not very accurate.

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Paul, if you seriously believe that the 105/3.7 Ektar is a tessar type you're in a very small minority. Were you thinking of the 107/3.7?

You might want to look at http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakEktarsDB0.htm and http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/Lx_ek_107_37.htm and http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakLensDesign1.htm and http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LD55_ek_105_37.htm

Cheers,

Dan

[CCHarrison]

From King Kodak on the 105/3.7

Dan

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Dan and Dan,

thanks but I have both lenses in hand and for the life of me I cannot see the minor reflection with the naked eye BUT I may have found it with the digicam. If the 105 is a dynar style it's a different design than the 100.

[CCHarrison]

Hi Paul

Here is the 100/3.5 Medalist Ektar layout from Kingslake book.

Dan

[Steve Hamley]

Apparently they are still a "big deal" - a 21cm in Compur 3 sold for $997 on the bay...

Cheers, Steve

[imagedowser]

How does the Boyer APO Saphir line compare to other Heliars? I have the 360 & 600 in barrels and wonder if they are considered in the same league, or different in some way. Besides being French and not German that is....

[Dan Fromm]

Over a fairly narrow field, Apo Saphirs are nearly aberration free. See http://www.dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS5/00202/00202.HTM , click on Courbes. They are, however, better at f/16 than wide open.

Over a slightly wider field, Dynars (remember, if you bought it as a Heliar and it isn't ancient it is probably a Dynar) have considerable astigmatistm. See http://www.dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS8/00371/00371.HTM, click on Courbes.

But also see http://www.dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS10/00486/00486.HTM and click on Courbes. Not as good as an Apo Saphir, but better than a fast Heliar/Dynar. I think this design grew up to be the Apo Skopar.

For a relatively modern Dynar, see http://www.dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS14/00666/00666.HTM and click on Courbes. Still not up to an Apo Saphir, but with better coverage.

IMO, the only reasons to replace an Apo Saphir with any other lens are to get more coverage or more speed. That said, given the choice between buying an Apo Saphir and the equivalent dialyte type Apo Nikkor I'd get the Apo Nikkor. Lighter and marginally better at apertures larger than f/16.

If speed is not a consideration, Apo Saphirs are far and away better lenses than fast Heliars/Dynars.

For an appreciation of Boyer lenses more generally, see http://www.galerie-photo.com/boyer-optique-objectif.html (French) and http://www.galerie-photo.com/boyer-lens-optic.html (English). I'm not about to give up my Apo Saphirs (135, 180, 240, 300, 360).

Cheers,

Dan

[imagedowser]

Dan, Thank you very much. Time and again, you and so many others make this one of, if not, THE premier photographic site on the web. Your references are just what I was looking for... Bill

[Dan Fromm]

Bill, thanks for the kind words. Google would have found them for you too.

And don't hold back. My co-author Eric Beltrando contributed, IMO, more to our piece on Boyer than I did. He's due much credit.

[renes]

If you read my article http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html, the f/3.5 Heliars changed to the Dynar design well before the f/4.5 Heliars. It wasnt until about 1925-1930 that the f/4.5 Heliars switched to the Dynar design, while the f/3.5 Heliars went to the Dynar design much earlier.

Dan

Where did you get information that f/4.5 Heliars ever switched to Dynar design?
I thought that only f/3.5 Helairs are Dynar design (no f/4.5 Heliars).

[eddie]

okay. what serial # did they switch over.

i had two 420 heliars (i think they were 420...i iwll look). one weighed 7 pounds the other 10. i was wondering why....now i know. the older one weighed more.

eddie

[CCHarrison]

Here is a 1927 ad ( from Sean's Camera Eccentric site ) showing the 4.5 Heliar with Dynar design.

Dan

[renes]

okay. what serial # did they switch over.

i had two 420 heliars (i think they were 420...i iwll look). one weighed 7 pounds the other 10. i was wondering why....now i know. the older one weighed more.

eddie


eddie,

Than you probably had two different designed f/4.5 Heliars... did you note any differences in picture quality between them?

Did someone make such comparison?

[renes]

Here is a 1927 ad ( from Sean's Camera Eccentric site ) showing the 4.5 Heliar with Dynar design.

Dan

Indeed, the lens design shown on the drawing is Dynar one. I did not note it before.

[Louis Pacilla]

Hi folks

Here's what I think about the weight difference that Eddie was referring to. It's the material the barrels where manufactured w/you know --Brass/aluminum
Glass formula as well but the brass/aluminum for the 2lb'sdifference.
The glass formula I think would not represent a 2 lb difference
(I own one of the two 420's Eddie was referring to & it's all of 10lb & all brass barrel.)
I have a 36cm Heliar made of aluminum & a 30 cm Heliar made of brass. The 30cm brass Heliar weigh's more than the aluminum 36cm Heliar.

Just my 2 cent's.

Peace
Louis P.