First year Heliar's

[Jim Galli]

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Heliar/Heliar_no5-no8_2.jpg

With the arrival of the brass #5 today (which by the way I paid at least twice what it's worth for) I have 2 very early Heliar's. Just curious who else has some of the very early ones.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Heliar/Heliar_no5-no8.jpg

I was surprised and delighted to get the big No. 8 with SN62208 as the Vade Mecum seemed to indicate that a group of serial numbers between 58000 and 65000 had been withheld for prototypes or something.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Heliar/Heliar_no5.jpg

Then when the all brass early style script one at No. 58409 showed up at feebay, I really wanted it to come to Tonopah!

So who else has got some of the first year or two Heliar lenses? Shout out!

BTW. the aperture assembly has been completely removed from the #5. If anyone has a empty barrel with an aperture I'd sure love to hear from you. The aperture assembly from my 59000 serial no. Series III Euryscop Portrait is identical. The Euryscop is probably more valuable than the Heliar though. I don't really expect to ever find one, but there must be barrels laying around from lenses that got put into shutters right?

[Steven Tribe]

Dear Jim!

"a group of serial numbers between 58000 and 65000 had been withheld for prototypes or something."

I am sure that "something" means that these numbers were presented to the American Voigtländer Organisation for use on American engraved lenses. I think that this means that the usual SN / registered date information doesn't work with these "USA" Heliars!
How rapidly would they have used up all these 7,000 numbers?

[c.d.ewen]

Jim:

Used to have 58868. Peddled it right here on the forum. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=60539) to Bill Cowan.

AIR, the patent number on it puts it into a short-run in 1904. Later ones had some sort of improvement in astigmatism.

Charley

[Jim Galli]

Here's what the VM says with a little bit of context either side.

1894 45,431 Production now includes Collinear and Anastigmat
1895 46,454 (Anastigmat production will end here)
1896 47,771 There was now major Collinear production
1897 49,084
1898 54,168 New items were the TeleObjektiv and Cooke triplet
It was in 1898 that F.W.Voigtlaender concluded that as he had no direct successor (he had 4 daughters), he
must turn the sole-owner concern into a limited liability company under the name Voigtlaender & Sohn AG
with himself as Managing Director and Dr Kaempher and Dr Miethe as Directors. Dr Miethe left in 1899 to
work in Berlin, leaving Dr Hans Harting to lead the firm until he retired in 1909. He lead the firm to new
products such as microscopes, binoculars, and telescopes as well as rifle and gun sights.
1899 54,896 Collinear sort lens ("omitted 55-61,000") [Some of the omitted lenses in fact
occur in the Voigtländer Collection, so possibly this block was reserved for prototypes. But it does include
the Triple Anastigmat below and just could be used for these lenses made under license. Others seem to
occur from Voigtlaender New York as explained above.]
About 1900 the business became a limited company.
1900 65,691 Triple Anastigmat (Cooke ??) Heliar lens produced.
1901 68,193
1902 70,682

And here is the paragraph about New York;

The Voigtlaender and Son Optical Co. New York, USA.
This seems to be the USA branch agency selling equipment, but there do seem to be some interesting
features. Firstly, the serial numbers seem to occur in the "omitted" group at No55-61,000, which may actually
be one set aside for New York. They do seem to be original Braunschweig items, but the engraving seems
slightly different as in:
"No57,09x Telephoto Collinear No4 'The Voigtlaender and Son Opt. Co., New York"
"No62,43x No2 Voigtlaender Dynar 4 3/4inch in a Wollensak automatic shutter USPat. 765 006"
"No58,86x Heliar 4.5/141mm Voigtlaender & Son, New York.
but possibly the details have been slightly changed in transmission. (As usual, the last digit is deleted for
anonymity.)

[renes]

Jim, I will check it this evening, I am not sure but I suppose I have first year Heliar from 1902 (360/4.5), I was going to put it on sale soon, first need to finsh a "new" lens shade for it.

[Tim Deming]

Hi Jim,

"a group of serial numbers between 58000 and 65000 had been withheld for prototypes or something."

As noted above, these numbers appear on the US labeled voigtlander lenses (US labeled, made in Germany). As you can see from your own two heliars, this small series of numbers was used for many years as evidenced by the changes in style of the lenses and housings. My guess, based on a seeing quite a few of these, is that the "US numbers" cover a range of lenses from early 1900's through the early 20's. One thing that I'm quite certain of, the US series of numbers, especially the later numbers (above 60,000), do not correlate with the numbers from the non-US voigtlander lenses (those with Germany markings). Because of this, it's really hard to assign a manufacture date to them. For example, I have german lenses in the ser # range of 100000 - 150000 that appear similar in styling to US lenses with ser # in the range of 62000-63000.

cheers

Tim

[cowanw]

Jim:

Used to have 58868. Peddled it right here on the forum. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=60539) to Bill Cowan.

AIR, the patent number on it puts it into a short-run in 1904. Later ones had some sort of improvement in astigmatism.

Charley

yes it is a brass number 6, 14 inch, with modern block script
The Voiglaender & Son Optical Co
New York
it is the first patent of the Heliars US 716035; year 1900

Now that there is a thread on this I will happily expect the value to take off, eh

[cowanw]

Hi Jim,

"a group of serial numbers between 58000 and 65000 had been withheld for prototypes or something."

As noted above, these numbers appear on the US labeled voigtlander lenses (US labeled, made in Germany). As you can see from your own two heliars, this small series of numbers was used for many years as evidenced by the changes in style of the lenses and housings. My guess, based on a seeing quite a few of these, is that the "US numbers" cover a range of lenses from early 1900's through the early 20's. One thing that I'm quite certain of, the US series of numbers, especially the later numbers (above 60,000), do not correlate with the numbers from the non-US voigtlander lenses (those with Germany markings). Because of this, it's really hard to assign a manufacture date to them. For example, I have german lenses in the ser # range of 100000 - 150000 that appear similar in styling to US lenses with ser # in the range of 62000-63000.

cheers

Tim
It may not help but my No.6 12 inch Dynar patent US 765006 1902 has a serial number of 68762 and appears consistant with the first 10 years of the 20th century if not actually 1901

[Mark Sawyer]

Perhaps you gentlemen can illuminate my ignorance, as I've never owned or used a Heliar... As I understand it, there were quite a few different lenses with the Heliar name. Is the early version the most desireable from both collecting and using standpoints? Is this the version Emperor Hirohito of Japan required for his portraits?

I've always been a bit confused as to the "legendary status" of the Heliar when there were completely different versions and designs with thye same name...

[Jim Galli]

Perhaps you gentlemen can illuminate my ignorance, as I've never owned or used a Heliar... As I understand it, there were quite a few different lenses with the Heliar name. Is the early version the most desireable from both collecting and using standpoints? Is this the version Emperor Hirohito of Japan required for his portraits?

I've always been a bit confused as to the "legendary status" of the Heliar when there were completely different versions and designs with thye same name...

I'll be the first to discount any magic. The magic is behind the camera ~ in front of the lens. As somebody has well quoted, "it's the picture, stupid".

But for the pictures that we would choose a smoooooth-sharp lens for, a Heliar is awfully hard to beat. Even so, hold a gun to my head and tell me to choose between a Heliar, any vintage, and a Cooke Series II Portrellic, and it's the Cooke I'll keep.

Better / worse / more value / less value / I'll say, nope. The most valuable and scarce of the Heliar's seems to be the last ~ coated ones. I just like the early ones because I have the 'weird' gene.

[cowanw]

I am no expert on this but Mr. Harrison's site
http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html
Has an excellant summary.
Briefly, the first iteration f4.5 was in 1900.
A slightly improved version was patented in 1902
In 1903 and new version was introduced as the Dynar f6.
This version was tweaked in 1925 to be a f3.5 Heliar.
Later f4.5 variations were the Dynar design as well.
A variable softness version was the Universal Heliar.
A colour Heliar was created for smaller formats (1949)
Depending on size, a Heliar f4.5 (for the first 20 years at least) could be any of the 1900 design, the 1902 design or the 1903 Dynar design.
As to the Hirohito thing; I would like to read the original reference, There are plenty of news photos unlikely to be Heliars.

[c.d.ewen]

As to the Hirohito thing; I would like to read the original reference, There are plenty of news photos unlikely to be Heliars.

Bill:

Me, too. When getting ready to sell that lens, I Googled Hirohito & Heliar, and slogged through page after page mentioning the connection, but never found a reference to an original source.

Charley

[Jim Galli]

Bill:

Me, too. When getting ready to sell that lens, I Googled Hirohito & Heliar, and slogged through page after page mentioning the connection, but never found a reference to an original source.

Charley

Now don't go spoiling a great legend by insisting on a source! :D

[Mark Sawyer]

I'll be the first to discount any magic. The magic is behind the camera ~ in front of the lens. As somebody has well quoted, "it's the picture, stupid".

But for the pictures that we would choose a smoooooth-sharp lens for, a Heliar is awfully hard to beat. Even so, hold a gun to my head and tell me to choose between a Heliar, any vintage, and a Cooke Series II Portrellic, and it's the Cooke I'll keep.

Better / worse / more value / less value / I'll say, nope. The most valuable and scarce of the Heliar's seems to be the last ~ coated ones. I just like the early ones because I have the 'weird' gene.

Funny how the last can be the "most desireable", when so much of the reputation was built an a completely different earlier generation. But all are fine lenses, I'm sure...

And yes, it's what you do with a lens more than the lens itself. The Heliar has always been a vague want more than a desparate need; I know I have Cooke's, various Tessars, old Dagors, and the like that are as nice. Really, the only lenses that are an absolute necessity to life are the Cooke's, Verito's and Velostigmats, and I already have nice sets of each! :) (Although my doctor says I may need a 12-inch Velostigmat transplant if a clean donor comes along...)

[Emil Schildt]

... The Heliar has always been a vague want more than a desparate need..

:D

And I am opposite - I have a "craving" for the Heliars.. (and I have cooke's, Verito's and Velo's also)

Too bad the rollei didn't make cameras with a heliar...
(Thank God Voigtlander did it them selves..)

[renes]

My 360mm Heliar has no. 107699, so was made in 1910 and it's fourth Heliar f/4.5 incarantion (1904) - with the largest rear glass element?

http://www.dioptrique.info/base/obj_1914/avant-1914.HTM

Look at the lens formula drawing, it looks strange: front element seems to be an old formula but rear looks like a Dynar?
Do I omit something?

EDIT:

I have looked at glasses and they are certainly 1902 build.

[Arne Croell]

My 360mm Heliar has no. 107699, so was made in 1910 and it's fourth Heliar f/4.5 incarantion (1904) - with the largest rear glass element?

http://www.dioptrique.info/base/obj_1914/avant-1914.HTM

Look at the lens formula drawing, it looks strange: front element seems to be an old formula but rear looks like a Dynar?
Do I omit something?

EDIT:

I have looked at glasses and they are certainly 1902 build.

You mean this one: http://www.dioptrique.info/OBJECTIFS3/00114/00114.HTM ? That Dynar/Heliar hybrid was named "Oxyn" by Voigtländer, it is not common. You can buy a modern incarnation for 35mm under a totally different name: http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Tele_Tessar4_85mm_ZM_d/$File/Tele_Tessar4_85ZM_d.pdf, btw.

[goamules]

As to the Hirohito thing; I would like to read the original reference, There are plenty of news photos unlikely to be Heliars.

I don't know about Hirohito insisting on Herliars, but didn't George W. Bush insist his portraits be made with Busch lenses?

[Mark Sawyer]

And I am opposite - I have a "craving" for the Heliars.. (and I have cooke's, Verito's and Velo's also)

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks! Really, there are no bad lenses, just bad photographers that can't keep up with them...


[Too bad the rollei didn't make cameras with a heliar...
(Thank God Voigtlander did it them selves..)

Roll film???!!! Oh, now that's just wrong... :rolleyes:

[carverlux]

My favorite Heliar for film use is still the 1902 first version Heliar, and mine are from Braunschweig and inscribed with the German patent marking of "DRP 124934". They have a smoothness that surpass that of the 1904 versions across the entire image. Do they resolve less or are more blurry or offer smoother transition? Probably all of the above. They do seem to have a more Gaussian out of focus bokehrendition. I had a 36cm Universal that was more like a 1904 than a 1902, although theoretically, that should not be the case.

The coated Heliars I came across did not do much for me - none of them could be used wide open and I've had them from 210 to 420. In general, they seem downright "abrupt" and "angular" in their presentation compared to the character in the 100-yr old Heliars.

Like Jim, I also reach more often for the Cookes for portraits - IIa or IIe - they are sharper wide open and more controllable via the softness control, whether they are the early ones without knucklers and offer only a very small range of softness variation or the later ones with kuncklers and a massive softness range. The extra sharpness is noticeable even when contact printed. It gives a refined, detailed yet vintage look that it is very reassuring to me and my subjects.

carver

[codex0]

My favorite Heliar for film use is still the 1902 first version Heliar, and mine are from Braunschweig and inscribed with the German patent marking of "DRP 124934".

I also have a DRP 124934 - A 420mm, SN 110649. Too bad I don't have a camera big enough for it :(.

http://goddard.smugmug.com/photos/340088128_E6SHh-L.jpg

[Jim Galli]

I also have a DRP 124934 - A 420mm, SN 110649. Too bad I don't have a camera big enough for it :(.

Get one! The cameras are the easy part :D That's a gorgeous old lens.

[codex0]

Get one! The cameras are the easy part :D That's a gorgeous old lens.

I sure am tempted to, but I'm currently focusing on a smaller setup. I picked up a whole plate Empire State from the classified forum that I've been working on, just shot my first plates on that this last week. :)

[Tracy Storer]

OK, at present, I own 4 Heliars.

11.75" (ser#1224xx) and 14" (ser#678xx) both with US Pat # 716035 and integral-cast front lensshade.
42CM (ser#1907xx) and 60CM (ser#1970xx) "Braunschweig" lenses, no shades, and no patent #s showing.

I have used the 11.75" a good bit on 8"x10", and like it, I am just curious about 1900/1902/etc versions, variations. Anybody have some insights handy? There's an aweful lot written on the Heliar here and there, but I can't seem to find complete concise info all together to make sense of it all.

[cowanw]

From Dan's site
"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"
I happen to have the 14 inch length in both versions. I can't tell the difference; but then, I'm not very critical.

[Scott Davis]

I've got one of the 240mm Heliars in a Compound #5 shutter. It's the only Heliar I have. The flash sync on it exists and works, but is very intermittent. I had it overhauled once when I got it but I think that Grimes didn't actually fix the flash sync because it's still irregular. Anyone have a recommendation for who would service that big Compound shutter?

[Tracy Storer]

Anybody know off the top of their heads whether the center negative element is symmetrical?
I'm trying to decide whether mine is reversed?
All elements on this example were originally "rolled in" that is to say, crimped metal holds the elements in place. On close inspection, I've found my center element was removed at some point and is only held in place with friction. I don't want to monkey with it and risk damaging the remaining thin metal rim unless I can determine pretty certainly it's installed wrong. Looking at reflection sizes is not definitive, the curves are too close......

[Sevo]

mine is #84,440. In a rather fragile aluminium barrel, so I have never dared to take it apart.

[Tim Deming]

Anybody know off the top of their heads whether the center negative element is symmetrical?
I'm trying to decide whether mine is reversed?
All elements on this example were originally "rolled in" that is to say, crimped metal holds the elements in place. On close inspection, I've found my center element was removed at some point and is only held in place with friction. I don't want to monkey with it and risk damaging the remaining thin metal rim unless I can determine pretty certainly it's installed wrong. Looking at reflection sizes is not definitive, the curves are too close......

It's not symmetrical. I had a 36 cm heliar where the center element was reversed. I could not get sharp focus wide open. Reversing the center element solved the problem. The difference was quite easy to see on the gg.

Cheers

Tim

[Tracy Storer]

Thanks Tim, I decided to try reversing mine......performance suffered, so I put it back the way it was.
T

It's not symmetrical. I had a 36 cm heliar where the center element was reversed. I could not get sharp focus wide open. Reversing the center element solved the problem. The difference was quite easy to see on the gg.

Cheers

Tim

[Bill_1856]

I don't know why the Heliar comes up whenever "soft-focus" is mentioned. In my experience, it ain't.

[Tracy Storer]

Well, there are Universal Heliars, which have the soft-focus adjustment. "Regular" Heliars, because they are fast, have shallow Dof wide open, and out-of-focus areas are rendered nicely.
But you're right, strictly speaking, NOT a soft focus lens.
My inquiries started when I discovered my 14" does not seem as sharp as my 11.75", but so far, that is subjectively based on GG view with a loupe.


I don't know why the Heliar comes up whenever "soft-focus" is mentioned. In my experience, it ain't.

[SergeiR]

I don't know why the Heliar comes up whenever "soft-focus" is mentioned. In my experience, it ain't.

it is not. They are pretty darn sharp when focused right. "smooth" but sharp.

[russyoung]

24 cm f/4.5 to f/36
D.R.P. 124954
Serial No. 132226
black in a marvelous Compound shutter, just mounts on a Canham board. Heavy!
As Serge notes above, smoooooth. Have never closed it more than two stops so cannot judge behavior when closed down further.

Russ

[Lightbender]

Heliars are just to dam expensive anymore. I would like to have one, but they are not even worth it to "keep an eye out" for category.

[c.d.ewen]

Heliars are just to dam expensive anymore. I would like to have one, but they are not even worth it to "keep an eye out" for category.

Born too late, I guess. Heck, I made money on that one I sold Bill up above.

Charley

[Scott Schroeder]

I found this thread and thought this might be of interest.
In the monthly magazine "The photo miniature" vol 5, October 1903, number 55
http://tinyurl.com/nfqyxb2
So perhaps that lot of s/n was set aside for New York and they started selling them January 1,1904

[Louis Pacilla]

I found this thread and thought this might be of interest.
In the monthly magazine "The photo miniature" vol 5, October 1903, number 55
http://tinyurl.com/nfqyxb2
So perhaps that lot of s/n was set aside for New York and they started selling them January 1,1904

Thanks for sharing.:)

I will say this very old and often mentioned information. Steven Tribes points this out when the subject is brought up.

[Jim Noel]

I'll be the first to discount any magic. The magic is behind the camera ~ in front of the lens. As somebody has well quoted, "it's the picture, stupid".

But for the pictures that we would choose a smoooooth-sharp lens for, a Heliar is awfully hard to beat. Even so, hold a gun to my head and tell me to choose between a Heliar, any vintage, and a Cooke Series II Portrellic, and it's the Cooke I'll keep.

Better / worse / more value / less value / I'll say, nope. The most valuable and scarce of the Heliar's seems to be the last ~ coated ones. I just like the early ones because I have the 'weird' gene.

I wish I had an early one. My 21cm, SN 3947984 is in a beautiful Compound shutter and is coated. I use it wide open mostly. It is sharp in the center and moves smoothly into the OOF areas, but I really wish I had a very early one because of their reported imaging qualities.

[Steven Tribe]

Thanks for sharing.:)

I will say this very old and often mentioned information. Steven Tribe points this out when the subject is brought up.

But I won't repeat myself, this time! The NY engraving differs from the Brunswick version as well!

[Ari]

Interesting discussion.
I, too, had heard of the Hirohito-Heliar connection as well, maybe it was in the wind.
My own Heliar, long since sold, was from 1905 (I can't find a photo of the serial number); it was a 12" lens, uncoated, which I managed to mount on a Technika board.
Maybe I was expecting something different, but the Heliar and I didn't get along. I'll always be thankful to the Heliar, though, as it did lead me down the path to a new Cooke that fit the bill perfectly.

[Scott Schroeder]

What was the problem Ari? I will have a 12" here tomorrow... I'll see how I like it.

[Ari]

What was the problem Ari? I will have a 12" here tomorrow... I'll see how I like it.

Hi Scott,
My copy didn't have the sharpness and contrast I was looking for. I may have had a lens whose central element needed reversing, as has been discussed here, and I may have used it under the wrong conditions sometimes (indirect sun), but I have to say, I wasn't fond of the look I got.
I know many here produce amazing images with Heliars, that's why I got one as well.
Had I been shooting wet plates back then, I might have kept it for that.
I'm sure you have nothing to worry about, and your lens will prove to be a workhorse.

[Scott Schroeder]

Got it yesterday....mounted it and on the GG it's soft and fuzzy everywhere....no sharpness.
Any reason someone would scratch off the S/N? It's patent number 716035
The individual cells all look fine. All the threading seems to be fine.
I noticed it's best to screen the center to the outer first, then screw that into the barrel, then the inner cell.
Otherwise the center doesn't thread all the way in.
I can't see how the center could be reversed. It doesn't seem like that one piece will come apart. If it did there aren't any threads to reverse it anyway.
Am I missing something here? I'd hate to send it back...

[Ari]

Got it yesterday....mounted it and on the GG it's soft and fuzzy everywhere....no sharpness.
Any reason someone would scratch off the S/N? It's patent number 716035
The individual cells all look fine. All the threading seems to be fine.
I noticed it's best to screen the center to the outer first, then screw that into the barrel, then the inner cell.
Otherwise the center doesn't thread all the way in.
I can't see how the center could be reversed. It doesn't seem like that one piece will come apart. If it did there aren't any threads to reverse it anyway.
Am I missing something here? I'd hate to send it back...

Oh, crap; I hope I didn't "voodoo" your lens purchase with what I said about my Heliar.
Keep us posted if you do manage to correct the problem; some of these are very old lenses, and not everything is guaranteed to be original.

[Tim Deming]

I can't see how the center could be reversed. It doesn't seem like that one piece will come apart. If it did there aren't any threads to reverse it anyway.
Am I missing something here? I'd hate to send it back...

If your center element is permanently mounted in a housing that screws into place , then it cannot be reversed. The "reversal problem" only happens when the center element is easily removed from the housing, such as someone might do during a cleaning, and then put back together the wrong way. That's what happened to me with a heliar in the past. The construction changed many time over the years, so nothing can be generalized about how these are correctly assembled.

Good luck

Tim

[Steven Tribe]

The only reason for removing the serial number is foul play, that is, theft at some time in the past.

[Scott Schroeder]

I'm starting to think the serial number might have been scratched because they are mixed elements from different lenses. I've tried a number of things to no avail.

[Scott Schroeder]

This is interesting http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=57086
Heliar front "sub-cell" - softness adjustment?

[Scott Schroeder]

Well I tried every variation I could think of distancing the cells. It's just not happening...I'm wondering if the aperture ring is in the wrong place. I wondering that because that piece is brass and the rest are aluminum. At least it looks brass. Would this of happened? Or do I for sure have mixed parts?
As mentioned it was the earlier patent number but the S/N is scratched off.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TpsX3L3dVz8/VVeKBp1w3eI/AAAAAAAABwc/qNIw99kzALg/w800-h450-no/20150516_131620%257E01.jpg

[Tracy Storer]

Looks correct to me. Under the black paint most folks don't notice the aperture ring is brass. Looks like your version has "rolled in" elements rather than threaded retainers. I have both types. Some are sharper than others, my 300 seems sharper than my 360 on the GG. (Sharper near the center)

[Scott Schroeder]

Thanks Tracey. Unfortunately, there is no "sharp" in the center... It's a nice soft focus, dreamy look but not what I'm after. So I'm regrettably going to send it back.

[Louis Pacilla]

Thanks Tracey. Unfortunately, there is no "sharp" in the center... It's a nice soft focus, dreamy look but not what I'm after. So I'm regrettably going to send it back.

Yea somethings wrong with that Heliar. I would send it back.My guess is it's not the inner element that's a miss but one of the outer elements as they can be easily damaged & could have been replaced at some point and that can muck up a great lens.

All three of my Heliars 300-360-480 have the same great Heliar look. My 300-360 are built in the same way as yours w/ built in hood and the inner element is rolled in.

[Scott Schroeder]

Thanks Louis. Yea it's going back..... I honestly don't care how roughed up the lens is. I just want it functional. Those pretty ones on eBay are just too pricey.

[Emil Schildt]

Thanks Louis. Yea it's going back..... I honestly don't care how roughed up the lens is. I just want it functional. Those pretty ones on eBay are just too pricey.

should I look for one for you? (300mm?)

[Ari]

Thanks Louis. Yea it's going back..... I honestly don't care how roughed up the lens is. I just want it functional. Those pretty ones on eBay are just too pricey.

Sorry to hear that, Scott; better luck with your next Heliar, which, hopefully, isn't far off.

[Scott Schroeder]

Well Emil that would be great if it wasn't too expensive. Yes, I've been looking for a 300mm f/4 of f/4.5 lens for awhile now. The Heliar was a perfect fit for some portraits I have in mind. I have a nice derogy 12" that I really dig but it's f/8. I need the speed for collodion plates.
The reason for this is I love shooting whole plate. I also love 50mm on a 35mm camera. A 300 is right about the equivalent.

[Steven Tribe]

PM sent!

[lucaas]

Replying this old thread because I saw a Voigtlander Heliar 150mm lens with sn. 601181 mounted in a dail set Compur shutter. The shutter's sn is 524690 which put it in 1922-1923. It appears the lens was factory mounted on the shutter.
173976173977
According to replies in this thread, the serial number between 55000-61000 (or 58000-65000) were for Voigtlander USA or reserved for prototypes. I don't think this one is a prototype lens. The engraving style on the lens is not like the lenses sold in the US either.
Any idea the manufacture date of this lens?

Thanks,
Xing

[Steven Tribe]

I think it is pretty well established (mostly by lots of other threads here with "impossible" early serial numbers with late Voigtlander series) that the missing serial numbers were allocated to Voigtlander USA and used by them in, at present, unknown way. The idea about use on prototypes has no evidence to support it - in fact, most industry prototypes do not have serial numbers or even "commercial standard" engravings.

I think most, if not all, USA "reserved serial number" lenses have USA clearly marked on them and all engraving work is done in a slightly simplied script.

Yours is definitely from Germany - it is 6xx,xxx rather than 6x,xxx!
The Heliar is from about 1931. Shutter could be original as the great German Depression meant camera equipment stocks were huge in the late 1920's.

[Steven Tribe]

I think it is pretty well established (mostly by lots of other threads here with "impossible" early serial numbers with late Voigtlander series) that the missing serial numbers were allocated to Voigtlander USA and used by them in, at present, unknown way. The idea about use on prototypes has no evidence to support it - in fact, most industry prototypes do not have serial numbers or even "commercial standard" engravings.

I think most, if not all, USA "reserved serial number" lenses have USA clearly marked on them and all engraving work is done in a slightly simplied script.

Yours is definitely from Germany. it is 6xx,xxx rather than 6x,xxx! It is from 1931 approximately. The shutter is earlier, but remember that the enormous recession in the late 20's may have meant that shutter stocks from earlier years may have been used in 1931.

[lucaas]

Thanks Steven. What a terrible mistake I made! I didn’t see the last digit.

[Steven Tribe]

You could fill out the last digit - some people have tampered with serial numbers.

I can this a fun mistake - hardly a serious one!

[Thib]

Guys, I found a Heliar exactly like the one in the first pictures except it has a S/N a few numbers off... so probably somewhere aorund 1898-1900!!!
I'm new with brass barrel lenses and unsure of its image quality and coverage... 8x10, 11x14, 12x16... more? :D
I'm debating keeping it to shoot with (missing lots of gear to do it now so would have to be eventually, after I get way more gear).

Has someone shot with it and has some test images?
How sharp/soft is the lens wide open / stopped down?
Do you guys have an idea of its value...?

[Steven Tribe]

I think Jim's was the 30cm focal length and Voigtlander wrote it up as being for the 16x21cm format in 1907. This is the original Heliar optical design - not the Dynar redesign. It is, however, identical to all the black enamel 30cm Heliars of the early years of the 20th C. - of which there are a lot!
Valuation is not something we do in public!

[Pere Casals]

Guys, I found a Heliar exactly like the one in the first pictures except it has a S/N a few numbers off... so probably somewhere aorund 1898-1900!!!
I'm new with brass barrel lenses and unsure of its image quality and coverage... 8x10, 11x14, 12x16... more? :D
I'm debating keeping it to shoot with (missing lots of gear to do it now so would have to be eventually, after I get way more gear).

Has someone shot with it and has some test images?
How sharp/soft is the lens wide open / stopped down?
Do you guys have an idea of its value...?

Heliar was patented in 1900, I guess the lens would not be sold before 1900. In 1902 another patent was filed with improvements:

"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."

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

Heliars are not about extreme sharpness, anyway you have lots of that in any LF negative, including heliars. Heliars are about supreme bokeh for supreme portraits, of course it can be used for other things. I would even prefer having the rare first version, a photographer can be very creative by exploiting those "optical flaws" for a unique look, or you may not like that. YMMV.

Over time... Voigtländer produced two "super heliars", one is the sharp APO Lanthar and the other one is the +1926 Universal Heliar that is the 1902 version with an special ring to displace the central element out of the optimal position: to produce adjustable amounts of spheric aberration, coma, etc... Amazingly the problem that the first version had :) :) :)


Perhaps Voigtländer and the market were yearning the 1900 Heliar look when they decided to "invent" that ring, just a guess...

[Jim Galli]

Fun to look back after 8 years. I eventually settled on the Cooke Knucklers as the "keepers" in this school of look. I still have a 42CM and a 36CM later version Heliar's from the 1920's in the usual all black barrels. Heliar's are famous for just the right amount of sharpness wide open at the focus point and then excellent bokeh in the out of focus areas. That's also what Petzval's are famous for but the two have very different looks. Your 36CM Heliar will cover 8X10 and no more. They only cover about 50 degrees or a bit less, from memory. Less than a Tessar for sure.

[Thib]

Hey thanks Steven and Pere.
Still would love to get a link pertaining the specific version that I have, or a clear statement like "this version is equivalent to that version".

As for dates of manufacturing I'm basing it on the tables on the page that Pere share.
197403
As you can see S/N is 58499, which according to the table is 1899/1900. That said I don't know enough to estimate if this is not accurate... :D

[Jody_S]

I have just come into possession of a 1933-34 sunken-mount 16.5cm f3.5 Heliar (from the local flea market!), thanks to the link (https://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html)in this thread I now know it's a re-work of the Dynar, designed in 1925. Does anyone know how common the f3.5s are? They appear to have been used on 2 or 3 German Press cameras, and 1 Japanese.

And given that I have (and use) a Dallmeyer Pentac 8" sunken-mount from slightly earlier, is there much point in me keeping this lens?

[roetronxoay]

@Jody, I have a 30cm f3.5 Heliar and like it after some test shoot. I find it to have pretty similar rendering to Pentac lenses but with slightly better contrast. If you decide to not keep it, I'd be happy to trade you something or buy it outright for my 3x4 graflex :D

[Tim Deming]

The larger 3.5 heliars tend to go for much more money than the 4.5 versions. All 3.5s 15cm and up are not as common as 4.5s and highly desired

[Jody_S]

The larger 3.5 heliars tend to go for much more money than the 4.5 versions. All 3.5s 15cm and up are not as common as 4.5s and highly desired

I know. I'm torn on selling it. It's one of these once-in-a-lifetime deals, I know I'll never be able to buy another one if I sell this one. Except I don't really see myself using it, if I keep it then I just have another shelf queen sitting there hoping to be picked one day. It does fit on my Anniversary Speed, whereas my 8" Pentac does not. So I could make a proper portrait camera out of it if I choose. Except I never shoot portraits.

[Bernice Loui]

All Heilars were common back in the day, low cost specially in barrel of all focal lengths. It was easy and common to find long focal length Heilars often used for 8x10 in barrel for $50 or so. Tried and used lots of them back in the day, passed many of them on for a variety of reasons.

The f3.5 Heilars were less common. Some were coated by Burke & James lens bank like this f3.5, 215mm in barrel. This is the only Heilar in the lens set today. It produces a nice out of focus rendition. Seems to be at it's best from f5.6 to f11 as the smallest working aperture. It is used with a Sinar shutter.

214744


Honestly, do not care what this f3.5 Heilar is worth as the images it produces is it's real value.

Bernice