Voigtlander Heliar lens the ones from the late 1800-1900

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I take landscapes, night scapes of cities/bldgs, some portraits, some close-up work, flowers, gadgets, etc Eventually will try old school astrophotography

I am looking at buying one or two of these for my 4x5 (and 8x10 if I start liking portraits and such). From the research I have done, reading on the patents, visiting the Kenneth Lee Gallery website and some others, the images for portraits and other objects appear to be really good. (I am not sure how well it would work for landscapes though) Anyway, from what I can tell unless I am missing something, there is a diaphragm which I really like is it is practically round at any aperture, but not "shutter" so, if I am seeing this correctly, one would have to determine the length of exposure for given aperture, then manually expose the film by using a lens cap or dark cloth to uncover lens for required amount of time then cover back up.

If I wanted to convert one of these lenses to use an actual shutter to "automate" the exposure portion, what are my options? One of the reasons I want to use this lens and similar types is the absolutely round diaphragm of these lenses. I wish the more modern ones that I use for landscapes had round diaphragms. I wonder if it is possible to convert a modern lens to accept a diaphragm that provides for round apertures.

Aside from the old Voigtlander Heliar designs, #3A and up, what are other lenses of this era that are comparable or better? The scientific lens company, Bausch and Laumb, Wallensack are some I have run across that for the most part have decent reviews and round diaphragms.

I saw one guys website where he was selling lenses for like 30K for old school ones and his photos for like 100K plus, so unless those lenses are made of pure gold, etc, I don't think I will be buying those lenses anytime soon, they cost as much as the 2.7 acres of land I am looking at!

Thanks for any help

[Alan Gales]

I think the best shutter is the Sinar shutter. It works on the Sinar Norma, F series and P series cameras. Also some modify their cameras to take the Sinar shutter. If you buy a Sinar shutter just make sure you get the Sinar cable release with it. These are hard to find and are expensive on their own.

Some use Speed Graphic cameras for their focal plane shutters. These are very popular with the Aero Ektar lenses which don't have a shutter.

There are also the old Packard pneumatic shutters that were used on old wooden 8x10 cameras. They fit behind the front standard like the Sinar shutter. I believe some have fitted these shutters to the front of lenses also.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I think the best shutter is the Sinar shutter. It works on the Sinar Norma, F series and P series cameras. Also some modify their cameras to take the Sinar shutter. If you buy a Sinar shutter just make sure you get the Sinar cable release with it. These are hard to find and are expensive on their own.

Some use Speed Graphic cameras for their focal plane shutters. These are very popular with the Aero Ektar lenses which don't have a shutter.

There are also the old Packard pneumatic shutters that were used on old wooden 8x10 cameras. They fit behind the front standard like the Sinar shutter. I believe some have fitted these shutters to the front of lenses also.

Thanks for the input

[Dan Fromm]

If you haven't read Arne Croell's account of Voigtlaender lenses, do. Now. http://www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf

You've described the apertures of Compound and older Compur shutters. They're as round as can be.

If you want to use a Heliar type with a Waterhouse stop that has a perfectly round aperture, look into Voigtlaender's own Apo-Skopars (Heliar types, name notwithstanding) and Boyer's Apo-Saphir process lenses. But since the Heliar look derives from aberrations that aren't fully corrected near wide open, these f/9 process lenses may not give you what you think you want. If you look into Apo-Skopars, beware of separated lenses. The cement that Voigtlaender used when they were making these lenses has aged very poorly.

If you have the money, skgrimes will be happy to put your Heliar cells (extracted from a shutter) in a barrel with a slot for Waterhouse stops. They'll put the slot in the right position and make the stops too. To get timed exposures, you'll have to hang the lens in barrel -- this goes for the process lenses too, although some were sold in shutter -- in front of a shutter or hang a shutter in front of the lens. There's not much to it, skigrimes will be happy to help, for a price, or you can get a camera that can use a Sinar behind-the-lens shutter or a Packard shutter.

Oh, and by the way, here http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/...tlander_2.html is a 1964 catalog that lists new production coated Heliars in Compounds. There's really no reason except stupid pretentiousness to want older ones.

[Two23]

There's really no reason except stupid pretentiousness to want older ones.

Well, hold on there. My favorite 20th C lens is my c.1922 150mm Heliar, in Compur. Love this lens! Am I "pretentious"? No. Am I "stupid"? Debatable. I do like uncoated lenses in general because they have a lower contrast that I like. I've enjoyed collecting and using LF lenses made from 1905 to ~1930. This seems to have been a golden age for not only lenses but also shutters. I love them! For me, they are a connection to the past and the photographers that photo'd the world as it was during their time. I think it's just cool that I can attach something to my camera that was made over 90 years ago and still make photos with it! So no, I'm not stupidly pretentious. Maybe I'm just stupidly romantic.


Kent in SD

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Well, I known I can be silly stupid. I like the shutters all round and such. Star points annoy me, for one, especially when people debate their quality. I also like the boceh round diaphragms give too. Plus I like the look of photos with them. And yes, I agree about the connection to the past. One of the reasons I got into LF and went back to film. Digital is sterile to me.

What interests me is how they controlled exposure so well without modern type shutters and such.

For landscapes I am often having exposures of seconds to minutes. People are a bit different, but somehow they did it well back in the last couple centuries or longer ago.

[plaubel]

What interests me is how they controlled exposure so well without modern type shutters and such.

They did understand the light, an often missing point of today.
And they have been tricky in developing negatives with more than two baths and different chemicals.

Bokeh is more a matter of lens construction tha a matter of diaphragm construction.

[Pere Casals]

They did understand the light, an often missing point of today.

+100

Bokeh is more a matter of lens construction tha a matter of diaphragm construction.

Just adding that most of bokeh nature depends on how spherical aberration is corrected in out of focus areas. Optical design targets perfect spherical aberration correction for the in focus area, but out of focus areas can result over or under corrected in the front or in the back of the focus plane.

Also we can mention Circular (or Swirl) Bokeh, this hapens when lens entrance or exit pupil is trimming the discs generated by aperture.

[Pere Casals]

Well, I known I can be silly stupid. I like the shutters all round and such. Star points annoy me, for one, especially when people debate their quality. I also like the boceh round diaphragms give too. Plus I like the look of photos with them. And yes, I agree about the connection to the past. One of the reasons I got into LF and went back to film. Digital is sterile to me.

What interests me is how they controlled exposure so well without modern type shutters and such.

For landscapes I am often having exposures of seconds to minutes. People are a bit different, but somehow they did it well back in the last couple centuries or longer ago.

Hello Steven,


I'm an admirer of Heliar imaging subtleties, let me tell you what I learned until now.

Beyond excellent link provided by Mr Fromm perhaps you know this: http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

My most desired glass is Universal Heliar 36 (for 8x10) , as you may see this glass was born in 1926 and it takes the 1902 design, but adding a difusion ring to adjust softness, this ring displaces the inner element out of its "ideal" position in order to add an adjustable amount of spherical aberration.

The term "Universal" comes from the 1926 aesthetical canon, this lens can be a general sharp taking lens, or an adjustable soft lens, so a Pro of the era had two lenses in one. The "kind of softness" it delivers it is particularly pleasing (to me), this comes from the "shape of the difusion", here in this shot (zooming in) you can see that some light from distant bright points is directed to the center of the image, this tells about the "nature" of the difusion, in the same way that there are different kinds of Bokeh, here difusion is set at 2.5:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/558734...CFXgHM-mPf6rW/


Beyond difusion, of course the Heliar Bokeh nature is also impressive, IMHO japanese photographers are the most proficient to evaluate that, japanese imaging subculture about Bokeh is very strong, they are able speak hours long about bokeh subtleties of a glass. And it is not by chance that Heliars were highly regarded in Japan.


Shutter:

In the far past, with low speed emulsions of the era, shutters were not "mandatory" at all, still old camera (bulb...) shutters for barrels could be used.

As Told by Mr Gales the straight way is a Sinar shutter, but the 36cm it also can be DIY mounted in a Compound #5, I don't know if the #5 limits a bit max aperture.



Another DIY way I consider is to take a Graflex Speed Graphic shutter and to mount it in the rear of the front standard.

Regards

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Hello Steven,


I'm an admirer of Heliar imaging subtleties, let me tell you what I learned until now.

Beyond excellent link provided by Mr Fromm perhaps you know this: http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html

My most desired glass is Universal Heliar 36 (for 8x10) , as you may see this glass was born in 1926 and it takes the 1902 design, but adding a difusion ring to adjust softness, this ring displaces the inner element out of its "ideal" position in order to add an adjustable amount of spherical aberration.

The term "Universal" comes from the 1926 aesthetical canon, this lens can be a general sharp taking lens, or an adjustable soft lens, so a Pro of the era had two lenses in one. The "kind of softness" it delivers it is particularly pleasing (to me), this comes from the "shape of the difusion", here in this shot (zooming in) you can see that some light from distant bright points is directed to the center of the image, this tells about the "nature" of the difusion, in the same way that there are different kinds of Bokeh, here difusion is set at 2.5:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/558734...CFXgHM-mPf6rW/


Beyond difusion, of course the Heliar Bokeh nature is also impressive, IMHO japanese photographers are the most proficient to evaluate that, japanese imaging subculture about Bokeh is very strong, they are able speak hours long about bokeh subtleties of a glass. And it is not by chance that Heliars were highly regarded in Japan.


Shutter:

In the far past, with low speed emulsions of the era, shutters were not "mandatory" at all, still old camera (bulb...) shutters for barrels could be used.

As Told by Mr Gales the straight way is a Sinar shutter, but the 36cm it also can be DIY mounted in a Compound #5, I don't know if the #5 limits a bit max aperture.



Another DIY way I consider is to take a Graflex Speed Graphic shutter and to mount it in the rear of the front standard.

Regards

Picture is awesome