Heliars

[Jan_6568]

I have a bunch of quections on Heliars, just to clarify my knowledge. I herad that Heliar changed it's design during production. Is that really the case? If so, what were the changes and how does it affect the "look" of the lenses? How to recognize the versions? What is the difference between Heliar and Lanthar apart of glass type? Finally do the old Heliars have anything to do with modern Heliars (including ultra wide 12 mm one) for 35 mm rangefinders?
I hope some of you can clarify that to me.

regards,

Jan

[Ole Tjugen]

Everything you have heard is true

In the beginning there were three related designs: Heliar with the negative element on the outside of the cemented groups, Dynar with the positive element on the outside, and Oxyn with one of each. Then they found that the Dynar design gave better corrections, and started selling those under the Heliar name. So they preferred the Dynar arrangement, but the Heliar name. However the Universal Heliar, the adjustable soft-focus portrait lens, stayed a true Heliar.

The "look" of any old Heliar, regardless of the design, is the same: The one thing they would not change is the "smooth transition from sharp to unsharp areas", which was a major selling point.

The way to tell the difference is to examine the weak reflection from the cemented pair: When tilting the lens the weak reflection in a "true Heliar" will move the same way as the reflection from the front on the cell; in a Dynar it will move the opposite way.

The Apo-Lanthar is basically a Dynar-type lens, and has much the same smoothness.

The modern "Heliars" have only the name in common with either of the two "classic" Heliars.

I happen to own two old Heliars (120 and 150mm), a Dynar (180mm) and an Apo-Lanthar (150mm). They are all "Dynars".

I also have a 21mm Color-Heliar for 35mm, and it's definitely neither.

[resummerfield]

Very interesting, Ole! Do you have a serial number or date reference for these changes? Is there any other way to differentiate, such as engraving style, or barrel finish?

[Ole Tjugen]

It seems that the Dynar-type Heliars were introduced when normal production resumed after WWI - at least the Vade Mecum and Kingslake agree on that.

So a serial number of around 145,000 should be approximately there? At least my Dynar-marked Dynar fits in that - the serial number is 104xxx which makes it around 1909.

[Jan_6568]

Ole,
thank you very much for clarification, very interesting. I do have two Heliars, both pre-WWII but almost for sure not pre-WWI. One is 150 mm which I got with Bergheil camera on German e-bay. The other one is 210 mm but it is marked in inches. Lovely lens. I will check the serial numbers to figure out what in fact I do have.

regards,

Jan

[Tim Deming]

It seems that the Dynar-type Heliars were introduced when normal production resumed after WWI - at least the Vade Mecum and Kingslake agree on that.

So a serial number of around 145,000 should be approximately there? At least my Dynar-marked Dynar fits in that - the serial number is 104xxx which makes it around 1909.

I've noticed some irregularities in the early heliars -especially with respect to the focal length of the lens.

My smaller heliars (15cm, #187xxx, and 18cm, #112xxx) are both new "dynar types", however my larger heliars (36 cm, #182xxx, and 19" #62xxx) are both old type heliars. You can see that the old style heliars were made at least until 1922 (#182xxx) in the 36 cm focal length, but the dynar type heliars were made in smaller focal lengths such as 18 cm starting much earlier (1912, #112xxx). I'm sure the post WWII heliars are all Dynar-type, but I wonder how long the "old type" heliars were made in the large focal lengths? can anyone else chime in with other examples?

To tell the difference between heliars and dynars, I just look at the major reflections from a light source. I always see 5 reflections. 2 upside down in front and 3 right side up in back for an "old type" heliar; and 3 upside down in front and 2 right side up in back for a dynar type.

By the way, I have a few Dynars as well, and they go back pretty early (e.g. 12" f6, #62xxx, 1900), although many of these are "New York" lenses (most of the dynars seemed to have gone to the US for some reason) and so the serial numbers for these may not be very meaningful as they all seem to fall in the range of 59000 to 63000. My latest dynar is a 24cm, f5.5 version #229xxx, which dates to approx. 1925.

Tim

[Ole Tjugen]

My #1866xx 24cm Heliar is a Dynar-type. So that's one more "point on the graph".

And on the subject of Heliars: There's a "persistent myth" that the coverage of Heliars is much less than that of e.g. a Tessar of the same focal length. This is true - as long as we're talking of Heliar Heliars. The "Dynar-Heliars" have significantly better coverage than a Tessar of the same focal length.

[Jim Galli]

Here are diagrams from a 1960's catalog. Looks to me as though the APO Skopar is the poor man's Lanthar. And I would confirm that in use. I really love my 450mm APO Skopar. Astoundingly sharp and smooth. I have the 305 and the 600 also.

[Tim Deming]

I agree about the apo-skopar. I use both the 450 (in compound 4) and the 600 (in barrel) on my 8x10 --great lenses!

[Ole Tjugen]

Jim, that Heliar in the illustration is the Heliar type. The Dynar-type is very similar to the two others - positive elements on the outside. Voigtländer seems to have thought it was a good idea to present the diagram for the Universal-Heliar, and pretend that that was valid for all Heliars. It wasn't - the Universals are Heliar, the heliars Dynar.

Hmmm - no wonder they found it confusing!