Jump to content

Concerning the Voigtlander 75mm f/1.8 Heliar Classic....


adan

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...technically, I suppose, this belongs in the M lenses forum, except that, having tried one of these in the last few weeks, and researching it, I noticed its optical design is almost a dead-ringer for the Leitz 73mm f/1.9 Hektor. Certainly a "Hektor" layout of 3 doublets, and the specs list the true focal length as 73.5mm. Thus perhaps of interest to, and suitable for comment by, the Historica mavens. I'd be interested in any thoughts on the Heliar's imaging, as compared to the original Hektor.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

The Heliar Classic is quite contrasty compared to Hektor shots I see online, but I'm not sure whether those are "typical," or have enhanced dreaminess. With only 4 internal glass/air surfaces to cause flare, and modern coatings, it's not surprising the Heliar is very snappy in contrast, if still "Classic" in resolution (requires f/8 to get the corners even reasonably sharp).

 

 

The Heliar Classic images have echoes of the Mandler 1980 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron, but it really reminds me of nothing so much as my old Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8 on the Nikon F. A lens that was not especially sharp wide-open (although par for the course for a photojournalist's lens in the 1970s, and professionally adequate). But had a wonderful tonal definition of planes and surfaces and eye highlights - a "charcoal sketchiness" that gave shape to things even when the fine details were a little rough.

 

Shooting a jam session in the gallery last month, I felt suddenly transported back to 1977 and shooting college shows. ;)

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice find Andy.

 

You touch my curiosity with this Heliar Classic 73/75mm ;).

 

A kind of Summaron-M 5.6/28 recently released with same optical specifications as older Screw mount Summaron 2.8cm.

 

I always want a Hektor 73mm, never have one, so I'll give the Heliar Classic a try.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that Nikon lens but never used it much. The 43-86 was favored. Had flaws but produced pleasing enough images

 

It was a horrible lens! When I was a newspaper staff photographer i was so disgusted by the lens that I left it on our conference table with a sign, "Steal this lens" and the next day there were two of them!

Edited by pico
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica M 262, Voigtlander 75mm f/1.8 Heliar Classic, ISO 400, f/4, 1/180 sec.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a horrible lens! When I was a newspaper staff photographer i was so disgusted by the lens that I left it on our conference table with a sign, "Steal this lens" and the next day there were two of them!

 

It barrels at one end and pincushions at the other - SO badly that this can be very clearly seen in an enprint (6"x4"). But it was a relatively cheap, early zoom which made its use inevitable. Today, prices, even for pristine examples, remain quite low .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It was a horrible lens! When I was a newspaper staff photographer i was so disgusted by the lens that I left it on our conference table with a sign, "Steal this lens" and the next day there were two of them!

The 'competition' was the Voigtlander Zoomar, my boss in the early 60s had one on a Bessamamatic. Laughably bad. It took me about 25 years to consider a zoom lens could be any use except as a paperweight.

Getting back to the topic, approximately, the Voigtlander 75/2.5 is good too.

 

Gerry

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the later versions of the 43-86 Nikkor are really quite OK.

 

It was a horrible lens! When I was a newspaper staff photographer i was so disgusted by the lens that I left it on our conference table with a sign, "Steal this lens" and the next day there were two of them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We weren't thinking of collecting any photo stuff then. If you were like me, I could only afford 1 camera and that was enough. I had a new minolta srt101 with a 58mm 1.4 from 47th st camera in NYC, all the ads in the back of the camera mags. It was stolen and i went with a used nikkormat with the 5cm f2 and the 43-86 as a 2nd lens. We didn't really know what we were doing. Color developed at FedMart and nobody developed B&W so we proxessed at home and borrowed a friend's enlarger for 8x10s. A different time. Waterbeds, stereo sitting on crates, lava lamps.

 

Thanks for reminding me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

... The Heliar Classic is quite contrasty compared to Hektor shots I see online, but I'm not sure whether those are "typical," or have enhanced dreaminess. ...

The 73 Hektor is prone to haze as it ages and which might account for the lower contrast images you've seen online, Andy.  I've had four of them so far but I've had to release each one back into the wild owing to excessive haze.  I'm still looking for one without haze because a colleague had one without haze and the pictures I took with it really appealed to me.

 

I have the Voigtlander 75/2.5 Heliar and I would agree that it's an excellent lens for its price and punches well above its weight.

 

Pete.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 73 Hektor is prone to haze as it ages and which might account for the lower contrast images you've seen online, Andy.  I've had four of them so far but I've had to release each one back into the wild owing to excessive haze.  I'm still looking for one without haze because a colleague had one without haze and the pictures I took with it really appealed to me.

 

I have the Voigtlander 75/2.5 Heliar and I would agree that it's an excellent lens for its price and punches well above its weight.

 

Pete.

 

My 7.3cm Hektor has a small bit of haze, but I must admit that it is largely a collector's item which is cosmetically in near to mint condition and rarely gets taken into the wild. I find that a little bit of haze can add 'character' to older lenses. I have a rigid 5cm Summar which displays the same characteristics to great effect. I am not sure that most of today's pixel peeping digi-photographers, who are in pursuit of 'perfect pictures', will agree. The two concepts pull in opposite directions. My most pleasing photos of last year were those that I managed to wrestle out of a 1915 Vest Pocket Kodak (VPK) in the World War 1 Memorial Gardens in Dublin. Optically, they were not the type of thing that would win praise on this forum, but for me they had character in spades.

 

William

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I completely agree, William, and I too am quite happy with a little bit of haze and character rather than a clinical representation.  One of my favourite lenses is a 1947 Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2 Sonnar that has both haze and character to my taste; unfortunately the 73 Hektors I owned just had too much haze,which I understand is not uncommon, so many of the pictures appeared as though they were produced to show high-key rendering when they were not.

 

Pete.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...