A week-end with the Heliar 50mm f/3.5 (a review)

[philosomatographer]

Can you explain how it's clearly deficient? I agree with the photographer that it lacks shadow detail which may well be a processing problem. On the other hand it handles contrast well at what appears to be a wide aperture in uncompromising lighting conditions, especially skin tone. It certainly doesn't look like a cheap lens image.

<snip>
...but I believe the eye is seduced by various issues that it takes for sharpness.

As case in point many years ago I proof printed a shot taken on a 50mm Zuiko lens with 50 ASA film on Agfa Portriga at 5 x 4". A photography tutor disbelieved me that it wasn't a large format contact or at least a medium format image because at that enlargement it was to all intents grain free

<snip>

Apologies for banging on but I do believe quality prime lenses of similar focal length are quite hard to tell apart and almost impossible over the internet.

I agree, image quality is conveyed through multiple effects, it's not all just resolution. However, If I view the larger size image on Flickr for your posted example, it already looks a bit "mushy", which (from inspection) apears to be a combination of lower contrast (which had to be added back in in post-processing), poor resolution (in-focus areas should appear pixel-sharp in this small image, which it does not), flare (at high-contrast edges), and perhaps poor focus.

Look, let's drop this. You keep on re-stating things I said in my original review (such as the futility of performing image quality comparison with small online JPEG images).

A 4x5in print is so tiny, that if well done, it can look like a contact print even from a so-so lens, even on ISO 400 film, if processed correctly. It doesn't exactly prove much! Still, you don't need to convince me on anything Zuiko, it's my primary system. When using top-notch lenses, and a really high-resolution film like the defunct Kodak Tech Pan, or Adox CMS (ISO 20), it becomes difficult to believe that certain large prints were made from a 35mm negative.

The best 12x16in print I ever made from a 35mm negative (from a resolution / tonality aspect) was made with a Zuiko 250mm f/2.0 shot wide open - this image:

Dead Link Removed

On the print, every bit of detail in the tyre on the bottom-left is crisply resolved, it looks a bit like my medium format prints (but not quite - no 35mm can).

From what I'm seeing though, the Heliar 50mm f/3.5 likely out-resolves, out-contrasts, out-everythings even this king-of-the-zuikos, which is no mean feat. For a tiny, 5-element lens that takes 27mm filters, that's quite something

For the analogue B&W phtographer travelling light, and photographing in good light, the Heliar is a cut above pretty much anything else. And collapsed on a Leica M3, it's certainly more than pocketable (though it looks so darned good, you rather want to flaunt it like jewelery!).

 

[blockend]

Can't argue with that but I keep to the view that if a 35mm photographer is chasing the same criteria as a medium format user, especially with static/tripod/landscape imagery, he's barking up the wrong negative. The difference between quality brands (especially at the 50mm focal length) is insignificant compared to the overall miniature camera aesthetic of visible grain, higher contrast, 3 x 2 ratio, etc. That is what the viewer will see.
On your boat picture the right hand side of the picture, the out of focus area, is mushy. It's not an aesthetic criticism of your photography or your processing technique, it's simply what happens when a 35mm negative encounters a textured, unfocussed area. It wouldn't do that in 120 and in 5 x 4 the 'creaminess' would be quite pleasing. The viewer accommodates the general look of a 35mm negative and in the camera's usual terrain of hand-held street photography those characteristics have become the aesthetic.
I'm only pressing the point as a response to 35 years of magazine reviews that have attempted to distinguish the practically indistinguishable for commercial reasons, which leads to a camera culture as opposed to a photographic one. Like I said, I'm sure the Heliar is a nice lens.

 

[philosomatographer]

On your boat picture the right hand side of the picture, the out of focus area, is mushy. It's not an aesthetic criticism of your photography or your processing technique, it's simply what happens when a 35mm negative encounters a textured, unfocussed area. It wouldn't do that in 120 and in 5 x 4 the 'creaminess' would be quite pleasing. The viewer accommodates the general look of a 35mm negative and in the camera's usual terrain of hand-held street photography those characteristics have become the aesthetic.

Indeed. I much prefer photographing landscapes with larger film sizes, yes - my current favourite being Ilford Line film (ISO6) on 4x5in. They aesthetic is totally different yes.

Of course since you refer to my boat picture, the whole point of this was to make this shot unusual through the impossibly-shallow DOF which only a lens with a 125mm-diameter entry pupil can produce. And, of course, the fact that it was made from the other side of the lake - with a large format camera, I would have had to stand in the middle of the lake.

Horses for courses

 

[paulfish4570]

Nice article.
I especially like the waiting-for-transportation shot because of the black velvet.

 

[Brian Legge]

I'm certainly not going to argue that the Jupiter 8 I used in the photo referenced earlier this thread would hold up. At the same time, my shot was taken at f/2, hand held at 1/5th or so. It isn't a great reference image for sharpness. As a sonnar lens, it shouldn't be in the same ballpark when it comes to corner sharpness as your lens. Certainly a great lens and an incredible bargain.

I am flattered that my photo was referenced in comparison though.

Oddly enough, I almost picked up a 101st kit last week. I came across a very nice one for $600 - thought about selling the body and keeping the lens and finder. Just couldn't justify it though as I picked up a very nice Elmar f3.5 a week earlier.

 

[philosomatographer]

Well, some time on, I continue to be impressed by the subtle character of the Heliar 50mm f/3.5. I decided to try some Adox CHS Art 100 film with this combination, combining old-school film with the old-school look (but ultra-high performance) of the Heliar. As long as the light is not too low, f/3.5 at ISO100 is fine for most purposes worth photographing. I focused here on spontaneous snapshots of people and places around me - something I have come to believe the M3 / Heliar combination does very well. I leave finer compositions to other cameras (preferably something with a big ground glass to view through ). I don't know any of these people, just moments that attracted my attention.

Contessa (Interiour)

Breakfast for one

Taking a grandmother for tea