Anyone have info on a Voigtlander Heliar 150mm f/4.5?

[crumpet8]

Im going to pick up a camera tomorrow and it comes with this lens apparently. Not much info on the net when I googled it. Apparently its image circle is pretty small when it comes to 4x5 and thats about all I know so far...

 

[shutterfinger]

A Lens Collectors Vade Mecum has the Heliar available around 1900-1902 onward.
Coverage is 50°. Suggested for use on reflex cameras and press cameras. In the studio they were esteemed as portrait lens.
150mm covers 4.75x3.5 inch. I may be able to date it by its serial number.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Heliars were produced from 1901 until at least the mid-'60s. As Charles pointed out, some think they have less coverage than the equivalent tessar type. They certainly have much less coverage than modern plasmat types for LF cameras. Arne Croell (see www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf) reports that post-WW II Heliars, except the 300, cover ~ 58 degrees. A modern 150 would, then cover ~166 mm. When your lens was made will make a difference.

Heliar enthusiasts rave about their sharpness and pleasing transition from in-focus areas to out-of-focus areas.

I've never owned a real Heliar. Kodak made some Heliar types. I have one, a legendary 105/3.7 Ektar. It was the premium original issue normal lens for 2x3 Graphics. In my tests it doesn't cover 2x3 and it isn't particularly sharp. Still and all it has its fans.

Voigtlaender made a heliar type process lens after WW-II, sold it as Apo-Skopar. I have a couple of them, all with bad separations. This is a problem with Voigtlaender and Rodenstock lenses from the mid-'50s to at least the late '60s. Boyer made Apo-Skopar clones and I have a heap of them. Narrow angle process lenses, quite good.

 

[crumpet8]

Heliars were produced from 1901 until at least the mid-'60s. As Charles pointed out, some think they have less coverage than the equivalent tessar type. They certainly have much less coverage than modern plasmat types for LF cameras. Arne Croell (see www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf) reports that post-WW II Heliars, except the 300, cover ~ 58 degrees. A modern 150 would, then cover ~166 mm. When your lens was made will make a difference.

Heliar enthusiasts rave about their sharpness and pleasing transition from in-focus areas to out-of-focus areas.

I've never owned a real Heliar. Kodak made some Heliar types. I have one, a legendary 105/3.7 Ektar. It was the premium original issue normal lens for 2x3 Graphics. In my tests it doesn't cover 2x3 and it isn't particularly sharp. Still and all it has its fans.

Voigtlaender made a heliar type process lens after WW-II, sold it as Apo-Skopar. I have a couple of them, all with bad separations. This is a problem with Voigtlaender and Rodenstock lenses from the mid-'50s to at least the late '60s. Boyer made Apo-Skopar clones and I have a heap of them. Narrow angle process lenses, quite good.

Looks like the 150mm heliar covers roughly 3.5x 5.5inches if its one of those lenses from the arnecroell site? How does this effect use on a 4x5?

 

[Ian Grant]

The problem is older literature for German lenses gives the coverage for Metric "Continental European" plate/film sizes and even the English language 1964 catalogue gives the Metric equivalent sizes,

The 1964 catalogue lists the 135mm f4.5 Heliar as covering 3½x5½" (9x14) according to Voigtlander themselves and that's with some room for movements, most lenses that cover 9x12 are fine with 5x4. The 150mm has a larger image circle than the 135mm so covers much better with 5x4, also the image circle needed for 3½x5½" (9x14mm) is a touch larger than needed for 5x4.

Schneider are another company that for years only listed metric formats in their catalogues, so that causes confusion.

Ian

 

[darinwc]

Heliar lenses are 5 element 3 group lenses.
They were sold as a premium lens at the time.
But I have not seen a compelling reason to use them over a tessar for bokeh or double-gauss types for coverage.
I have a 165mm f4.5 and a Bessa ii with 105mm f3.5.
Some people really like heliars. You should try yours and see what you think.

There is a ton of info about them online.

 

[jimgalli]

Check prices on e-bay and you will see that they are still highly thought of today. They are fine old school lenses that are capable of making very pleasing images of very pleasing subjects and ugly boring images of ugly boring subjects. It will cover the 4X5 like a press lens. Check out Goldfarb's avatar. He seems to like them. Me, I get more excited over a Cooke.