Heliar vs. Tessar

Can someone tell my about the performance differences between Tessar and Heliar lens designs?
I have a 150mm in both types but as I didn't use the Heliar a lot (recent buy), I don't have any reference shots, if there might be any noticeable difference.

I learned that the Heliar lens design counts 5 elements whereas the Tessar design only counts 4.
So far my theoretical knowledge about lenses ;-)

Tnx,
G

Well, the Tessar is an Anastigmat here one of the groups had aquired an airspace, and the Heliar is a triplet where the outer elements are split into two cemented elements...

And that was the simple answer.

Added to that, the Heliar was designed with some residual spherical aberration, which serves to smooth out the transition from sharp in-focus to the blurry out-of-focus areas. Or at least that's what Voigtländer said in the 1930's.

Incidentally, the Heliar you have is most likely to be a Dynar: Same thing, only the two elements in the outer groups have swapped places. Voigtländer liked the Dynar lens best, but preferred the Heliar name.

The Heliar seems to have a little more image circle, at least from my test of lots of 135-150mm lenses on 5x7" film.

I like my Heliars, but not enough to take them off the Bergheils they came on (6.5x9 w/120mm Heliar, 9x12 w/150mm Heliar).

Many people don't really like the bokeh on the tessar. Heliar is supposed to have good bokeh. If you do searches you can find plenty of arguments on this subject.

I agree with Ole, the Heliar has more coverage - I also have used a 150mm Heliar on a 5x7 camera.

Stopped down to f 11 or so, I see no difference between a 152mm Ektar (a Tessar I believe) and a 150mm Heliar.

Their performance is the same. The Tessar bokeh is lovely, as is the Heliar. The Heliar has a splendid reputation, puffed up by unbelievable legends and astronomical prices. So be it.

The newest Heliar I own, a very late 210 in Compur, would as soon cut you as look at you... just like the late model Tessars. Uncoated Heliars are a joy to use: they take the edge off harsh light... Same as Tessars, Cookes, Dogmars, and so on.

Lore and Legend are very powerful. Both Artists and Scientists understand we tend to get the results we are looking for. Believe in the magic, you'll make magic.

Very well said.

Quick note: My 21cm Heliar doesn't have the coverage of my modern 210 Xenar at wide apertures. By f/16 or f/22 coverage becomes somewhat similar.

Good work can be done with either lens. Bad work is not bounded by lens choice.

df cardwell said:

Lore and Legend are very powerful. Both Artists and Scientists understand we tend to get the results we are looking for. Believe in the magic, you'll make magic.

Click to expand...

Larry H-L said:

I agree with Ole, the Heliar has more coverage - I also have used a 150mm Heliar on a 5x7 camera.

Stopped down to f 11 or so, I see no difference between a 152mm Ektar (a Tessar I believe) and a 150mm Heliar.

Click to expand...

I have both, but haven't had the time to test them against eachother. Since my rangefinder is calibrated for the Ektar, I'll probably end up keeping that one.

Matt

Ahh,...gee whiz. I feel like a young pup straining to get off of his leash, so he can start romping with his favourite bud's at the park!

I just took delivery of a sweet 300mm Heliar f4.5 from Reverend Jim, and I'm chomping at the bit to have a look-see with it. I'll be heading over soon to my cam. tech. to have the lens board opened-up for the Compound V.