Now That Is Sharp

phaedrus · May 15, 2009

One for the gearheads:
I compared a Cosina Voigtländer Heliar f/3.5 50 mm to a Leitz Elmar f/3.5 5cm on my Leica IIIf. Some of you might be interested how that came out.
A hint: I didn't much care for the "Leica Glow".

Best regards, Christoph

sun of sand · May 15, 2009

It appears that young man is in his own contre jour situation
not saying against the cvh but I think the elmar flare is quite sweet
I like the way it has bled into the shadows giving some atmospheric heavenliness ..good for objects but as we see perhaps horrible for strongly backlit portraits
No comparison shot

kavandje · May 15, 2009

But he does call a Leica IIIf 'man jewelry', so not all is lost.

clayne · May 15, 2009

Where's the comparison here? The scenes are miles apart different.

Regardless, Leitz makes some excellent lenses - and the "glow" is definitely a feature.

Soeren · May 15, 2009

Well, cleaning marks are lenscapabilitys worst enemy so on those conditons any lens could do that
Best regards

2F/2F · May 15, 2009

I am sorry to say that this is a most foul non-comparison of two lenses that nobody wants to compare anyhow. Interesting as examples to point out the [already well-know and well-documented] difference between "fresh" glass and "classic" glass, but I highly doubt anyone considering an Elmar will be considering a newer CV lens as an alternative, and will seriously be having a battle in their heads over which is the best performer from a technical standpoint. If you want anyone to really learn anything from the comparison, you need to go much further in depth and cut back on the editorializing. My two cents.

railwayman3 · May 15, 2009

I can't quite see the point of your comparison and conclusion. Totally different subjects, and one lens damaged by cleaning marks?
Any quality modern lens, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc., (and a lot of older ones) would, with care and good technique, produce similar sharpness to the Heliar. That's OK when we need sharpness, but at other times the "imperfections" of an older generation lens may produce a more pictorial effect when we need that.
(Some members here even choose to use simple lenses (and even pinholes) to produce successful and effective pictures. )

Andy K · May 15, 2009

Reading some of the responses in this thread I thought I had mistakenly walked into Photo.net. :rolleyes:

phaedrus · May 15, 2009

Hamlet, Act I, Scene V:
Ghost: "Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural."

Yea verily, someone did that to the poor Elmar.

But I had to get over it.

Nicholas Lindan · May 15, 2009

1950's vintage 50/3.5 Elmars are given to veiling - something about the glass formulation absorbing moisture. The problem can not be fixed. Look at the lens with a very bright light shining through it and see if there is haze.

As to sharpness, I think in a low flare comparison shoot the Elmar and the CV will be comparable.

elekm · May 15, 2009

I recall reading in Popular Photography that they thought the Heliar was one of the sharpest 50mm lenses that they had encountered.

Chazzy · May 15, 2009

elekm said:
I recall reading in Popular Photography that they thought the Heliar was one of the sharpest 50mm lenses that they had encountered.

I remember reading that somewhere too.

ntenny · May 15, 2009

I don't actually know what the design of the new Heliars is, but the Elmar is more or less Tessarlike, isn't it? This may be an apples-and-oranges comparison for that reason as well---if the new Heliars are similar to the old ones, it would be more reasonable to compare the Elmar to a Skopar. I don't know what (if anything) would be a reasonable Leitz equivalent to the Heliar.

But nitpicking aside, the original post is interesting just as a look at the Heliar. To my eye it comes off looking quite good; if the CV 75mm Heliar is comparable, I may have a case of GAS coming on.

Just as an aside, the Heliar on my Bergheil (circa World War I vintage) must be about the sharpest lens on earth. If I had world enough and time, I'd do a careful comparison to the Planar on my Rolleiflex, and my money would be on the Heliar.

-NT

Andy K · May 15, 2009

I have the CV Heliar classic 50mm f2.0, the CV Nokton classic 40mm f1.4 and the CV Apo-Lanthar 90mm. All three are tack sharp. Have a look through my gallery for examples. (Thames Barge for the 40mm, Swimmer for the 90mm and Goodbye HIE #4 for the Heliar).

john borrelli · May 15, 2009

I am also using the Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 heliar, though I have the Nikon version. I wrote about my first impressions of the Bessa R2S and lens on this site. I am impressed so far with the lens as well. I am just learning about some of the more subjective qualities of the lens, so far I haven't found any shortcomings with it for my style of photography. Thanks for the post and the nice photo as well.

clayne · May 15, 2009

Man.. when are people going to stop beating that *sharpness* drum?

It's the end-all for some photographers. Sharpness, low grain, sharp sharp sharp!

Shawn Rahman · May 15, 2009

I as looking for that mythical Leica glow when I purchased my F7 and 50 Summicron last month. Instead, the lens I have is so unbelievably sharp, even wide open, that I am wondering what the Leica glow really is.

Ektagraphic · May 15, 2009

I want a Voigtlander.

ntenny · May 15, 2009

clayne said:
Man.. when are people going to stop beating that *sharpness* drum?

It's the end-all for some photographers. Sharpness, low grain, sharp sharp sharp!

It's a tool, is all. Lots of images work well sharp, and it's a hard thing for a lens to do well, but it's certainly not the only tool in the box. I can only speak for myself, but I've got plenty of not-notably-sharp lenses that produce a lot of pictures I like for other reasons.

-NT

Carter john · May 15, 2009

Gads, talk about comparing apples and oranges (scenes; not lenses). I don't have a image of it, but I made a cropped filter out of a 39mm UV filter for my Elmar 50mm f3.5, and now you can talk comparisons.

Eric Rose · May 15, 2009

I have an Elmar 90mm f4 lens that is very sharp, but wow don't point it at any bright lights! Beyond that it's a great lens and takes wonderful B&W and colour photos.

phaedrus · May 19, 2009

More on the Heliar, and on SPUR DSX 32. Experiential again, I'm sorry to say ;-)

Mark Antony · May 19, 2009

Not really sure how this is a comparison. This is a Heliar with modern lens coating vs a sandblasted 1950's lens?
I think you'd find if you tested a good Elmar say a red scale or late Lanthanum glass version that they are quite similar in performance.
Here is a 1940's Elmar that has no scratched front element.

no prizes for seeing the make of beer on the bench from this 1947 lens

I think you'll find there is very little difference in performance.

clayne · May 20, 2009

Mark Antony said:
Not really sure how this is a comparison. This is a Heliar with modern lens coating vs a sandblasted 1950's lens?
I think you'd find if you tested a good Elmar say a red scale or late Lanthanum glass version that they are quite similar in performance.
Here is a 1940's Elmar that has no scratched front element.

I think you'll find there is very little difference in performance.

Not to mention - there's a definite "soul" in your shots. Certain lenses have feeling. It's long been a gripe of mine with Canon lenses, for instance. Canon makes optically quite excellent lenses - I don't think any of us can argue that - but their approach is much too clinical for me. The resultant shots, while they look nice, are almost too perfect in their rendition. Don't get me wrong, I'll still throw an L prime on my 1V and shoot it occasionally, but I generally prefer my Nikkor and Leica glass for their character.

Now That Is Sharp

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency