Voigtlander Heliar Classic 50mm f1.5

Bingley said:
Here are some color photos at the Boardwalk. The first was shot stopped down at about f.8; the second and third shots were taken at f.4. I have not adjusted the color, although I did make some adjustments in LR for exposure and clarity.

Click to expand...

what happened here? is purple fringing this strong on this lens??
 

Spirea

It's Heliar sharp wide open, center sharp like a Summitar, and the coating makes it sharp with modern contrast as previously noted. But much depends on the quality of the light. It's not a lens I would choose for wide open in hard light...
 
I am using the CV Heliar Classic almost each day now.

Heliar-X2.jpg


HeliarClassic-2--49-X3.jpg


HeliarClassic-2--62-X3.jpg


HeliarClassic-4--11-X3.jpg



HeliarClassic-2--55-X3.jpg


​​​​​​​When used wide open it can give a dreamy look, while used at f8 it is a very sharp lens.
 
I took these at-late-lunch-portraits yesterday. My wife asked me twice about "the lens" that I have used here. She likes the results, and she has seen me take photos with over 20 50mm lenses in past years. She likes the old Leica lenses and the Zeiss Sonnar lenses.

HeliarClassic-5--X3.jpg


HeliarClassic-5--7-X3.jpg


HeliarClassic-5--10-X3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoK
All were taken wide open in dim light, which made focusing accurately more difficult. Yes, these are all taken with the Heliar Classic 50/1.5. In a better lit scene, this lens is quite sharp even when used wide open.I used this lens so that such images were possible.

This is a crop of her eyes. In dim light and at 1.5 aperture this is not too bad.

HeliarClassic-5--6crop-L.jpg


HeliarClassic-5-crop-X2.jpg
 
One of the most useful portrait lenses available now for a rangefinder. I'm curious if Leica themselves will come up with a response to this lens in the form of a re-release of an old design and NOT an aspheric. It wouldn't surprise me if they did. This lens is gorgeous.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Hard to believe the picture above is @ f4, looks more like f1.5!

Erik.
Click to expand...

It may have been wider than f4, Erik. But I was shooting 1.5 indoors and could have turned around and shot outside without adjusting the aperature. My camera does not always accurately record the correct aperture in the photo metadata.
 
I like those portraits of your wife, Raid (and nice to one where she’s smiling). I also found it hard to focus this lens precisely in dim light at 1.5.
 
Bingley said:
I like those portraits of your wife, Raid (and nice to one where she’s smiling). I also found it hard to focus this lens precisely in dim light at 1.5.
Click to expand...

Seems to be more of a problem with the rangefinder than with the lens. The lens is not harder to focus than any other lens mounted on an M-Leica. Maybe an eye-correction lens on the camera will solve the problem.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Seems to be more of a problem with the rangefinder than with the lens. The lens is not harder to focus than any other lens mounted on an M-Leica. Maybe an eye-correction lens on the camera will solve the problem.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Good point, Erik. But do you agree that the depth of field at 1.5 on this lens seems quite narrow? More so than, say, a Zeiss Sonnar?
 
My M10 has a good RF in it. I have been focusing well with lenses such as CV 50/1 when used wide open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top